They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I'll revise my statement.

You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The relevant parts of the comment thread was about the claim that the model is open source. Below, you will find the subject of the comments bolded, for your better understanding of the conversation at hand:

Deepseek is a Chinese AI company that released Deepseek R1, a direct competitor to ChatGPT.

You forgot to mention that it’s open source.

Is it actually open source, or are we using the fake definition of “open source AI” that the OSI has massaged into being so corpo-friendly that the training data itself can be kept a secret?

many more inane comments...

And your most recent inane comment...

That’s something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.

Well, cool. No one ever claimed that "the tech" was not included or that parts of their process were open sourced. You answered a question that no one asked. The question was asking if the model itself is actually open source. No one has been able to substantiate the claim that the model is open source, which has made talking to you a giant waste of time.