Do not believe the hype of DeepSeek R1
(My doubts about DeepSeek R1. The following is what I wrote for US IT + business + politicians. Please help me forward it! Simplified/Traditional Chinese versions are below.)
【Traditional Chinese - Translated by ChatGPT】
Do not believe the hype of DeepSeek R1. You may understand business and technology, but unless you understand the CCP, you are walking into a trap.
Recently, the tech world was suddenly shocked by the release of DeepSeek R1. This is an open-source LLM, currently free to use, and its performance on certain tasks seems to significantly surpass existing models. LLMs are complex machines, and on any given day, a certain model may surpass other models on specific tasks. This "leapfrog" competition has been going on for several years. Although LLMs are designed to simulate generalized thinking abilities, their performance on specific tasks must vary, depending on how much relevant training data they have seen and how deeply they have been fine-tuned on that data. As a result, each LLM performs differently when faced with certain tasks, such as medical diagnosis or coding challenges. Moreover, for a long time, an LLM specifically trained for a certain task has usually significantly outperformed general-purpose models.
When R1 was released, many reports and screenshots appeared, claiming that its performance on certain tasks was far superior to existing models. While this may be true, considering the speed of development in this field, it is not surprising. Furthermore, more rational and objective comparisons show that the model is indeed comparable to the models released by Anthropic and OpenAI, but not necessarily significantly superior to them.
I have seen many people discussing this model, and while it does make some iterative improvements to known LLM architectures, almost all the shock and skepticism revolve around several key points:
The Lie of "Only $6 Million Development Cost"
There is currently a rumor circulating that the entire system cost only about $6 million to build. This is almost certainly a blatant lie. LLMs take months to train and consume massive amounts of computing resources, energy, and manpower. While some costs in China are indeed lower, the costs of energy and computing resources are not cheap. Top talent is not free either. You can never expect a Chinese company to be transparent and open about its financial accounts—in fact, you can be sure they will do the opposite. Unlike Western companies, Chinese companies are deeply integrated with the CCP regime. Therefore, there are no "Chinese companies" at all, only "Chinese Communist Party companies."
Are Microchip Export Controls Ineffective?
Some people are now questioning the effectiveness of microchip export controls because, presumably, DeepSeek was able to obtain many advanced chips despite export restrictions. But this only shows that there are still loopholes that need to be plugged. If properly enforced, export restrictions will become increasingly effective as loopholes are discovered and patched, and these restrictions will become even tighter with the development of new-generation lithography machines and microchips. Even if these chips were obtained illegally, the CCP's narrative remains that chip restrictions are meaningless and ineffective. This is a bluff designed to make people question the necessity of export restrictions.
Why is DeepSeek R1 Free?
R1 is currently topping the app store charts and is completely free. Any normal company launching an LLM product needs to compete in the free market to attract users, earn revenue, and convince investors of the company's future value. However, any Chinese company that directly competes with the West for technological hegemony and receives support from the CCP does not need to consider these issues. We can speculate that DeepSeek R1 is not free, but paid for by the CCP. Why do they do this? Subsidizing a free LLM that competes with Claude and ChatGPT not only reinforces the narrative of China as a leader in technological innovation, but also questions the effectiveness of export controls, wins the support of Western users, and directly pressures Western companies competing in the free market. Not to mention, a massive amount of sensitive data will be actively provided to the CCP by users using the product.
China is far from being a leader in the AI field; instead, it lags significantly behind. The deep learning revolution was built on the work of Western scientists. Companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI have invested huge R&D costs to develop these technologies, while DeepSeek merely builds on open-source models. China has yet to make any foundational breakthroughs in the AI field, and DeepSeek R1 will likely be no exception. Instead, China's AI strategy relies on exploiting open-source Western research, rapidly scaling up through state funding, and utilizing stolen intellectual property to accelerate development.
DeepSeek R1 should serve as a wake-up call for Western business communities and policymakers. We need to strengthen export restrictions and close the loopholes that Chinese companies use to circumvent these restrictions. Countries that fail to prevent these chips from flowing to China should also be included in the export restriction list. In addition, the US Congress should take immediate action to protect the financial interests of the American companies that created this technology, in order to prevent unfair competition from stripping away their ability to continue innovating.
We must stop interpreting Chinese companies through a Western lens. Unlike enterprises in a free market, Chinese tech companies always operate as an extension of the CCP's strategic goals.
In the AI race, the United States holds a significant lead over any competitor. But we are indeed in the midst of a brutal competition for technological hegemony. The first country to acquire and deploy AGI may determine the future path of humanity. If this technology is first achieved by an authoritarian state like China, I cannot imagine what that would mean. We must maintain our lead at all costs to ensure that the future of AI—and ultimately technological hegemony—remains in the hands of the free world.
