Hacker News Reader

Comment by SequoiaHope | Hacker News Reader

Well, it’s a highly effective PR tactic that works well for the small fish. You say your competition is too selfish and you just want to help people and it creates a bunch of goodwill you can use to grow. Once you grow, your view on things changes, and you’re able to be more selfish. It’s not guaranteed things will go that way, but it’s certainly true that this is a good PR tactic for new entrants in to a crowded field. It can also be genuine. When you’re new you don’t have much to lose and it’s easier to be truly altruistic.

View on HN

I think DeepSeek is trying to push the idea that LLMs are not marketable products themselves, but are a part of the 'digital commons', as in a hard to develop and maintain software which in of itself does not produce value, but can be the foundation of a product that does. This is very similar to what Facebook is doing with Llama, or what is going on with big open source projects, like databases or the Linux kernel.

I also think that the companies that are doing that have a different idea on how to make money. Facebook's competitive edge lies in all the people using their social media, and for the Chinese, I think their edge lies in manufacturing physical products, so they try to commodify the software component.

Which is in stark contrast to the US, who have a world-beating software and silicon industry, but are merely competent in other areas, so it makes sense for them to want to avoid that.

Rather than a foundation for their products, I think they're just trying to make it impossible for new competitors to enter that market because if when all the biggest models are open-sourced, a new player can't convince investors to bring billions on the table as there's nothing to monetize – the alternative is free.

Why enter the market now when AI is already commoditized? DeepSeek is making US investors regrets investing so much to get a tiny lead over them, but they're also making future, large investments much harder to justify when you can rely on existing open-sourced models

that's a good thing, no?

Foundation Models aren't defensible. It'll force VCs to allocate on other stuff (the new buzz is "the application layer")

Open-source does very little good if no one actually contribute to the code except the company who controls it and no one else has the means to participate (other than taking the code as-it-is).

The giant players are more than happy to keep their models open if no one even tries to compete.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ~~ Goethe

It also is similar what Saudi Arabia and OPED did with fracking. When American fracking companies were full of debt, OPED got down the price of oil and a log of enterprises had to default.

Why not for now just applaud them for their actions rather than focus on some potential 3rd order plan?

Who knows what any of then might do in the future? For now I'm cheering for Deepseek, Meta and anyone publishing open models as I strongly believe that the potential "danger" of AI in the hands of everyone is far outstripped by the concrete dangers of AI dictated by a select small group of corps/gov symbionts.

I agree with your sentiment, but there’s no harm in being aware that the rhetoric is just PR spin for the strategy the execs think will be the most profitable.

At least they are not founded as non-profit with some "greater good" mission or "safety" BS.

Yeah, that would be too blatant. :)

Can't fool me twice. Not yet, wait a couple of years.

I wouldn’t go so far as to try to presume the state of mind of the execs. Maybe they really believe what they’re saying. But it’s also true that it benefits them to say it and my argument is simply that we should be mindful of that.

Because we have seen this play out exactly as described so many times that that kind of naivety is not justifiable.

The answer lies in the question I responded to. The commenter lauded the positive effects of Deepseek’s actions and lamented the loss of such positivity from OpenAI. But it’s important to understand that this didn’t happen by chance. These things happen because underdogs benefit more from goodwill than secrecy and selfishness, while established players benefit from dominance and control.

If we ignore that, we will let PR teams play us every time they claim altruism while serving themselves. It doesn’t mean Deepseek can’t also have good motives, but we must be clear that undercutting OpenAI while simultaneously building community goodwill is a smart move on their part to shift the market in their favor.

Is media literacy for tech marketing.

I wish it was easier to learn about media literacy

From what I know, DeepSeek is a small company that made a lot of money from other businesses, which makes their lack of focus on commercial interests feel more genuine. Plus, even back when they were relatively unknown, they had a habit of donating over $100 million annually to charitable causes. That makes their claim of striving for humanity a lot more believable.

> DeepSeek is a small company that made a lot of money from other businesses, which makes their lack of focus on commercial interests feel more genuine.

