It doesn’t mean it’s easy, but it is certainly possible if somebody was dedicated enough. At the end of the day you could even use the open source code DeepSeek published and your own training data to train a whole new model with whatever biases you like.
It’s obviously not since the whole reason DeepSeek is interesting is the new mixture of experts algorithm that it introduces. If you don’t understand the subject then maybe spend a bit of time learning about it instead of adding noise to the discussion?
Oh no, people here have biases different from your own. The horror! Meanwhile, I provided sources in other responses in this thread. You could also just spend your time to google this stuff yourself instead of trolling here, it’s not exactly hidden.
I’m happy to question my own biases, but only when the other party is willing to act in good faith. You clearly aren’t. I checked, and none of your other posts in this thread cite sources that disprove what I’ve said.
What you said is demonstrably nonsense and I very much did link sources to the model, and the paper explaining how it works, and why it’s open source. Absolutely hilarious that you keep lying here while accusing me of acting in bad faith. You are an utter clown.
It doesn’t mean it’s easy, but it is certainly possible if somebody was dedicated enough. At the end of the day you could even use the open source code DeepSeek published and your own training data to train a whole new model with whatever biases you like.
“It’s possible, you just have to train your own model.”
Which is almost as much work as you would have to do if you were to start from scratch.
It’s obviously not since the whole reason DeepSeek is interesting is the new mixture of experts algorithm that it introduces. If you don’t understand the subject then maybe spend a bit of time learning about it instead of adding noise to the discussion?
I understand the subject well enough to know you can’t back up your claims with evidence. You clearly have an agenda here…
I have backed up my claims with evidence and sources. Stay mad troll.
Oops, I didn’t realize I was posting on ML. That’s my bad, I should have expected this bias.
For the record, I don’t see any evidence or sources in your responses to me.
Have nice day.
Oh no, people here have biases different from your own. The horror! Meanwhile, I provided sources in other responses in this thread. You could also just spend your time to google this stuff yourself instead of trolling here, it’s not exactly hidden.
Bye!
I’m happy to question my own biases, but only when the other party is willing to act in good faith. You clearly aren’t. I checked, and none of your other posts in this thread cite sources that disprove what I’ve said.
What you said is demonstrably nonsense and I very much did link sources to the model, and the paper explaining how it works, and why it’s open source. Absolutely hilarious that you keep lying here while accusing me of acting in bad faith. You are an utter clown.