What you said is demonstrably nonsense and I very much did link sources to the model, and the paper explaining how it works, and why it's open source. Absolutely hilarious that you keep lying here while accusing me of acting in bad faith. You are an utter clown.
Oh no, people here have biases different from your own. The horror! Meanwhile, I provided sources in other responses in this thread. You could also just spend your time to google this stuff yourself instead of trolling here, it's not exactly hidden.
Bye!
Pretty much all my interactions with the community here have been positive, aside from a few toxic trolls such as yourself. Maybe take your own advice there champ.
I have backed up my claims with evidence and sources. Stay mad troll.
Just ignore it, upvotes and downvotes ultimately mean nothing.
It's obviously not since the whole reason DeepSeek is interesting is the new mixture of experts algorithm that it introduces. If you don't understand the subject then maybe spend a bit of time learning about it instead of adding noise to the discussion?
It doesn't mean it's easy, but it is certainly possible if somebody was dedicated enough. At the end of the day you could even use the open source code DeepSeek published and your own training data to train a whole new model with whatever biases you like.
I don't really care what you think bud. Stay in your lane.
It has everything to do with the tech being open. You can dispute it all you like, but the fact is that all the code and research behind it is open. Anybody could build a new model from scratch using open data if they wanted to. That's what matters.
He's a billionaire based on the valuation of OpenAI, if the company fizzles so does his wealth.
That's right I'm a huge open source shill.
The code is open, weights are published, and so is the paper describing the algorithm. At the end of the day anybody can train their own model from scratch using open data if they don't want to use the official one.