It seems every DeepSeek paper/patent has a huge number of authors, and this one is no exception. They couldn't even fit everyone on the page, there are 31 others not shown. This could be an asset protection strategy (i.e., human assets). Imagine if there were only 3 authors. Those authors may get hired away by competitors. If you list every employee on every paper then competitors don't know who to lure away.
You need to tighten up your tinfoil hat. When HN features all the discussions on OpenAI's shenanigans on Navier-Stokes, you weren't seeing claims this was anti-US.
I don't know the original intentions, but I don't feel it's anti Chinese just by itself.
It could be pro-Chinese if you frame it like they give merit to anyone involved, or that they take care of their most valuable employees (maybe they pay them another way), or whatever.
Or just observant of how Chinese labs publish their stuff. (Not sure if it's always like that I haven't take a look at the number of authors in this type of publications. Or at least I can't remember it.)
Because if they get you to dismiss or not care about what nonAmerican AI companies are doing maybe people won't see that they are innovating in public. So they can continue smear campaigns that China is simply stealing everything and that's all they do. So the average person will be relieved when the govt moves to regulate away competition from us AI companies and labs. Horray
> Why is this the top comment? Many of the comments, as well as this one, have no relation to content and only mention a triviality
This is hardly a triviality. If you are interested in a topic and you find a paper interesting, more often than not you are interested in reaching out to the author.
If a paper features a list of authors that outnumber the paper's pages 10-to-1, it's a major red flag, and it's quite plausible and expectable that 99%of the names in that list had zero input and might even have zero contribution to give to the topic. I'd even argue it's a kin to academic fraud.
By the way, the same goes for those researchers who work on paper mills, and manage to rake in production metrics that go well beyond an article per day.
If you're confused about who to contact to follow up on the ideas of a particular paper then write to the first author, or whichever author is listed as the contact person. This is not hard and is an orthogonal consideration to the length of the author list.
Which itself not necessarily a sign of fraud: <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-record-more-5000-authors" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-r...
> If you're confused about who to contact to follow up on the ideas of a particular paper then write to the first author, or whichever author is listed as the contact person.
That just goes to show how much you understand the topic. The leading author is usually the institutional leader, and in paper mills it's frequently the guy who stands to benefit the most from the scam. Not the guy who actually did the work.
So now that you missed that one option, what's your plan? To walkt through the hundred names in the list?
flowerlad · · focus · HN ↗
phytax · · focus · HN ↗
antonvs · · focus · HN ↗
locknitpicker · · focus · HN ↗
You need to tighten up your tinfoil hat. When HN features all the discussions on OpenAI's shenanigans on Navier-Stokes, you weren't seeing claims this was anti-US.
alightsoul · · focus · HN ↗
tecleandor · · focus · HN ↗
It could be pro-Chinese if you frame it like they give merit to anyone involved, or that they take care of their most valuable employees (maybe they pay them another way), or whatever.
Or just observant of how Chinese labs publish their stuff. (Not sure if it's always like that I haven't take a look at the number of authors in this type of publications. Or at least I can't remember it.)
thatsabadlook · · focus · HN ↗
locknitpicker · · focus · HN ↗
This is hardly a triviality. If you are interested in a topic and you find a paper interesting, more often than not you are interested in reaching out to the author.
If a paper features a list of authors that outnumber the paper's pages 10-to-1, it's a major red flag, and it's quite plausible and expectable that 99%of the names in that list had zero input and might even have zero contribution to give to the topic. I'd even argue it's a kin to academic fraud.
By the way, the same goes for those researchers who work on paper mills, and manage to rake in production metrics that go well beyond an article per day.
ordersofmag · · focus · HN ↗
Which itself not necessarily a sign of fraud: <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-record-more-5000-authors" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-r...
locknitpicker · · focus · HN ↗
That just goes to show how much you understand the topic. The leading author is usually the institutional leader, and in paper mills it's frequently the guy who stands to benefit the most from the scam. Not the guy who actually did the work.
So now that you missed that one option, what's your plan? To walkt through the hundred names in the list?