Beware The Deepseek Scam > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

As of May 2024, Liang owned 84% of DeepSeek by means of two shell firms. Seb Krier: There are two sorts of technologists: those that get the implications of AGI and those that don't. The implications for enterprise AI strategies are profound: With decreased prices and open access, enterprises now have another to expensive proprietary models like OpenAI’s. That decision was certainly fruitful, and now the open-source household of fashions, including DeepSeek Coder, DeepSeek LLM, DeepSeekMoE, Deepseek Online chat online-Coder-V1.5, DeepSeekMath, DeepSeek-VL, DeepSeek Chat-V2, DeepSeek-Coder-V2, and DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5, might be utilized for a lot of purposes and is democratizing the utilization of generative fashions. If it might probably carry out any activity a human can, purposes reliant on human input would possibly change into out of date. Its psychology is very human. I don't know tips on how to work with pure absolutists, who imagine they are particular, that the rules mustn't apply to them, and always cry ‘you try to ban OSS’ when the OSS in query just isn't solely being focused however being given multiple actively expensive exceptions to the proposed guidelines that may apply to others, normally when the proposed guidelines would not even apply to them.

This explicit week I won’t retry the arguments for why AGI (or ‘powerful AI’) would be an enormous deal, but seriously, it’s so bizarre that this can be a question for individuals. And certainly, that’s my plan going forward - if somebody repeatedly tells you they consider you evil and an enemy and out to destroy progress out of some religious zeal, and can see all of your arguments as troopers to that end no matter what, you must believe them. Also a distinct (decidedly less omnicidal) please converse into the microphone that I used to be the opposite aspect of right here, which I feel is extremely illustrative of the mindset that not only is anticipating the results of technological adjustments unattainable, anyone trying to anticipate any consequences of AI and mitigate them upfront have to be a dastardly enemy of civilization looking for to argue for halting all AI progress. This ties in with the encounter I had on Twitter, with an argument that not solely shouldn’t the particular person creating the change suppose about the implications of that change or do anything about them, no one else should anticipate the change and attempt to do something in advance about it, both. I'm wondering whether he would agree that one can usefully make the prediction that ‘Nvidia will go up.’ Or, if he’d say you can’t because it’s priced in…

To a level, I can sympathise: admitting these things could be risky because people will misunderstand or misuse this knowledge. It is nice that persons are researching things like unlearning, and so on., for the purposes of (among other things) making it more durable to misuse open-supply models, however the default policy assumption must be that all such efforts will fail, or at greatest make it a bit dearer to misuse such models. Miles Brundage: Open-supply AI is likely not sustainable in the long term as "safe for the world" (it lends itself to increasingly extreme misuse). The complete 671B mannequin is simply too powerful for a single Pc; you’ll need a cluster of Nvidia H800 or H100 GPUs to run it comfortably. Correction 1/27/24 2:08pm ET: An earlier version of this story mentioned DeepSeek has reportedly has a stockpile of 10,000 H100 Nvidia chips. Preventing AI pc chips and code from spreading to China evidently has not tamped the flexibility of researchers and companies situated there to innovate. I think that concept can also be helpful, but it surely doesn't make the unique idea not helpful - this is a type of circumstances where sure there are examples that make the original distinction not useful in context, that doesn’t mean it's best to throw it out.

What I did get out of it was a clear actual instance to point to in the future, of the argument that one can't anticipate penalties (good or dangerous!) of technological adjustments in any helpful way. I mean, surely, nobody would be so stupid as to really catch the AI attempting to escape after which proceed to deploy it. Yet as Seb Krier notes, some people act as if there’s some form of inside censorship tool in their brains that makes them unable to consider what AGI would truly mean, or alternatively they are cautious by no means to speak of it. Some kind of reflexive recoil. Sometimes the LLMs can't repair a bug so I simply work around it or ask for random changes till it goes away. 36Kr: Recently, High-Flyer announced its choice to enterprise into building LLMs. What does this imply for the long run of work? Whereas I did not see a single reply discussing how one can do the actual work. Alas, the universe doesn't grade on a curve, so ask yourself whether or not there is some extent at which this is able to stop ending nicely.