【Simplified Chinese – Translated by ChatGPT】 Do not believe the hype of DeepSeek R1. You may understand business and technology, but unless you understand the CCP, you are walking into a trap.
Recently, the tech world was suddenly shocked by the release of DeepSeek R1. This is an open-source LLM, currently free to use, and its performance on certain tasks seems to significantly surpass existing models. LLMs are complex machines, and on any given day, a certain model may surpass other models on specific tasks. This "leapfrog" competition has been going on for several years. Although LLMs are designed to simulate generalized thinking abilities, their performance on specific tasks must vary, depending on how much relevant training data they have seen and how deeply they have been fine-tuned on that data. As a result, each LLM performs differently when faced with certain tasks, such as medical diagnosis or programming challenges. Moreover, for a long time, an LLM specifically trained for a certain task has usually significantly outperformed general-purpose models.
When R1 was released, many reports and screenshots appeared, claiming that its performance on certain tasks was far superior to existing models. While this may be true, considering the speed of development in this field, it is not surprising. Furthermore, more rational and objective comparisons show that the model is indeed comparable to the models released by Anthropic and OpenAI, but not necessarily significantly superior to them.
I have seen many people discussing this model, and while it does make some iterative improvements to known LLM architectures, almost all the shock and skepticism revolve around several key points:
The Lie of "Only $6 Million Development Cost"
There is currently a rumor circulating that the entire system cost only about $6 million to build. This is almost certainly a blatant lie. LLMs take months to train and consume massive amounts of computing resources, energy, and manpower. While some costs in China are indeed lower, the costs of energy and computing resources are not cheap. Top talent is not free either. You can never expect a Chinese company to be transparent and open about its financial accounts—in fact, you can be sure they will do the opposite. Unlike Western companies, Chinese companies are deeply integrated with the CCP regime. Therefore, there are no "Chinese companies" at all, only "Chinese Communist Party companies."
Are Microchip Export Controls Ineffective?
Some people are now questioning the effectiveness of microchip export controls because, presumably, DeepSeek was able to obtain many advanced chips despite export restrictions. But this only shows that there are still loopholes that need to be plugged. If properly enforced, export restrictions will become increasingly effective as loopholes are discovered and patched, and these restrictions will become even tighter with the development of new-generation lithography machines and microchips. Even if these chips were obtained illegally, the CCP's narrative remains that chip restrictions are meaningless and ineffective. This is a bluff designed to make people question the necessity of export restrictions.
Why is DeepSeek R1 Free?
R1 is currently topping the app store charts
at the forefront, and completely free. Any normal company releasing an LLM product needs to compete in the free market to attract users, generate revenue, and convince investors of the company's future value. However, any Chinese company directly competing with the West for technological hegemony and backed by the CCP does not need to consider these issues. We can infer that DeepSeek R1 is not free, but rather paid for by the CCP. Why are they doing this? Subsidizing a free LLM to compete with Claude and ChatGPT not only reinforces the narrative of China as a leader in technological innovation, but also questions the effectiveness of export controls, wins the support of Western users, and exerts direct pressure on Western companies competing in the free market. Not to mention, a vast amount of sensitive data will be voluntarily provided to the CCP by users who use the product.
Far from being a leader in the AI field, China lags significantly behind. The deep learning revolution was built on the work of Western scientists. Companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI have invested enormous R&D costs to develop these technologies, while DeepSeek merely builds upon open-source models. China has yet to achieve foundational breakthroughs in the AI field, and DeepSeek R1 will likely be no exception. Instead, China's AI strategy relies on leveraging open-source Western research, rapidly expanding through state funding, and using stolen intellectual property to accelerate development.
DeepSeek R1 should serve as a wake-up call for the Western business community and policymakers. We need to strengthen export restrictions and close the loopholes Chinese enterprises use to evade these restrictions. Countries that cannot prevent these chips from flowing into China should also be placed on export restriction lists. In addition, the US Congress should take immediate action to protect the financial interests of the American companies that created this technology, preventing unfair competition from taking away their ability to innovate continuously.
We must stop interpreting Chinese companies through a Western lens. Unlike enterprises in a free market, Chinese tech companies always operate as an extension of the CCP's strategic goals.
In the AI race, the United States holds a significant lead over any competitor. However, we are indeed in the midst of a brutal competition for technological hegemony. The first nation to achieve and deploy AGI will likely determine the future path of humanity. If this technology is first realized by a totalitarian state like China, I cannot imagine what that would mean. We must maintain our lead at all costs to ensure that the future of AI—and ultimately technological hegemony—remains in the hands of the free world.
