What makes these consumer-oriented models different is that that rather than being trained on raw data, they are trained on synthetic data from pre-existing models. That’s what the “Qwen” or “Llama” parts mean in the name. The 7B model is trained on synthetic data produced by Qwen, so it is effectively a compressed version of Qen. However, neither Qwen nor Llama can “reason,” they do not have an internal monologue.

You got that backwards. They’re other models - qwen or llama - fine-tuned on synthetic data generated by Deepseek-R1. Specifically, reasoning data, so that they can learn some of its reasoning ability.

But the base model - and so the base capability there - is that of the corresponding qwen or llama model. Calling them “Deepseek-R1-something” doesn’t change what they fundamentally are, it’s just marketing.

There are already other providers like Deepinfra offering DeepSeek. So while the the average person (like me) couldn’t run it themselves, they do have alternative options.

A server grade CPU with a lot of RAM and memory bandwidth would work reasonable well, and cost “only” ~$10k rather than 100k+…

To be fair, most people can’t actually self-host Deepseek, but there already are other providers offering API access to it.

The point of it being open is that people can remove any censorship built into it.

The particular AI model this article is talking about is actually openly published for anyone to freely use or modify (fine-tune). There is a barrier in that it requires several hundred gigs of RAM to run, but it is public.

https://gizmodo.com/to-further-its-mission-of-benefitting-everyone-openai-will-become-fully-for-profit-2000543628

It’s almost sure to be the case, but nobody has managed to prove it yet.

Simply being infinite and non-repeating doesn’t guarantee that all finite sequences will appear. For example, you could have an infinite non-repeating number that doesn’t have any 9s in it. But, as far as numbers go, exceptions like that are very rare, and in almost all (infinite, non-repeating) numbers you’ll have all finite sequences appearing.

Now, if only the article explained how that killing was related to TikTok. The only relevant thing I saw was,

had its roots in a confrontation on social media.

It’s says “social media”, not “TokTok” though.

Why is this downvoted? If it’s true it’s a valid criticism, and if it’s false, I couldn’t find a mention of anonymity either.

Well, he didn’t even buy the original (I guess it has spoiled by then), but a DIY replica and a certificate.

Wary reader, learn from my cautionary tale

I’m not sure what to learn exactly. I don’t get what went wrong or why, just that the files hit deleted somehow…

I guess technically that makes them “not in Ukraine”, but it is the same war in the end. At least for me that’s the important part, not where exactly on the front line they are.

Well, NK and Russia have a defense treaty which obliges NK to sent military assistance to Kursk. So if they aren’t, they’re breaking their obligations.

Yes, almost like they have intentionally waited until Trump’s election.

My impression from the article was, The Onion bid contained both a monetary sum, and partial debt relief. The total value then - the sum + the debt relief - was higher, and that’s how it won. So, it wasn’t just the victims’ backing weighing in, they actually put money on it.

And they’re all with different commit message:

“switched arse to bottom to create a more uplifting vibe”

“took arse out and put bottom in to keep my language warm and friendly”

“thought bottom would sound a lot nicer than arse, so I used it”

And so on…

We did have problems with vaccines before Trump

Type in "Is Kamala Harris a good Democratic candidate

…and any good search engine will find results containing keywords such as “Kamala Harris”, “Democratic”, “candidate”, and “good”.

[…] you might ask if she’s a “bad” Democratic candidate instead

In that case, of course the search engine will find results containing keywords such as “Kamala Harris”, “Democratic”, “candidate”, and “bad”.

So the whole premise that, “Fundamentally, that’s an identical question” is just bullshit when it comes to searching. Obviously, when you put in the keyword “good”, you’ll find articles containing “good”, and if you put in the keyword “bad”, you’ll find articles containing “bad” instead.

Google will find things that match the keywords that you put in. So does DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Yahoo, whatever. That is what a good search engine is supposed to do.

I can assure you, when search engines stop doing that, and instead try to give “balanced” results, according to whatever opaque criteria for “balanced” their company comes up with, that will be the real problem.

I don’t like Google, and only use google when other search engines fail. But this article is BS.

Such a cute kitty snail! Can you post just the picture?