Still parroting the same uninformed takes from January
>DeepSeek claimed to have built its base model for about 5% of the estimated cost of GPT-4
>DeepSeek claimed to have built its base model for about 5% of the estimated cost of GPT-4
"DeepSeek-V3 costs only 2.788M GPU hours for its full training. Assuming the rental price of the H800 GPU is $2 per GPU hour, our total training costs amount to only $5.576M. Note that the aforementioned costs include only the official training of DeepSeek-V3, excluding the costs associated with prior research and ablation experiments on architectures, algorithms, or data." https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.19437
They don't even claim to have spent $5M (since they own their GPUs instead of renting them by the hour), it's a purely notional figure suitable for an academic paper. But when R1 got released and started generating hype, it was the only dollar figure anyone had to go on, so it got interpreted as more significant than it is.
If you believe that Deepseek was released to undercut US AI value (duh) it makes no sense to take the official line as the absolute truth.
Typical models are now trained on clusters of roughly 20K GPUs. Even if you get a volume discount you still need cabling, switches, etc…
The minimum entry price to play in the game at this level is about 200-500 million dollars.
Meta spent something like $10B on their AI compute, for comparison.
Just trust them bro. Unironically.
[edit] also they seem to be saying r1 is a base model, which it is not. Very sloppy.
Meta was caught pirating over 80TB of books to train their AI, and they are claiming not only training AI on other people's stuff is legal, but piracy is also legal (well at least, piracy done by US tech giants is legal)
They published about GRPO (key algorithm behind R1) a full year before[1] they scaled it for R1. Given the research they do in open, it's not far-fetched to think they had the talent and technical know-how to achieve R1 on their own.
https://www.servethehome.com/dude-dell-hpe-ami-american-mega...
But yeah, saying the chips are everywhere is BS.
They doubled down on it. They did a follow-up claiming that a cyber security researcher from a US-based firm had been called in to investigate suspicious traffic at a US telecom. The investigators claimed to have logs and a bunch of other evidence. The investigators also claimed that Bloomberg was misleading people by focusing on SuperMicro, as they'd reportedly seen to with other manufacturers too.
Discovered by our security team where I work. It's the reason our VMS doesn't have support for Hikivision cameras.
Any published where?
A couple of years later, our US customer had the same conclusion. Probably that one was published ( US government)
Really - they aren't.
People in the security industry ( cameras) may know it.
The Federal government and some banks hire companies to do supply chain integrity inspection and management. They find bad parts all of the time, especially in the channel.
There’s a pretty obvious reason why they wouldn’t want to talk about a detected case of foreign espionage embedded in servers after publishing.