this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
398 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

77084 readers
2421 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 37 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman declared a “code red” last week as the upstart faces greater rivalry from Google, threatening its ability to monetize its AI products and meet its ambitious revenue targets.

Interesting that even Sam Altman is worried now!
AFAIK there are also problems that Chinese companies have their own tool chain, and are releasing high level truly open source solutions for AI.

Seems to me a problem for the sky high profits could be that it is hard to make AI lock in, like is popular with much software and cloud services. But with AI you can use whatever tool is best value, and switch to the competition whenever you want.

It's nice that it will probably be impossible for 1 company to monopolize AI, like Microsoft did with operating systems for decades.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

AFAIK there are also problems that Chinese companies have their own tool chain, and are releasing high level truly open source solutions for AI.

One interesting thing about the Chinese “AI Tigers” is the lack of Tech Bro evangelism.

They see their models as tools. Not black box magic oracles, not human replacements. And they train/structure/productize them and such.

But with AI you can use whatever tool is best value, and switch to the competition whenever you want.

Big Tech is making this really hard, though.

In the business world, there’s a lot of paranoia about using Chinese LLM weights. Which is totally bogus, but also understandably hard to explain.

And OpenAI and such are working overtime to lock customers in. See: iOS being ChatGPT-only; no “pick your own API.” Or Disney using Sora when they should really be rolling their own finetune.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

OpenAI and such are working overtime to lock customers in.

Of course they are, I just thought they hadn't figured out how yet. 🤥

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 11 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

Please, government of the USA, do not bail them* out. At least not any more than what you're already giving them.

* OpenAI

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago

You clearly want the economy to collapse. The bailout will actually be profitable for the government. /s

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 11 points 12 hours ago

Altman just needs to cobble together a gold Trump statue, deliver it to the White House, and any bailout needed is his.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Oracle doesn't need a bailout, they are loaded, and can afford this loss. But of course an investment not being as profitable as they promised means the stock goes down. It's not like the company is anywhere near being in trouble.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

I don‘t know of a single

truly open source solutions for AI

from China. China doesn‘t seem very keen on open source as a whole to be honest. That is unless they can monetize on open source projects from outside of China. Their companies love doing that.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 11 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] breadguy@kbin.earth 6 points 10 hours ago

same with qwen, ernie, minimax, and kimi

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Unless the dataset, weighting, and every aspect is open source, it's not truly open source, as the OSI defines it.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

The dataset is massive and impractical to share, and a dataset may include bias and conditions for use, and the dataset is a completely separate thing from the code. You would always want to use a dataset that fit your needs. From known sources. It's easy to collect data. Programming a good AI algorithm not so much.
Saying a model isn't open source because collected data isn't included is like saying a music player isn't open source, because it doesn't include any music.

EDIT!!!

TheGrandNagus is however right about the source code missing, investigating further, the actual source code is not available. and the point about OSI (Open Source Initiative) is valid, because OSI originally coined the term and defined the meaning of Open Source, so their description is per definition the only correct one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Open source as a term emerged in the late 1990s by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term "free software" and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.[14] In addition, the ambiguity of the term "free software" was seen as discouraging business adoption.[15][16] However, the ambiguity of the word "free" exists primarily in English as it can refer to cost. The group included Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Peterson suggested "open source" at a meeting[17] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's announcement in January 1998 of a source code release for Navigator.[18] Linus Torvalds gave his support the following day

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

no,

your changing the definition of open source software. which has been around a lot longer than AI has.

source code is what defines open source.

what deepseek has is open weights. they publish the results of their learning only. not the source that produced it.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

your changing the definition of open source software.

https://techwireasia.com/2025/07/china-open-source-ai-models-global-rankings/

The tide has turned. With the December 2024 launch of DeepSeek’s free-for-all V3 large language model (LLM) and the January 2025 release of DeepSeek’s R1 (the AI reasoning model that rivals the capabilities of OpenAI’s O1), the open-source movement started by Chinese firms has sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

And:

DeepSeek, adopting an open-source approach was an effective strategy for catching up, as it allowed them to use contributions from a broader community of developers.”

I've read similar descriptions in other articles, seems your claim is false.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

can you show me the actual source code?

the human readable code, not the weights.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The (claimed) source:
https://github.com/deepseek-ai

Investigating further I can see it is NOT open source. All the articles saying that are lying, probably unknowingly just as I believed the claim, they probably did too, and I'm NOT being sarcastic!
I have no idea why publishing these "weights" is considered open source, it has nothing to do with Open Source as defined by OSI, which I believe has a historical right to the term.

I apologize.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

forgive my snarkiness. its usually the quickest way to this realization.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Oh I didn't detect any snarkiness, just you being to the point, which is a thing I appreciate.
But I'm often considered impolite. I think it's a culture thing.

But I must admit I am annoyed by you contradicting me, but it's even worse that you were right.
I find that generally offensive.
So I'll go sulk in corner for a few minutes. 😜 😋 🤣

[–] Jrockwar@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Still debatable, the weights are the code. That's a bit like saying "X software is not open source because it has equations but it doesn't include the proofs that they're derived from".

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

what has been published by deep seek is the music, not the software, the music.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

the weights are the code

In the same way as an Excel spreadsheet containing a crosstab of analytics results is "the code."

It's processed input for a visualization/playback mechanism, not source code.

[–] breadguy@kbin.earth 4 points 10 hours ago

every major chinese model is open source

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

They are releasing lots of open weight models. If you want to run AI stuff on your own hardware, Chinese models are generally the best.

They also don't care about copyright law/licensing, so going forward they will be training their models on more material than Western companies are legally able to.