Picking out random people to lionize too much while you demonize literally everyone else, is still being cynical.

Correct. We do not know the training data, which makes it silly to decide that it is definitely cribbed from OpenAI’s model. What we do know is how the code works, because it is open and they wrote a paper. What would you consider “evidence,” if not the actual code and then a highly detailed explanation from the authors about how it works, and then some independent testing and interpretation by known experts? Do you want it carved on a golden tablet or something?

Because the paper does not prove what DeepSeek is claiming. The paper outlines a number of clever techniques that might help to improve efficiency, but most researchers are still incredibly skeptical that they would add up to a full order of magnitude less compute power required for training.

Until someone else uses DeepSeek’s techniques to openly train a comparable model off non-distilled data, we have no reason to believe their method is replicable.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ( or really just concrete, replicable, evidence), and we don’t have that, at least not yet.