Of course DeepSeek lied about its training costs, as we had strongly suspected. SemiAnalysis has been following DeepSeek for the past several months. High Flyer, DeepSeek’s owner, was buying Nvidia…
but it’s pretty clear that some people walked away with a false impression of the cost of their product relative to their competitors’ products
Ask yourself why that may be, as you are the one who posted a link to a WSJ article that is repeating an absurd 100m-1b figure from a guy who has a vested interest in making the barrier of entry into the field seem as high as possible the increase the valuation of his company. Did WSJ make an attempt to verify the accuracy of these statements? Did it push for further clarification? Did it compare those statements to figures that have been made public by Meta and OpenAI? No on all counts - yet somehow “deepseek lied” because it explicitly stated their costs didn’t include capex, salaries, or R&D, but the media couldn’t be bothered to read to the end of the paragraph
“the media sucks at factchecking DeepSeek’s claims” is… an interesting attempt at refuting the idea that DeepSeek’s claims aren’t entirely factual. beyond that, intentionally presenting true statements that lead to false impressions is a kind of dishonesty regardless. if you mean to argue that DeepSeek wasn’t being underhanded at all and just very innocently presented their figures without proper context (that just so happened to spurn a media frenzy in their favor)… then i have a bridge to sell you.
besides that, OpenAI is very demonstrably pissing away at least that much money every time they add one to the number at the end of their slop generator
“the media sucks at factchecking DeepSeek’s claims” is… an interesting attempt at refuting the idea that DeepSeek’s claims aren’t entirely factual.
That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Deepseek is the one under scrutiny, yet they are the only one to publish source code and training procedures of their model. So far the only argument against them is “if I read the first half of a sentence in deepseeks whitepaper and pretend the other half of the sentence doesn’t exist, I can generate a newsworthy headline”. So much so that you just attempted to present a completely absurd and unverifiable number from a guy with a financial incentive to exaggerate, and a non apples-to-apples comparison made by WSJ as airtight evidence against them. OpenAI allegedly has enough hardware to invalidate deepseeks training claims in roughly five hours - given the massive financial incentive to do so, if deepseek was being untrustworthy, you don’t think they would have done so by now?
if you mean to argue that DeepSeek wasn’t being underhanded at all and just very innocently presented their figures without proper context (that just so happened to spurn a media frenzy in their favor)… then i have a bridge to sell you.
What do you mean proper context? I posted their full quote above, they presented their costs with full and complete context, such that the number couldn’t be misconstrued without one being willfully ignorant.
OpenAI is very demonstrably pissing away at least that much money every time they add one to the number at the end of their slop generator
It sounds to me like you have a very clear bias, and you don’t care at all about whether or not what they said is actually true or not, as long as the headlines about AI are negative
That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Deepseek is the one under scrutiny, yet they are the only one to publish source code and training procedures of their model.
this has absolutely fuck all to do with anything i’ve said in the slightest, but i guess you gotta toss in the talking points somewhere
e: it’s also trivially disprovable, but i don’t care if it’s actually true, i only care about headlines negative about AI
this is utterly pointless and you’ve taken up way too much space in the thread already
It sounds to me like you have a very clear bias, and you don’t care at all about whether or not what they said is actually true or not, as long as the headlines about AI are negative
Ask yourself why that may be, as you are the one who posted a link to a WSJ article that is repeating an absurd 100m-1b figure from a guy who has a vested interest in making the barrier of entry into the field seem as high as possible the increase the valuation of his company. Did WSJ make an attempt to verify the accuracy of these statements? Did it push for further clarification? Did it compare those statements to figures that have been made public by Meta and OpenAI? No on all counts - yet somehow “deepseek lied” because it explicitly stated their costs didn’t include capex, salaries, or R&D, but the media couldn’t be bothered to read to the end of the paragraph
“the media sucks at factchecking DeepSeek’s claims” is… an interesting attempt at refuting the idea that DeepSeek’s claims aren’t entirely factual. beyond that, intentionally presenting true statements that lead to false impressions is a kind of dishonesty regardless. if you mean to argue that DeepSeek wasn’t being underhanded at all and just very innocently presented their figures without proper context (that just so happened to spurn a media frenzy in their favor)… then i have a bridge to sell you.
besides that, OpenAI is very demonstrably pissing away at least that much money every time they add one to the number at the end of their slop generator
That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Deepseek is the one under scrutiny, yet they are the only one to publish source code and training procedures of their model. So far the only argument against them is “if I read the first half of a sentence in deepseeks whitepaper and pretend the other half of the sentence doesn’t exist, I can generate a newsworthy headline”. So much so that you just attempted to present a completely absurd and unverifiable number from a guy with a financial incentive to exaggerate, and a non apples-to-apples comparison made by WSJ as airtight evidence against them. OpenAI allegedly has enough hardware to invalidate deepseeks training claims in roughly five hours - given the massive financial incentive to do so, if deepseek was being untrustworthy, you don’t think they would have done so by now?
What do you mean proper context? I posted their full quote above, they presented their costs with full and complete context, such that the number couldn’t be misconstrued without one being willfully ignorant.
It sounds to me like you have a very clear bias, and you don’t care at all about whether or not what they said is actually true or not, as long as the headlines about AI are negative
this has absolutely fuck all to do with anything i’ve said in the slightest, but i guess you gotta toss in the talking points somewhere
e: it’s also trivially disprovable, but i don’t care if it’s actually true, i only care about headlines negative about AI
this is utterly pointless and you’ve taken up way too much space in the thread already
oh no, anti-AI bias in TechTakes? unthinkable