Reading this it’s not clear - how well integrated is swift build with swift’s tooling and language server? I know the language server has been open source for a while now. Having them be separate seems like it would create issues with duplicate code.
Readit Newspaul_e_warner commented on Apple is open sourcing Swift Build swift.org/blog/the-next-c... · Posted by u/dayanruben
How would they prove they used it’s model. I would be curious to know their methodology. Also what legal actions OpenAI can take? can DeepSeek be banned in US?
If you read the article (which I know no one does anymore)
>OpenAI and its partner Microsoft investigated accounts believed to be DeepSeek’s last year that were using OpenAI’s application programming interface (API) and blocked their access on suspicion of distillation that violated the terms of service, another person with direct knowledge said. These investigations were first reported by Bloomberg.
Everyone is responding to the intellectual property issue, but isn't that the less interesting point?
If Deepseek trained off OpenAI, then it wasn't trained from scratch for "pennies on the dollar" and isn't the Sputnik-like technical breakthrough that we've been hearing so much about. That's the news here. Or rather, the potential news, since we don't know if it's true yet.
I feel like which one you care about depends on whether you're an AI researcher or an investor.
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
There seem to be two kinda incompatible things in this article:
1. R1 is a distillation o1. This is against it's terms of service and possibly some form of IP theft.
2. R1 was leveraging GPT-4 to make it's output seem more human. This is very common and most universities and startups do it and it's impossible to prevent.
When you take both of these points and put them back to back, a natural answer seems to suggest itself which I'm not sure the authors intended to imply: R1 attempted to use o1 to make its answers seem more human, and as a result it accidentally picked up most of it's reasoning capabilities in the process. Is my reading totally off?
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
paul_e_warner commented on Half a million lines of Go blog.khanacademy.org/half... · Posted by u/nickcw
I've written a bit of code in Go, and the problem I have with it is primarily it feels really outdated for a "modern" language - every time I use it I feel like I'm dealing with something written by someone who really hated Java in 2005. There are features that could be added to the language that would make it more readable and less error-prone without compromising the simplicity of the core language. Generics are the famous example, but the one that really gets me is the the lack of nullable type signatures. This is a great way to avoid an entire class of bugs that nearly every modern language I've used has evolved a solution for except Go.
Another issue I have is the reliance on reflection. In general, I think if you have to rely on reflection to do something, that usually means you're working around some inherent limitation in the normal language - and the resulting code is often far less readable than the code would be in a more expressive language. Lots of Go libraries and frameworks are forced to use it in a lot of cases because there's just no other way to express some really basic things without it.
I really want to like Go. There's a lot I like - the "only one way to do something" approach means that code always feels consistent. Errors as values is a far superior approach to exceptions. I had to write some for a job interview project a while back and it felt really refreshing, but every time I try to use it for a personal project, I don't feel like I'm getting anything out of it that I couldn't get out of say, Rust, or modern, typed Python.