[guccihat]

> This title is misleading though - where it tries to state that DeepSeek only focuses on research and not revenue.

IMO, the title is quite accurate and supported by the content of the article. The team is prioritizing AI research at the expense of short term profit.

If the title was "DeepSeek is solely a research effort" you would have a case.

[yubblegum]

Agreed, per Liang Wenfeng's public comments, his aim was and remains to inspire his fellow Chinese geeks to lead in innovation and not be satisfied at simply following the lead, and creating better versions, of foreign (read Western) mind products.

[jstummbillig]

Lest we forget, this is an option because others did figure out the expensive way how most of the things DeepSeek relies upon work. You might even call it research.

[patrickhogan1]

Yes, but the real question is: Why are they able to do that? I understand we're debating nuances here, but my concern is about the overall impression the title gives. It positions DeepSeek as some kind of higher ideal, yet the article achieves this impression by deliberately overlooking key facts.

For example, why can Google afford to run Waymo, a self-driving car company? Is it because Google prioritizes self-driving cars and safety over profit?

No. It's because Google's core business—selling advertisements, monetizing personal data, and essentially profiting from surveillance—generates enormous amounts of money.

With all of this said. I am a fan of DeepSeek and the amount of openness they have.

[rangestransform]

I really miss the ZIRP days when every company had some robotics R&D bototmless money pit

[rfoo]

If anything, it sounds more like an "EA working as intended" story.