Comment on China’s ambassador criticises Australia’s move to limit DeepSeek
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 day agoTheir models and a lot of their training and code to run it are
Comment on China’s ambassador criticises Australia’s move to limit DeepSeek
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 day agoTheir models and a lot of their training and code to run it are
Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 22 hours ago
It is not open source according to the accepted definition. There is no such thing as “a lot” open source, or partly open source. This is just part of Deepseek’s PR campaign very much as many other false claims.
shirro@aussie.zone 10 hours ago
The code they have released is under the MIT licence which is most definitely an OSI approved Open Source licence.
The model’s licence grants rights in perpetuity to use and redistribute but imposes a number of conditions on usage. I would concede that it does not satisfy the conditions to be considered an open source license do to those conditions which exclude military use, harming minors, defamatory content, generating misinformation etc.
Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 4 hours ago
The guys at Hugging Face have been working on an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1, although I don’t know how they circumvent Chinese censorship (it’s also censored if you use Deepseek locally).
Another open source AI model beats DeepSeek with 86% less data.
All this Deepseek hysteria is just based on a simple press statement released by the company. It’s another totally over-hyped model with false claims that comes with even more disadvantages than most of its rivals.
eureka@aussie.zone 9 hours ago
If we’re going to be specific, then those restrictions just mean it’s not FOSS according to the Free Software Foundation. The source is still open, it’s auditable.
shirro@aussie.zone 8 hours ago
The model, which to most people is the far more important part, is not open source according to the criteria set by the Open Source Initiative. They own the trademark and police the Open Source® definition. It is fairly clear.
DeepSeek’s list of restrictions on use of their model puts them in a similar position to Meta’s LLama License is still not Open Source. I don’t think it makes sense to say a binary blob is either auditable or is source code but you can say the same of any LLM. There is no way to check the provenance or replicate it or re-build it.
The code they released is under an approved Open Source licence. The MIT licence is very permissive and is compatible with and can be incorporated into closed source and free software while being neither itself. No argument there.