to me, just that these lines from DeepSeek founder/CEO Liang Wenfeng gives a clue that China communist party involvement in DeepSeek-R1 is minimal or nothing. If CCP is involved in a big way, we won't see these words from CEO.
> "For many years, Chinese companies are used to others doing technological innovation, while we focused on application monetization..."
> “But in fact, this is something that has been created through the tireless efforts of generations of Western-led tech communities. It’s just because we weren’t previously involved in this process that we’ve ignored its existence.”
Such a relief/contrast to the period between 2010 and 2020, when the top five Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft monopolized their own regions and refused to compete with any other player in new fields.
Google : Search
Facebook : social
Apple : phones
Amazon : shopping
Microsoft : enterprise ..
> Even still, this monthly progress across all companies is exciting to watch. Its very gratifying to see useful technology advance at this pace, it makes me excited to be alive.
yes, staggered software update is the way to go. there was reply in this thread why Crowdstrike did not do it -- don't want extra cost of Engineering for that
having 1/3 of Airlines computers Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu .. all unlikely to hit same problems at same time.
what many people of not taking is that why we are here:
one simple reason:
all eggs in one Microsoft PC basket
why in one Microsoft PC basket?
- most corporate desktop apps are developed for Windows ONLY
Why most corporate desktop apps are developed for Windows ONLY?
- it is cheaper to develop and distribute since, 90% of corporations use Windows PCs ( Chicken and Egg problem)
- alternate Mac Laptops are 3x more expensive, so corporations can't afford
- there are no robust industrial grade Linux laptops from PC vendors (lack of support, fear of Microsoft may penalize for promoting Linux laptops etc.)
1/ Most large corporations (Airlines, Hospitals etc..) can AFFORD & DEMAND their Software vendors to provide their ' business desktop applications' both in Windows and Linux versions and install mix of both Operating systems.
2/ majority of corporate desktop applications can be Web applications (Browser based) removing the single vendor Microsoft Windows PC/Laptops
Wow !! good to know real reason for non-staggered release of the software ...
> Crowdstrike bit my company with a false positive that severely broke the entire production fleet because they pushed the change everywhere all at once instead of staggering it out. We pushed them hard in the RCA to implement staggered deployments of their changes. They sent back a 50 page document explaining why they couldn't which basically came down to "that would slow down blocks of true positives" - which is technically true but from followup conversations quite clear that is was not the real reason. The real reason is that they weren't ready to invest the engineering effort into doing this.
Losers & Winners from Llama-3-400B Matching 'Claude 3 Opus' etc..
Losers:
- Nvidia Stock : lid on GPU growth in the coming year or two as "Nation states" use Llama-3/Llama-4 instead spending $$$ on GPU for own models, same goes with big corporations.
- OpenAI & Sam: hard to raise speculated $100 Billion, Given GPT-4/GPT-5 advances are visible now.
- Google : diminished AI superiority posture
Winners:
- AMD, intel: these companies can focus on Chips for AI Inference instead of falling behind Nvidia Training Superior GPUs
- Universities & rest of the world : can work on top of Llama-3
This might have been a reasonable and workable solution for all parties involved.
Context:
---------
1.1/ ILya Sukhar and Board do not agree with Sam Altman vision of a) too fast commercialization of Open AI AND/OR b) too fast progression to GPT-5 level
1.2/ Sam Altman thinks fast iteration and Commercialization is needed in-order to make Open AI financially viable as it is burning too much cash and stay ahead of competition.
1.3/ Microsoft, after investing $10+ Billions do not want this fight enable slow progress of AI Commercialization and fall behind Google AI etc..
a workable solution:
--------------------
2.1/ @sama @gdb form a new AI company, let us call it e/acc Inc.
2.2/ e/acc Inc. raises $3 Billions as SAFE instrument from VCs who believed in Sam Altman's vision.
