The big claim is that R1 was trained on far less computing power than OpenAI’s models at a fraction of the cost.
And people believe this … why? I mean, shouldn’t the default assumption about anything anyone in AI says is that it’s a lie?
A) Putting on my conspiracy theory hat… OpenAI has been bleeding for most of a year now, with execs hitting the door running and taking staff with them. It’s not at all implausible that somebody lower on the totem pole could have been convinced to leak some reinforcement training weights to help Deepseek along.
B) Putting on my best LessWronger hat (random brown stains, full of holes)… I estimate no less than a 25% chance that by the end of this week, Sammy-boy will be demanding an Oval Office meeting, banging the table and screaming about “theft!” and “hacking!!”
screaming about “theft!” and “hacking!!”
Sounds plausible. Or maybe they will go with a don’t use it, because privacy! take. Funny thing is, I actually agree people shouldn’t give them their data. But they shouldn’t give it to OpenAI either…
And people believe this … why?
Maybe people believe that all the AI stuff is just magic [insert sparkle emoji], and that can terminate further thought…
Edit: heh, turns out there’s science about that notion