Last year's leaked "We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI" memo from inside Google continues to age like fine wine. The big industry leaders spend umpteen billions of dollars forcing their way up to the top of the leaderboards and then just a few weeks or months later some little upstart is nipping at their heels with competition that cost only millions to build. I love it.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
The moat is probably mostly inertia. Microsoft or whoever will offer a code assistant that directs to OpenAI's model, and users will just use that. Most software moats are like that, rather than being based on intrinsic technological superiority.
I’m 90% sure this article was written by AI. It’s repetitive and unnecessarily long-winded. People realize this sort of writing is crap right?
Yeah, that was my thoughts - there's basically a few details reworded many times.
I was looking for the part where they'll want to earn their $5m back...
Kudos to Deepseek for continuing to releasing the code and model under a permissive license. Would be nicer if the weights were under an MIT license rather than a custom license, but I guess they're afraid of liability. Strange situation we're now in, where the future of open AI (as opposed to "open but actually closed" AI) now almost entirely depends on Chinese companies.
In practice, though, I wonder how many people would actually self host and tinker with this, since the model is way too large to run on any desktop. It would be very interesting to find downstream use-cases and modifications, which is supposed to be a strength of the open source model. Deepseek themselves don't seem to be much concerned about applications; from my understanding, they are basically funded by a sugar daddy and are happy to just do R&D (funnily enough, that is kinda what OpenAI was originally supposed to be before they sold out to Microsoft).