alt Hacker NewsHere's something I really don't understand: If as alleged Chinese open weight models are catching up with US anyway, and the performance is near US frontier model level but Chinese can do it with a fraction of cost, and eventually AI model will be commodified, wouldn't that means that the billion or even trillion dollars that US labs spend have only diminishing returns and the lead is only temporary?
So why Deepseek also want to go down that route? Is having the absolute frontier really that important, given that the performance difference is just transient and costly?
Replies
Deepseek is funded by their hedge fund, high flyer. They intentionally cap their token prices to basically recoup server costs. The meeting transcript describes it as a moral commitment, that they don’t care about trends like image and video generation, and world model “hype”. They only care about reasoning, chain of thought and continuous learning.
They are not catching up to US models. The only Chinese models that attain a modicum of competence are all, sooner or later, are discovered to be trained by exploiting US models (in fact Deepseek itself admitted so about 1 year back).
Chinese models are not innovating anything, they are just doing what China does everywhere else: copying the West… poorly but cheaper.
there's a lot of propganda from these state backed enterprises. I think the fraction of the cost label is debatable given the evidence of mass gpu smuggling through third parties like Singapore which China can't exactly openly admit to. Unless of course we're talking about distilling, which is probably a lot cheaper than training a model from scratch (there's also the fact that labour is still relatively cheap in China compared to the US which may or may not matter e.g. Anthropic claim against Alibaba > The campaign allegedly used nearly 25,000 fraudulent accounts to run 28.8 million exchanges with Claude between April and June 2026 (although their campaign could have been in part or all automated via agents, not sure)
My understanding after reading Liang’s comments during the investment meeting is that Liang firmly believes in AGI and he bets everything to reach goal. Once it reaches AGI, the game would flip totally. How he didn’t paint it out, and with the potential severe impact on the labor and consumer market, the true economic impact is difficult to predict. Liang is more like religious about this goal.
He also admits that it’s still a long way to it and along the way you have to recoup some money, too. But that is not their main motive, because focus too much on this short term goal will lower their probability of AGI success and it’s trivial to what AGI can bring. Liang stressed on restraining and emphasized that it’s part of their culture.
Thus, they continue invest in AI because they believe in breakthrough and not just being better.
There is an immense pot of gold at the end of this rainbow and if the theories about ASI are in the general correct direction, only one winner will get it.
It makes no difference if the pot do actually exist, because the prospect of it being real make not getting it the end of your company.
The whole point the guy is making in the transcript is that they're taking a different strategy from the US labs, one where they focus on smaller models and cost control, and maintain as top priority the work stream that they think will get them to AGI (not every product fad that comes along).
They want to achieve AGI first because, once it is achieved, no one knows what the world will look like.
Chinese models most likely are distillations of frontier models with tricks for subpar hardware. If you want to be ahead of the us labs you need to spend billions for pretraining from scratch.
AI's already commoditized, but the fundraising plans for the US labs assumes a winner take all endgame where one lab will pull arbitrarily ahead of everyone else. I have no idea why DeepSeek is making that bad assumption now too. Maybe the investors have drunk the Kool-Aid.
Maybe if "AGI" is some sort of fundamentally different approach than the general purpose AI ("GAI"?) tools that we currently have, it will be a winner-takes-all technology, but now we're speculating about the market structure of a fictional technology that's significantly less thought-through than, say, stuff from the original Star Trek. ("The Ultimate Computer" aged ridiculously well. If it was produced in 2026, it would be a satire targeting LLMs. I digress.)
If we don't assume some sort of unknown technological step function in the next fundraising cycle, then what we'll get is a commodity industry. It takes a few dozen people to make a frontier model, plus a giant pile of minerals and electricity. This looks more like a steel mill than a software company.
If there were one steel mill on earth they could demand infinite margins. This is why most countries treat steel production as a national security issue and subsidize competition. LLMs will be the same, or we'll end up with some conglomerate named OpenAnthropicMicrappleGrokGoogXidiazon that acquires literally every other business. That will be the end of capitalism.
> and eventually AI model will be commodified
This axiom not being true (and I'd bet against it) means your overall conclusion is false.
Eventually you'll have a model you can't distill, at which point the frontier labs will take off.
U.S. policymakers believe that even if the gap is small—like six months to a year—whoever reaches AGI first (whatever that means) could gain such an overwhelming advantage over their perceived adversary that it would effectively kneecap them. (You can look at the kinds of things they mention—cyber, WMDs—to get a sense of what they mean.) Jensen Huang disagrees and has said AI is a marathon.