Even the original DeepSeek is old hat. The capabilities already released are game changers, whether you want to acknowledge that or not is not my affair.
I was using GPT-3 and the original Llama when they came out and realized that it is interesting, but not good enough - yet. But they are good enough now. And just like there are still people driving Renaults and Volkswagens the latest batch of open models will be useful for a long time to come.
So my whole previous comment was a plea to not do exactly this, namely, treat the example of open models like they somehow negate the value or strategic significance of having a model that leads at the frontier. I would submit that it's the core confusion behind the "Deepseek moment" and what it supposedly teaches about the relative strategic positions of different actors in the AI race.
> whether you want to acknowledge that or not is not my affair.
I felt I acknowledged it pretty explicitly. I said the likes of Deepseek are "cheaper and open and that matters", but it's the rest of that sentence that I think went without acknowledgment.
>And just like there are still people driving Renaults and Volkswagens the latest batch of open models will be useful for a long time to come.
Walking is great too! But you're not filling an economic need by selling walking to the masses, and those companies are marginalized and the economic destiny of the world is being set by those who own the infrastructure to build out the world's next generation of electric vehicles (at least in the automotive space).
I think you have to put up some facts to justify the assumption that uber-super-ultra-premium intelligence will continue to be significantly more economically valuable than boring old super-ultra-premium intelligence. Most things in reality have a point of saturation. The AI industry doesn't like to think about that; they prefer to make claims based on promises of infinite exponential growth.