Talk:DeepSeek: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. DeepSeek’ is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

@Grayfell I mean you can google “deepseek sputnik” there are tons and tons of articles about it. This is is not a claim made by one source or one media. Regardless, if the other two sources are disputable, then The Guardian alone is more than enough. So, would you like me to remove the other two sources and keep The Guardian? Does that solve your problem?

P.S. the article by Le Monde was referring to a Sputnik moment for America as a response to DeepSeek. Please read the article:

Le Monde columnist Sylvie Kauffmann looks back at the Soviet launch of the satellite in 1957, and President Eisenhower’s counteroffensive in favor of science and education, to understand why Trump’s US is unlikely to adopt the same approach to stay ahead of China.

Alikhamahu (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously just post a link to a Google search result? Please.

The goal of the article is to summarize reliable sources neutrally and proportionately for the benefit of disinterested readers. I did look at the sources, and I do not accept that your edit met that goal, so I reverted it. The usefulness of this punditry to readers, even with more context, is not apparent.

Additionally, judging by existing sources, this comparison to the Sputnik crisis originates with Marc Andreeson, who is not impartial as a pundit, nor unambiguously credible as a topic expert. We are not obligated to pass-along this bit of myth-making and criti-hype just because it exists and can be sourced.

Again, our goal is to provide context to readers, not to breathlessly pass along buzz and sensationalist punditry. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously just post a link to a Google search result? Please.

Yes of course. Did you check the search results? If you did, you’d see for yourself that many media outlets are discussing the subject matter. Like at the top of my finger, I can give you two more reliable sources discussing it by scanning the page with my eyes real fast. Here look: The New Yorker and NPR. I didn’t even scroll down and there’s even more.

disinterested readers

hmm never heard of that before. I think that reader who came to read about DeepSeek is interested in knowing about DeepSeek.

I did look at the sources, and I do not accept that your edit met that goal,

Why not?

judging by existing sources, this comparison to the Sputnik crisis originates with Marc Andreeson, who is not impartial as a pundit, nor unambiguously credible as a topic expert.

I told you that we can remove that source and keep The Guardian.

We are not obligated to pass-along this bit of myth-making and criti-hype just because it exists and can be sourced.

yes we are. Wikipedia is about verifiablity not truth. Editors like us don’t get to decide what’s true.

The usefulness of this punditry to readers, even with more context, is not apparent.

you don’t have the right to block information from readers under this vague excuse. I think that all information are important and useful to all people and people have the right to know. You don’t get to decide what’s useful for readers.

Alikhamahu (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘Disinterested‘ is different from ‘uninterested‘.

This is a collaborative project built on consensus. As editors, we edit, meaning we evaluate sources to decide what belongs and what doesn’t. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As is an encyclopedia, or goal is to provide context to readers, not to pass along breaking news, nor corporate gossip, nor to dump isolated factoids in to articles. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how is the edit in question a breaking news? A gossip? Out of context? etc??

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. Therefore, I don’t have to argue unfounded claims. However, I can at least disprove your claim by pointing out that DeepSeek rose to popularity especially after this incident, meaning the incident is very crucial part of it journey and I bet readers who came here, and I’m one of them, came to know about this. The lead is already discussing it, so I simply added more context to emphasize why it’s important to the subject matter. An event like this being compared to an event as big as Sputnik is not useless or “uninteresting” (in fact it is very interesting, in my opinion) and of course not out of context. When compared to Sputnik it means that it is soo big and important and groundbreaking and must be mentioned in the lead.

meaning we evaluate sources to decide what belongs and what doesn’t

Ah ok. So, what is the problem with The Guardian and The New Yorker? A consensus has already been made about their reliability.

Alikhamahu (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So?? Alikhamahu (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article attempts to provide a comparison of training costs, but he figures (amounts in USD) have been mysteriously omitted, as if they are unknown variables. RoslinTollcross (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a small section on accuracy and completeness of answers to queries. I tried this AI out and got some really bad answers along with some that seem good. Can someone find a source that tells about this? Kdammers (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 "for US million compared to  million for OpenAI's" - It looks like something is missing here.Kdammers (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all the dollar amounts were removed in this edit for some reason, even ones in citation titles. I just put them all back. Jamedeus (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]