2.3/ Open AI and e/acc Inc. reach an agreement such that:
a) GPT-4 IP transferred to e/acc Inc., this IP transfer is valued as $8 Billion SAFE instrument investment from Open AI into e/acc Inc.
b) existing Microsoft's 49% share in Open AI is transferred to e/acc Inc., such that Microsoft owns 49% of e/acc Inc.
c) the resulted "Lean and pure non-profit Open AI" with Ilya Sukhar and Board can steer AI progress as they wish, their stake in e/acc Inc. will act as funding source to cover their future Research Costs.
d) employees can join from Open AI to e/acc Inc. as they wish with no antipoaching lawsuits from OpenAI
This may be a fair workable solution to all the parties involved.
Context:
---------
1.1/ ILya Sukhar and Board do not agree with Sam Altman vision of a) too fast commercialization of Open AI AND/OR b) too fast progression to GPT-5 level
1.2/ Sam Altman thinks fast iteration and Commercialization is needed in-order to make Open AI financially viable as it is burning too much cash and stay ahead of competition.
1.3/ Microsoft, after investing $10+ Billions do not want this fight enable slow progress of AI Commercialization and fall behind Google AI etc..
a workable solution:
--------------------
2.1/ @sama @gdb form a new AI company, let us call it e/acc Inc.
2.2/ e/acc Inc. raises $3 Billions as SAFE instrument from VCs who believed in Sam Altman's vision.
2.3/ Open AI and e/acc Inc. reach an agreement such that:
a) GPT-4 IP transferred to e/acc Inc., this IP transfer is valued as $8 Billion SAFE instrument investment from Open AI into e/acc Inc.
b) existing Microsoft's 49% share in Open AI is transferred to e/acc Inc., such that Microsoft owns 49% of e/acc Inc.
c) the resulted "Lean and pure non-profit Open AI" with Ilya Sukhar and Board can steer AI progress as they wish, their stake in e/acc Inc. will act as funding source to cover their future Research Costs.
d) employees can join from Open AI to e/acc Inc. as they wish with no antipoaching lawsuits from OpenAI
To account for the changing times, I believe a Personal LLM should be running on your phone (with a cloud data backup) with background AGENTS looking for shopping deals, working with your calendar and making appointments for all life chores such as your car oil change appointment bookings, recommending preventive maintenance repairs, answering on your demand questions on your your kids math/english report cards grade progress for last few semesters, and so on.
In my opinion LLM based document search tools such as OSS Quivr may be better suited for documentation search for startups.
A highly customed Quivr with one of the 'Open Source LLMs' may provides great 'semantic search' for product documentation.
https://github.com/StanGirard/quivr
Dump all your files and chat with it using your Generative AI Second Brain using LLMs ( GPT 3.5/4, Private, Anthropic, VertexAI ) & Embeddings
This Falcon-40B royalty free license may force Meta ... that LLama-7B/13B may soon be fully open sourced as Meta wants open source LLM advancements and contributions on its own LLM architecture.
Interesting parallels , there is good possibility for this outcome with respect to Open Source LLMs
> I can however see a possible future where open source is not going to have any significant impact on LLMs, say like Desktop Linux.
> Either because it gets stuck in a technical realm and doesn't make anything too approachable to ordinary users, or because it lacks the necessary integrations..
I suspect GPT5 most likely will have these capabilities that is to hook into external tools such as calculators and other software applications as needed based on the prompts.
> There’s a specific feeling of knowing that an answer to your question is very simple and exists somewhere on SO, but the mental effort of sifting pages of answers seems unappealing. It seems like Phind is well suited to do this job for you!
That simple act reduces your cognitive load, as a programmer you mind is two steps ahead assuming this trivial solution you know conceptually but do not want to spend the mental cycles and looking for the quick code so your mind can jump to the next step in the flow.
> If I were teaching someone Python, or pretty much any programming language, the first place I would start is the debugger.
Totally agree.
In the first week of programming, students should be allowed only use the debugger (no direct runs) in every course/collage around the world. I saw firsthand how many courses/collages students struggle with logic because debugging was never introduced, and they were unaware of how to step through each line.
Another mistake that new programmers make is writing 30 lines of code and then run and lost why bugs occurring. As a rule of thumb, they should debug/run the program every 7 new lines of code.
> "For many years, Chinese companies are used to others doing technological innovation, while we focused on application monetization..."
> “But in fact, this is something that has been created through the tireless efforts of generations of Western-led tech communities. It’s just because we weren’t previously involved in this process that we’ve ignored its existence.”