87
Oracle made a $300 billion bet on OpenAI. It's paying the price.
(finance.yahoo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
87 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
80228 readers
700 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
no,
your changing the definition of open source software. which has been around a lot longer than AI has.
source code is what defines open source.
what deepseek has is open weights. they publish the results of their learning only. not the source that produced it.
https://techwireasia.com/2025/07/china-open-source-ai-models-global-rankings/
And:
I've read similar descriptions in other articles, seems your claim is false.
EDIT PS:
Turns out on further investigation that Deepseek is NOT open source, there is NO access to the source code for Deepseek. Only the weights as others have rightfully claimed.
can you show me the actual source code?
the human readable code, not the weights.
The (claimed) source:
https://github.com/deepseek-ai
Investigating further I can see it is NOT open source. All the articles saying that are lying, probably unknowingly just as I believed the claim, they probably did too, and I'm NOT being sarcastic!
I have no idea why publishing these "weights" is considered open source, it has nothing to do with Open Source as defined by OSI, which I believe has a historical right to the term.
I apologize.
forgive my snarkiness. its usually the quickest way to this realization.
Oh I didn't detect any snarkiness, just you being to the point, which is a thing I appreciate.
But I'm often considered impolite. I think it's a culture thing.
But I must admit I am annoyed by you contradicting me, but it's even worse that you were right.
I find that generally offensive.
So I'll go sulk in corner for a few minutes. 😜 😋 🤣
Still debatable, the weights are the code. That's a bit like saying "X software is not open source because it has equations but it doesn't include the proofs that they're derived from".
what has been published by deep seek is the music, not the software, the music.
And LLM is simply such a bad example for Open Source in general. They couldn‘t have chosen a worse example to make their point. That‘s what’s frustrates me.