I’d be very skeptical of claims that Debian maintainers actually audit the code of each piece of software they package. Perhaps they make some brief reviews, but actually scrutinizing every line for hidden backdoors is just not feasible.

That is why I use just int main(){...} without arguments instead.

I don’t think any kind of “poisoning” actually works. It’s well known by now that data quality is more important than data quantity, so nobody just feeds training data in indiscriminately. At best it would hamper some FOSS AI researchers that don’t have the resources to curate a dataset.

What makes these consumer-oriented models different is that that rather than being trained on raw data, they are trained on synthetic data from pre-existing models. That’s what the “Qwen” or “Llama” parts mean in the name. The 7B model is trained on synthetic data produced by Qwen, so it is effectively a compressed version of Qen. However, neither Qwen nor Llama can “reason,” they do not have an internal monologue.

You got that backwards. They’re other models - qwen or llama - fine-tuned on synthetic data generated by Deepseek-R1. Specifically, reasoning data, so that they can learn some of its reasoning ability.

But the base model - and so the base capability there - is that of the corresponding qwen or llama model. Calling them “Deepseek-R1-something” doesn’t change what they fundamentally are, it’s just marketing.

There are already other providers like Deepinfra offering DeepSeek. So while the the average person (like me) couldn’t run it themselves, they do have alternative options.

A server grade CPU with a lot of RAM and memory bandwidth would work reasonable well, and cost “only” ~$10k rather than 100k+…

To be fair, most people can’t actually self-host Deepseek, but there already are other providers offering API access to it.

Wary reader, learn from my cautionary tale

I’m not sure what to learn exactly. I don’t get what went wrong or why, just that the files hit deleted somehow…

upcoming EU AI Act that regulates open source systems differently, creating an urgent need for practical openness assessment

So when they say “openness” they do put it in the context of open source rather accessibility.

Because FOSS shouldn’t add burdens. You publish your work and let everyone else use it. That shouldn’t add extra obligations on you. Usually, you’d also write some docs - after all, without them nobody will know how to use your program, so why bother publishing - but it shouldn’t be an obligation. Make it easy for people to open up their code without this attaching strings.

Documentation is nice, but it’s kind of different thing that open source: a program can be open and undocumented, or closed but well documented - and I don’t see why we’d want it different for models.

A bunch of these columns are outright absurd TBH, to the extend I’m not sure the author really knows what FOSS is about. What’s open API access even supposed to be - API access is closed by definition.

Also there has never been a requirement that open source software needs to be documented - and for good reason - so I’m not a fan of the documentation column as well.

I like the idea, but I really hate that they’ve hardcoded the provider.

I see there an access violation…

That said, you can use a third party service only for sending, but receive mail on your self-hosted server.

What do you mean thousands at a very gradual rate? I don’t think I’ve sent 1000 emails offer the last year. And even if some people send more, I can’t imagine it would be at a pace where that becomes a problem (at least if it’s for personal use)…

If you have a VPS with dedicated IP they you (and only you) have used for a while, would it still be blacklisted?

Let’s be fair, it’s actually about all those people whose password is “password”. But it is annoying to those who use 15-character random strings for passwords.

That’s not very deep. Closer to plain old logistic regression, really.

Huh. I guess that’s what happens when Google actually prefer that you download the add-y version, because they also make money from the ads.

You can technically can your proprietary software “free” too. But that’s not what the term means. And nether does “open source”.