Don't believe the Deepseek R1 hype. You might understand business and tech, but unless you understand the CCP, you are walking into a trap.
Recently the tech world was suddenly alarmed by the release of Deepseek R1, an LLM that is open source, currently free to use, and appears to significantly outperform existing models on some tasks. LLMs are complex machines and on any given day one model might take the lead over another given a particular task. This game of "leap frog" has been in progress for several years now. Although LLMs are designed to simulate generalized thinking, they inevitably vary in competence at a given task based on the amount of relevant training data they have seen and the extent to which they have been fine-tuned on it. The result is that each LLM will perform differently when given a certain task such as medical diagnosis or coding challenge. And it has long been the case that an LLM built to specialize at a task will significantly outperform a general one.
When R1 came out there were reports and screenshots proclaiming that it was significantly better than existing models at some tasks. While this may be true, it would not be a surprise given the speed of the development cycle in this space. In addition, more measured and objective comparisons suggest that the model is indeed comparable to those released by Anthropic and OpenAI, but not necessarily significantly better.
I have seen what many are saying about this model, and while it does seem to bring some iterative improvements to known LLM architecture, you will find that almost all of the shock and disbelief centers around a few points:
– First, the claim has been circulating that the entire system was built with only about $6 million USD. This is almost certainly a bald-faced lie. Models take months to train, requiring substantial compute, energy, and personnel. While some costs are cheap in China, energy and compute certainly are not. Top talent is not free, either. You can never expect a Chinese company to be transparent and show you their books––in fact, you can count on them to do just the opposite. Chinese companies,
unlike Western companies, are integrated with the Chinese government. Thus, there is really no such thing as a "Chinese company," and there is only such thing as a "Chinese Communist Party company".
– Second, some have now questioned the efficacy of microchip export controls as it is presumed that DeepSeek was able to acquire many advanced chips despite these controls. But this just a demonstration that there are loopholes that need to be closed. If enforced properly, export restrictions will continue to become more effective over time as loopholes are found and addressed, and as new generations of lithography machines and microchips are developed under the auspices of the new restrictions. Even if these chips were acquired illegally, the CCP's narrative is that the chip restrictions are pointless and ineffective. This is a bluff intended to call into question the need for chip restrictions.
– Third, R1 is currently topping the charts in the app store, and it is free to use. Any normal company shipping an LLM product would need to compete in the free market to acquire users, earn revenue, and convince investors of the company's future value. But any Chinese company that is competing directly with the West for technological supremacy and enjoys the support provided by the CCP need not worry about such things. We can presume that DeepSeek R1 is not free, but that the CCP is paying the bill. Why would they do that? Subsidizing a free LLM that is competitive with Claude and ChatGPT bolsters the narrative that China is a leading innovator, calls into question the efficacy of export controls, earns the goodwill of a Western user base, and directly puts pressure on Western companies who are competing within a purely free market context. Not to mention the enormous amounts of sensitive data that will be reaped by the CCP as people voluntarily provide it with their personal data and information.
Far from being a leader in AI, China lags very far behind. The deep learning revolution is built on the work of Western scientists. Companies like Google, Meta and OpenAI paid steep R&D costs to create these technologies, whereas DeepSeek merely builds on those open source models. China has yet to produce a foundational breakthrough in AI, and DeepSeek R1 is unlikely to be an exception. Instead, China’s AI strategy relies on repurposing open-source Western research, scaling it rapidly with state funding, and leveraging stolen IP to accelerate progress.
DeepSeek R1 should be a wakeup call to Western business and policy makers. We need to double down on export restrictions and close whatever loopholes Chinese companies are using to sidestep them. Countries that cannot stop these chips from being sent to China should also be added to the export restriction list. In addition, US Congress should act immediately to protect the financial interests of the US companies that created this technology before unfair competition robs them of the ability to continue inno
vating.
Our collective meltdown at this Chinese stunt is playing right into the CCP propaganda game. We must stop interpreting China’s companies through a Western lens. Unlike firms in a free market, Chinese tech companies operate as extensions of the CCP’s strategic goals.
In the AI race, the US has a significant lead over any competitor. But we are indeed in a brutal race for technological supremacy. The first country to get and deploy AGI might be able to choose the future path for all of humanity. If this technology is first realized by an autocratic and Orwellian dystopia like China, I dare not even imagine what that means for our future. We must do whatever it takes to maintain our lead and ensure that the future of AI—and ultimately, technological supremacy—remains in the hands of the free world.