Making America Great Again may not be as simple as the President hopes when it comes to the burgeoning artificial intelligence competition from China. The recent release of DeepSeek has understandably shaken the confidence of US Big Tech giants, especially OpenAI. It has led, according to the BBC, to ‘reputational downsizing’ and potential market difficulties because of DeepSeek’s demonstrated ability to compete with Western equivalents at lower cost and higher levels of efficiency.
DeepSeek illustrates that despite having access to a relatively small number of graphic processing units (GPUs), not even the latest generation, it is possible to compete with more proficient American models. This is largely because of the more efficient management of the software component. In other words, greater intelligence can compensate for brute force.
And here lies the moral. AI is no exception to the general rule that exemplifies the evolution of emerging technologies: initially they rely on brute force, crudely exploiting available resources, and then gradually they optimise their use through experience-based technical innovations and evolution. But the rules of the AI game are still based on the ability to accumulate more and more powerful GPUs.
Nevertheless, growth in computing power is not linear with respect to energy consumption and other variables, such as the ability to invent new software approaches that define what it takes to develop an LLM (large language model). This is at the core of the cost-effectiveness of DeepSeek and why it poses a problem for its competitors.
Despite the emergence of approaches such as so-called ‘frugal AI’ which promotes more efficient and intelligent use of resources, the belief that more computing power equals more artificial intelligence remains widespread. With a nightmarish compulsion to repeat, the AI industry has adopted marketing strategies that differ little from those practised in other technology sectors. Consider, for example, how PCs, cameras and smartphones are promoted: they vaunt the idea that bigger (the processor, sensor, screen etc.) is better.
This is a much easier concept to understand for those who hold the purse strings and need to loosen them, than unique selling propositions based on mathematical or engineering arguments, let alone those related to software, which are complex, hard to summarise in a few catch phrases, and difficult for users, investors and decision makers to understand.
In the case of AI, this strategy has created barriers to market entry. In fact, the common perception is that to play the LLM game requires such enormous investment and infrastructure that it discourages attempts to do so. By maintaining this approach, the giants of the sector succeed in, on the one hand, monopolising financial resources and, on the other hand, keeping out potential newcomers.
However, thanks to DeepSeek, there is the unexpected realisation that it may be possible to ‘do more but spend less’ and that, as a result, it may not make sense to invest in technologies and hardware that are unnecessarily expensive to buy and manage. This is especially true in view of the similar warnings in the chip sector, where new ARM processors promise affordability and performance.
However, the greater appeal of DeepSeek is true if and only if the development costs are as publicly stated, that is, a fraction of those incurred by US competitors. Although, in fact, the approach to the overall design of the Chinese model is clearly efficiency-oriented, it is unclear whether, and if so to what extent, there has been even indirect support from the Beijing Government. This could be in respect of access to the energy and computing power required to train the model, or other forms of support.
If, in fact, the lower cost of DeepSeek’s development was even partly possible because of state aid, it would be legitimate to raise doubts about whether the project is actually more sustainable than its American competitors, and to ask whether, instead, we are not faced with the use of economic leverage to disrupt the market by lowering the value of competitors. If so, it runs the risk of having to chase DeepSeek instead of dictating the pace and the risk of suffering the introduction of new technologies into the market instead of controlling them. Moreover, they would lose their privileged status as suppliers of ‘raw material’ for the rest of the supply chain that develops LLM-based products and services, since DeepSeek is more efficient, cheaper but, above all, ‘open source’.
For some time now, the concept of open source, a generic term that, essentially denotes the right to access the information necessary to understand a technology, and the right to use it freely, has been moving towards losing its original role as a tool that fosters the free circulation of knowledge to become an important component of states’ geopolitical arsenal.
It’s no mystery that DeepSeek was unashamedly developed in compliance with the guidelines set by the Chinese authorities in relation to how to respond to issues involving socialist values and policies. In this sense, such a choice is the perfect match of the ‘ethical constraints’ embedded in proprietary and open source LLMs already available in the West.
The decision to release Deepseek in open source could not only reduce the value of the AI giants, it also risks removing user market share from them. Companies, developers and researchers might, in fact, be interested in accessing sophisticated technologies without having to pay expensive licences or experience other limitations. We would be facing a complementary situation to the one created by the choice made by Huawei to release HarmonyOSNext (Android’s competing operating system) as a ‘free’ version, capable of running on a wide range of devices, from wearables to terminals, potentially enabling the creation of a global technological infrastructure independent of Western technologies. And it is worth mentioning that Huawei also produces AI GPUs optimised for DeepSeek!
