lemmy_acct_id_8647
I asked OpenAI the same. Only without the snark, and noted that US politicians and OpenAI pressers should not be considered evidence without facts:
Great question—and a healthy dose of skepticism.
If we assume U.S. lawmakers may be misrepresenting the situation or overstating the threat (intentionally or otherwise), then it’s worth asking: What counter-evidence or independent information exists that disputes the claims against DeepSeek?
Here’s what we can currently analyze:
1.
OpenAI’s Role and Statements
- The accusation is that DeepSeek used OpenAI data without authorization.
- OpenAI has not released detailed technical evidence (as of now) proving DeepSeek “stole” data.
- It is also unclear what “unauthorized use” means here—was it scraping publicly available content generated by ChatGPT? That’s not the same as hacking or violating terms.
Counterpoint: Unless OpenAI provides forensic evidence (e.g., logs showing data scraping from banned accounts or circumvention of APIs), their claim is not independently verifiable.
2.
Open-source AI Training Practices
- DeepSeek R1 and other models are trained on publicly available data, much like LLaMA, Falcon, Mistral, etc.
- Many open-source LLMs train on similar corpora, including data from books, code repositories, and even internet crawls, which may contain ChatGPT outputs.
- No proof has been provided that DeepSeek used proprietary datasets beyond what’s publicly available or scraped from the internet.
Counterpoint: If DeepSeek simply trained on web data that happened to contain ChatGPT responses (which are abundant online), that wouldn’t constitute theft by typical AI research standards.
3.
DeepSeek’s Own Transparency
- DeepSeek has published detailed model cards and training parameters for R1, a transparency move rare among Chinese AI firms.
- This suggests a desire to appear cooperative or aligned with global AI openness norms—not necessarily what a covert “spy tool” would do.
Counterpoint: Spyware tools or state-controlled AI systems don’t usually go open source and document their architectures.
4.
No Independent Audit or Third-Party Verification
- As of now, there’s no independent audit of DeepSeek’s model, training corpus, or infrastructure.
- The accusations rest heavily on political framing, not technical forensics released to the public.
5.
Broader Pattern of U.S. Tech Nationalism
- U.S. lawmakers have a history of labeling Chinese tech firms as threats without providing concrete, public-facing evidence (Huawei, TikTok, etc.).
- This doesn’t mean the threats are false, but it does mean we should demand proof beyond committee soundbites.
TL;DR – Is there counter-evidence?
Not conclusive counter-evidence, but there’s a lack of compelling public proof supporting the claim. The case against DeepSeek is built on:
- OpenAI’s statements (without shared evidence),
- Political concerns about China,
- and suspicions rooted in strategic competition.
That’s not enough to say DeepSeek is innocent—but it’s not enough to prove guilt either
Curse my constant internal battle between the job I have that pays the bills well, and the job I want.
Goodness is this the best place on all of Lemmy 🤣💚
Holy shit. Someone just do it already.
Glad to see I’m not the only one who uses the squirt gun deterrent lol
Missed the “my” on the shirt, now I’m just singing a parody in my head to I Love Rock n Roll….
“I love cranking hog, I put another stain on my sweatpants baby…”
This is the raddest thing I’ve seen this week 😍
Fuck literally everything about this launch.
This does both to spark my already astounding lack of interest in Nintendo’s latest money grab under the guise of “next gen”
To me at least, there’s nothing innovative being made at Nintendo anymore, and it seems they can’t even learn from their mistakes.