🔥 Breaking News: OpenAI Accuses Chinese AI Startup DeepSeek of Using Its Models OpenAI says it has found evidence that Chinese startup DeepSeek used its AI models to train its own system. The company behind ChatGPT claims DeepSeek used a method called "distillation," which improves smaller AI models by learning from bigger, more powerful ones. While distillation is common in AI development, OpenAI’s policies forbid using its models to create competing products. The company hasn’t shared details about the evidence it found. DeepSeek recently launched its R1 model, which has performed well on AI benchmarks, sparking concerns about possible intellectual property violations. Is this a case of fair innovation or crossing the line? Share your thoughts 👇 #ai #openai #deepseek
So, China just casually recreated the sun, made it hotter than the actual sun, and then kept it running for 20 minutes—just for fun. Meanwhile, we’re over here struggling to keep a laptop from overheating when we have 10 Chrome tabs open. And yet, some people still think China hasn’t figured out its own H100 chips or mastered semiconductor technology? Come on now, if they can build an artificial sun, they can definitely make a chip—it’s like believing someone who built a spaceship can’t figure out how to make a bicycle. Let’s drop some facts: • China’s “artificial sun” (EAST reactor) hit a record of 1,066 seconds (nearly 18 minutes) of sustained nuclear fusion, edging closer to unlimited clean energy. • Huawei’s Ascend 910C AI chip is about to give Nvidia’s H100 a run for its money, with companies like Baidu, ByteDance, and China Mobile already lining up for orders. • AI in China? DeepSeek’s R1 model is outperforming OpenAI’s best at a fraction of the cost, making American tech bros sweat harder than their GPUs.
Really ?? Then why Open AI is not able to do what DeepSeek has done with low cost chipsets. Also if a startup company in china can steel their closed source models then how secure is our data with Open AI ?
It will be fascinating to watch how this plays out—not just between companies but also between nation-states. This has both corporate and geopolitical ramifications. We’re moving into a grey area where the rules are still being defined, much like the early days of computer science when software’s status as intellectual property was in question. Even the Windows GUI concept had to be worked out, with Apple and Microsoft trading barbs—despite the idea originating at Xerox. Now, the same debate is unfolding with AI models. What is their status as intellectual property? It will be interesting to see how this battle shapes the future of AI innovation and regulation.
DeepSeek is the new kid on the block, and it's already making waves by delivering results comparable to OpenAI’s $200 model, without the hefty price tag. This isn’t just about IP disputes; it’s a wake-up call about the speed of AI innovation and how quickly the playing field is leveling. The AI arms race is accelerating, and the real winners will be those who stay ahead, not just by enforcing policies but by continuously pushing boundaries. OpenAI set the bar, but DeepSeek is proving that the next wave of competition isn't waiting for permission. Adapt or risk becoming obsolete. What’s your take, fair play or foul move? 🚀🔍 #AI #Competition #DeepSeek #OpenAI
The article ends with this closing statement: “OpenAI is battling allegations of its own copyright infringement from newspapers and content creators, including lawsuits from The New York Times and prominent authors, who accuse the company of training its models on their articles and books without permission.” Well, it sounds like when in rome be roman.
I think it would be better for OpenAI to detail and show the evidence, and look forward to seeing the evidence!
Is distillation learning similar to a scientist who spends their entire life researching a problem, discovers a solution, and then teaches it to others in a one-hour class—just like how we learn the theory of relativity? In this process, the teacher model learns the relationship between inputs and outputs, and the student model learns from the teacher. How can this be considered a hack? The model itself is trained on publicly available data from the internet, so where does the idea of "stealing" come into play?
The situation highlights the tension between AI innovation and intellectual property boundaries. While distillation is indeed a common practice for optimizing models, OpenAI's allegations raise valid concerns about whether DeepSeek AI crossed ethical lines by leveraging proprietary systems to build a direct competitor—especially given OpenAI’s terms explicitly prohibit such use. DeepSeek’s impressive cost efficiency and benchmark performance underscore distillation’s potential, but they also expose legal gray areas: US "transformative use" arguments clash with stricter IP interpretations in other jurisdictions. The irony of OpenAI facing copyright lawsuits while accusing others of IP infringement adds complexity. Ultimately, this case underscores the need for clearer global frameworks to distinguish competitive innovation from unethical replication in AI development.
This raises serious questions about ethical AI development and IP protection. Innovation should thrive, but not at the cost of integrity. Looking forward to more clarity on this!