With its wider use, DeepSeek could become part of a strategy for spreading ideas that do not necessarily conform to Western values. Lycurgus, writes Plutarch in Parallel Lives, banished from Sparta all foreigners who had no good reason to stay, fearing “that they would spread something contrary to good customs. Foreigners bring foreign words; these produce new ideas; and on these are built opinions and sentiments whose discordant character destroys the harmony of the state”.
This may be (relatively) simple in the case of humans, much more challenging when it comes ‘new’, or rather ‘different’ ideas conveyed by software that can be duplicated, modified and circulated without any effective restrictions. It is hard not to think of the TikTok squabble, and the reasons, real or supposed, that led the US administration to order its forced sale.
Although a direct, immediate, and large-scale impact of this kind is unlikely, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that in the long run ‘heterodox’ ideas may more easily infiltrate mainstream thinking by passing through smartphone screens, and contribute, if not to redefining it, at least to orienting it in a way that is more favourable to China or, which is the same thing, more critical of our own governments.
Andrea Monti and Raymond Wacks are co-authors of Protecting Personal Information: The Right to Privacy Reconsidered; COVID-19 and Public Policy in the Digital Age; and National Security in the New World Order: Government and the Technology of Information.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Let’s supposed everyone acted like Coutts and refused to provide service to those who don’t adhere to what is clearly a pre-established way of thinking.
Does that mean the supermarket should stop selling to Farange, so he couldn’t buy groceries anywhere? Should all the petrol stations stop serving him? The train companies and airlines would obviously have to stop selling him tickets. Restaurants should ban him.
If everyone took the same high and mighty stance that Coutts did (and the other banks who refused him an account subsequently), then he could effectively be cancelled from life.
And if they don’t, does that mean that they are socially irresponsible for not imposing the right belief system? I guess that is what proponents of ESG, DEI, CSR and all the bullshit actually must believe.
When the left’s ideas are taken to their logical end, you end up with grotesque totalitarianism. That’s if you get there and don’t get driven to insanity first, if you can survive the trans lunacy, the climate lunacy and all the other waypoints to their totalitarian hell.
This creates great opportunities for businesses who don’t discriminate in this way. In fact, new businesses such as Public Square (https://publicsq.com/in-the-news) and other unwoke companies in the US are expanding massively by taking advantage of this very opportunity.
It is a belief system without any conviction from its adherents. I doubt whether the individuals in those banks actually believe 100% in the righteousness of their stance but they do it because it looks good to everyone else doing the same thing.
Of course CBDCs are the ultimate wet dream since they absolve all the banks and businesses of any responsibility whatsoever in terms of transactions, since it’s out of their hands – and there is nowhere one can take one’s complaints. If this had happened – and I’m sure it has – to someone less high profile than Nigel Farage, then that person would still be languishing in the social doldrums, cancelled from society.
We heard about the Canadian truckers’ bank accounts being “frozen”. Does anyone know if they were ever “unfrozen”?
A spotlight needs to be shone on the creepy companies that trawl personal data, build profiles on us all and sell these profiles to the banks amongst others.
Swamp banks with subject access requests to find out.
They’ll just stop replying.
People have been given a legitimate reason to ask so they can’t be readily dismissed. Unlike FOI, it can’t be conveniently categorised as “malicious”.
Non-response requires the regulator to take action.
If the regulator doesn’t take action that poses its own questions.
Your last thought has a precedent. MHRA were swamped by COVID vaccine yellow cards, so they simply excluded them from analysis because they upset the pattern.
This is a different process. It requires data to be provided to the requestor. Yellow Cards is more of a black hole.
I’m not suggesting that people would receive a response or that the regulator would take action. It’s what should happen and if it doesn’t it highlights yet more issues.
As soon as Poland’s GDP gets to the point where they would have to become a contributor to rather than recipient of EU largess, they will Pexit, if not before.
With most of Europe destroying itself through mass immigration of economic migrants from Islamic countries and the imposition of net zero madness, countries like Poland and Hungary stand out as beacons of common sense and hope.
Not when you see their foreign policy viz the war on their borders..
