[alecco]

I don't buy that. Allegedly Google lost to OpenAI because the compute resources were allocated evenly and then each team shared to other teams. So it became a popularity contest instead of meritocratic allocation. And then Pichai tried to merge all the different AI teams making it even worse. From rumors by connected people on podcasts.

There has to be some structure to put the best ones first. The key problem is how to judge that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[mjburgess]

"teams" are a clue to there being an underlying hierarchy and division which may not exist at deepseek. If its a smaller self-organising team of people, there would be no such effect.

It is also common knowledge that google's internal team and advancement politics are already pathological -- against a background of a winner-takes-all, cooperation does not work.

[falcor84]

While I agree that Google's advancement politics are concerning, it's far fetched to say that there's a winner-takes-all aspect - there's still a lot of remuneration/power/recognition to go around for everyone, just not unevenly distributed.

[ben30]

DeepSeek's results speak for themselves - they've built a competitive AI model with millions that matches capabilities of systems costing billions.

While debates about resource allocation and organisational structure are interesting, what matters is their demonstrated ability to innovate efficiently.

The proof is in their technical achievement.