Google also made a lot of money from other businesses that aren't AI models, until they started selling AI models, just as DeepSeek now does.

The reality is that DeepSeek is a full company, that was funded as a spin-off from the original business (a hedge fund that used its large GPU stockpile to pick stocks via ML). The company DeepSeek is owned by the hedge fund CEO not the hedge fund. It exists as a business aiming to make money, not as a pet project for another business.

But the fact that they were donating huge sums every year even when they were still unknown really says something. If they were purely profit-driven, there’s no way the shareholders would have allowed that.

[flagged]

still way better than ClosedAI

I will call it as it is from now on as well

I actually call it Anti-Humanity AI. Without releasing the tech details of such AI, we all live in the danger that if something goes really wrong, we won't even have the chance to understand the disaster and fix it.

Basically they pocketed all profits with other people footing all the risks.

I have a more practical view: there's nothing wrong in making profit, the important thing is that they are also doing some good.

> As though you rendered the proletarians a service in first sucking out their very life-blood and then practicing your self-complacent, Pharisaic philanthropy upon them, placing yourselves before the world as mighty benefactors of humanity when you give back to the plundered victims the hundredth part of what belongs to them!

Friedrich Engels: The Condition of the Working-class in England

I have no idea about this but am curious to know if the wealthy Engels family who 'owned large cotton-textile mills in Barmen and Salford, England' showed the way for your other 'mighty benefactors'? What belongs to who is a mighty question as Obama reminded us with his lead pencil example. No easy answer though.

this doesn't argue whether existence of profits necessarily implies exploitation of workers but asserts it and then proceeds to argue against philanthropy funded by profits. This line of reasoning only makes sense if one already accepts the initial assumption, whereas the original poster questions that very assumption, so it's a bit irrelevant quote.

I read the parent’s comment as arguing that the existence of profits implies exploitation of workers in the quoted instance (p perhaps broadly in England at the time) and that there is some similarity with DeepSeek. No hard-line assertions, just suggested similarities.

It feels really odd seeing Engels' quotes used like this.

The focus of Engels' criticism when he made these statements was on *capitalist production relations*, where capitalists control the means of production and obtain profits by exploiting the surplus labor time of workers. This is precisely what DeepSeek and open-source initiatives are challenging. They are turning the means of production from the private property of capitalists into public property.

I hope you did not intentionally misquote this passage.

Free Software is not the same as expropriation. It's perhaps more the social-democratic smoke mirror kind of thing than lifting the dependency.

Regardless of free software, capitalists control the means of production and obtain profits by exploiting the surplus labor time of workers.

Free software may make it more obvious though, at least for some.

I'm not familiar with Engel's view, but my gut feeling here is that he was complaining about the way profit was made ("sucking out their very life-blood") and not about profit itself. But, even if he somehow saw profit as something bad regardless of how it is made, I would still disagree. It is definitely possible to make profit without exploiting people.

It’s an interesting reformulation of Catholic “original sin”.

> the fact that they were donating huge sums every year even when they were still unknown really says something

You don't need to be known by the general public to take advantage of tax schemes involving "donating" money

> The reality is that DeepSeek is a full company, that was funded as a spin-off from the original business (a hedge fund that used its large GPU stockpile to pick stocks via ML). The company DeepSeek is owned by the hedge fund CEO not the hedge fund. It exists as a business aiming to make money, not as a pet project for another business.

Of course they want money, lots of money, tons of money is required for hiring engineers and paying for its hardware. However, your claim that DeepSeek's exists is to make money is just your guess back by nothing else but your wild guess.

DeepSeek CEO Liang Wenfeng himself is an engineer, he is the co-author/developer of the DeepSeek model, he helped but not listed as a core contributor. Obviously that is not a smart strategy to spend your CEO hours to maximize your $ return. His interview a few months ago actually gave answers to all these, he is seeking for AGI. That is the motivation, that is why DeepSeek exists.