Please expand / explain…
Meant to reply to you and replied to myself instead…The fog of war and all that.
US Army stakes out permanent presence in Poland with ‘Camp K’ | Stars and Stripes
Russia-Ukraine war live: US-supplied cluster bombs ‘having an impact’ on Russian defences, Washington says (theguardian.com)
Poking the bear is not standing out as beacons of common sense and hope IMO.
Their right as a nation to do what they want.
Hungary too. They are constantly flipping the finger at the EU PTBs
Spent a month in Budapest last year, getting my teeth fixed. Fantastic job, cost maybe 1/3r of what I’d pay over here. Fell in love with Budapest, and were I 21 and 71 I’d be out there in a shot. This is the Great Market, down near the river. If you are a meat lover (my wife and I are Carnivores) it’s a place to go!
“Broadcaster Jon Sopel has issued an apology to Nigel Farage after previously poking fun at the former UKIP leader’s cancelled account with bank Coutts,”
I know he’s not apologising to me, but apology not accepted. How can it be a sincere apology?
““Nigel Farage: Coutts owner apologises for ‘inappropriate’ claims” – In a letter to the former UKIP leader, Dame Alison Rose insisted the assessment of Mr. Farage “does not reflect the views of the bank”, reports the Times.”
Again she is not apologising to me, but apology not accepted. Of course the assessment reflects the views of the bank – the bank bloody produced it, no doubt following their own policies. How can it be a sincere apology?
In both cases, they’ve been caught red-handed, underestimated who they were dealing with and the public reaction.
The Sopel apology includes a dig at the BBC for producing mis-information.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1681970843675443200
Thanks – that is interesting. Perhaps his apology is sincere.
“Scientists think they’ve cracked the secret of Covid ‘super-dodgers’”
This article tries to indicate that this genetic immunity is rare by stating;
”Only about one in ten people within the general population are believed to have the genes offering them this form of protection. ”
But surely 1 in 10 = 10% ? which in the UK equates to 7 million people. If the article had in fact said ” 7 million people in the UK are believed to have this genetic immunity” it would have had a different ring to it but then that might be seen as playing down the significance of covid and TPTB’s over-reaction to it.
“people who got Covid never got ill…” Suggests that the Mail article is oxymoronic. How can one have a disease without being ill? However, if they were more accurate (I know it’s the Mail), they might have said that most of those that got Covid were not seriously ill. Wouldn’t sell very well, perhaps.
Yes. Covid is the disease, not the bug. A large bunch of people were exposed to the bug and never developed the disease; it happens all the time with other bugs.
One’s body can detox without any overt symptoms of detox & it is these products being excreted from cells that the PCR tests assess for the presence of. Very easy for a casedemic to be manufactured in this way.
Well, if microwave exposure causes the same set of symptoms labelled as covid in susceptible individuals prior to the bioweapon injection rollout, then it’s not going to be a transmissible disease.
If this is the case, then no virus exists so the lab leak theory is just a major diversion & no “vaccine” was ever going to be effective against microwave radiation.
There is a temporal association between every major influenza epidemic & an increase in the EMF exposure of the planet.
Beverly Rubik, whose work I have come across via MD4CE zoom meetings, gives an explanation in this Rumble video.
https://rumble.com/v30y8oi-adverse-health-effects-of-wireless-communication-radiation-by-berverly-rubi.html
The Comments section in the Daily Mail article about suggested genetic predisposition to immunity is encouraging.
I’ll take my chances with the risks from the disease rather than those of the jab!
That’s a sad indictment isn’t it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Other Interests are frustrated that their JSO protestors had not yet achieved martyrdom due to an irate driver. Perhaps their view of human nature isn’t the same as that of the majority.
The JSO speaker in the video was correct on one key point though: “this government does not have our best interests at heart”.
In the above article we find
Er, no. Where’s the evidence of this?
Then we get:
OK so we’re not eviscerating kids yet (though we seem to be encouraging them to have their ‘bits’ mutilated (reminds me of FGM outrage)), but we are sacrificing their future well-being on the altar of Green alarmism.
“Just Stop Just Stop Oil” my response to these entitled dweebs. As a paid up member of the middle classes, they are a disgrace to said middle class!
ps. W no more choose our class than we do our parents…
Reminds me of the song:
I’ve danced with a man, who’s danced with a girl, who’s danced with the Prince of Wales.