← Back to context

Comment by wood_spirit

14 days ago

When OpenAI surged ahead Meta ended up giving away its incredibly expensive to make llama model to reduce the OpenAI valuations.

Is DeepSeeks openness in part to reduce the big American tech companies?

Correlation isn't causation, I hate to say this, but here's really applicable. Facebook aka Meta has always been very opensource. Let's not talk about the license though. :)

Why do you imply malice in OSS companies? Or for profit companies opensourcing their models and sourcecode?

  • Personally I don't impute any malice whatsoever -- these are soulless corporate entities -- but a for-profit company with fiduciary duty to shareholders releasing expensive, in-house-developed intellectual property for free certainly deserves some scrutiny.

    I tend to believe this is a "commoditize your complement" strategy on Meta's part, myself. No idea what Deepseek's motivation is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar strategy.

    • In its ideal form, the sum of every participant commoditising their complements is how competition should benefit everyone — albeit at the expense of excess returns

  • Meta is decidedly not an "OSS company" no matter how much they put out.

    • In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers. Even companies centered around open source like Gitlab are usually generate most of their revenue of proprietary products or use liceses like BSL.

      1 reply →

If only totalitarian nation states used their subjects' money to undermine the dominance of US-based software vendors by releasing open-source alternatives created with slave labour... Oh wait, it can't work because software patents are here to the rescue again ... Wait, open source is communism? Always has been. /s