←back to thread

159 points martinald | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mystraline ◴[] No.44538610[source]
To be completely and utterly fair, I trust Deepseek and Qwen (Alibaba) more than American AI companies.

American AI companies have shown they are money and compute eaters, and massively so at that. Billions later, and well, not much to show.

But Deepseek cost $5M to develop, and made multiple novel ways to train.

Oh, and their models and code are all FLOSS. The US companies are closed. Basically, the US ai companies are too busy treating each other as vultures.

replies(8): >>44538670 #>>44538694 #>>44538700 #>>44538816 #>>44538905 #>>44539727 #>>44540309 #>>44540945 #
1. NitpickLawyer ◴[] No.44539727[source]
> But Deepseek cost $5M to develop, and made multiple novel ways to train

This is highly contested, and was either a big misunderstanding by everyone reporting it, or maliciously placed there (by a quant company, right before the stock fell a lot for nvda and the rest) depending on who you ask.

If we're being generous and assume no malicious intent (big if), anyone who has trained a big model can tell you that the cost of 1 run is useless in the big scheme of things. There is a lot of cost in getting there, in the failed runs, in the subsequent runs, and so on. The fact that R2 isn't there after ~6 months should say a lot. Sometimes you get a great training run, but no-one is looking at the failed ones and adding up that cost...

replies(1): >>44539854 #
2. jampa ◴[] No.44539854[source]
They were pretty explicit that this was only the cost in GPU hours to USD for the final run. Journalists and Twitter tech bros just saw an easy headline there. It's the same with Clair Obscur developer's Sandfall, where the people say that the game was made by 30 people, when there were 200 people involved.
replies(2): >>44540638 #>>44540645 #
3. badsectoracula ◴[] No.44540638[source]
These "200 people" were counted from credits which list pretty much everyone who even sniffed at the general direction of the studio's direction. The studio itself is ~30 people (just went and check on their website, they have a team list with photos for everyone). The rest are contractors whose contributions usually vary wildly. Besides, credits are free so unless the the company are petty (see Rockstar not crediting people on their games if they leave before the game is released even if they worked on it for years) people err on the site on crediting everyone. Personally i've been credited on a game that used a library i wrote once and i learned about it years after the release.

Most importantly those who mention that the game was made by 30 people do it to compare it with other much larger teams with hundreds if not thousands of people and those teams use contractors too!

4. NitpickLawyer ◴[] No.44540645[source]
> They were pretty explicit that this was only the cost in GPU hours to USD for the final run.

The researchers? Yes.

What followed afterwards, I'm not so sure. There was clearly some "cheap headlines" in the media, but there were also some weird coverage being pushed everywhere, from weird tlds, and they were all pushing nvda dead, cheap deepseek, you can run it on raspberries, etc. That might have been a campaign designed to help short the stocks.