Zuckerberg, who is also a developer, and countless other CEOs are listed on many patents from their companies. Doesn’t mean they actually had a strong input in the invention.

No business exists not to make money because that is a charity. It’s not a charity, because a charity is not a business, and DeepSeek is a business. I don’t care to quibble about how interesting they are in being a lucrative business, but simply that they’re a business.

My point wasn’t to question their motives about profit vs AGI (why would these be mutually exclusive btw), but to challenge the notion that it’s some side project from a random business. It’s a company with dedicated resources and staff.

Yes, it is PR. While individuals can be altruistic visionaries, shareholders will protest any action that is not in the company's interest.

For a smaller player, open-sourcing might be a strategic move. It would likely go unnoticed if a small Chinese company released a model "almost as good as" ones from the top US players. But releasing it as open source is a game-changer.

However, open source isn't just for small players. Microsoft develops Visual Studio Code and Meta develops PyTorch - to name a few examples out of hundreds. In these cases, it's also PR - they can afford it, and it doesn't compete with their core business.

There's a story about someone asking the Dalai Lama whether all altruism is actually a form of egoism, since we do good things to feel better. He responded that if that's the case, we need more of this type of egoism. (I can't find the exact source, but it aligns with his quote "Being wisely selfish means taking a broader view and recognizing that our own long-term individual interest lies in the welfare of everyone.")

So yes, I want to see more of this kind of PR.

Well said + Thanks!

True, in the end you are not sure if companies like meta / deepseek are promoting opensource because they genuinely care or it is just a differentiated marketing strategy to win over the developers.

Some companies will play on opensource, some will play on pricing, some on quality.

Almost all of the open source companies which do good eventually start an enterprise / paid division as well.

I get the urge to be cynical all the time, but this isn't that time. "Once you grow", they have already grown and competing with the SoTA models and still giving it all back to the community.

I just wish this smear campaign against them stops sometime soon.

my intuition suggests that because they are not the leaders, they will not stay in news for long. This way you stay on mouth of people for longer period and by publishing code you hurt established giants by allowing much smaller players to compete.

They are already the absolute leader in China, which is arguably the largest market for future AI. Liang doesn't have any media exposure because he is an engineer and doesn't want that, if he wants or needs to "stay in news", he can get tons anytime anywhere.

My intuition suggests they will very shortly have state-level resources thrown at them to mean they become a consistent leader. This and Qwen have been huge for China’s prestige and whatever the Chinese for Juche is. Those is unambiguously the next space race, and there’s absolutely no reason China can’t pull ahead of the US here.

why you have thought like this? it's not how it works in China

The Chinese government only supports companies that are in line with industrial policies and are facing difficulties that require assistance. This is because such companies struggle to obtain financing from the society. The aim is to support the entire industry, not a specific company. If a company holds a leading position, it does not need to receive any "resources" from the government; it can acquire sufficient resources from the society.

China 10y bond yield is at <2%, this is a very low financing cost.

> The Chinese government only supports companies that are in line with industrial policies and are facing difficulties that require assistance

So, like, for example, AI companies who are very upfront about not being able to get their hands on as many chips as they'd like?

in this case, it's domestic chip manufacturers are getting support from government

government is not good at smuggling chips without getting attention, better try to contact some dealers in singapore or malaysia

I think you significantly underestimate what a helping hand from a government can do, from subsidising the extra expense of grey market chips, to making shipping containers disappear into the ether, to exerting pressure beyond simply commercial on people in and outside their borders.

hail hydra

There is no PR tactic, the only company that will stay on top will be the one that open source its models and it is free of use. There are other ways to monetize. People around the globe are not going to use on daily basis, anything that is paid.

LLM's are not that different than programming languages. Imagine Guido van Rossum charging $200 so you can use Python...

Even for those that will pay, many light users will prefer a subscription over dropping $10k on rapidly depreciating hardware to run a half decent model.

literally how openai attracted talent with deepmind as the boogeyman. its a playbook that works

Reply on news.ycombinator.com