Thread

1. amichae2 · 1790786452 · focus · HN ↗

   I am not a fan of Anthropic but this article offers no concrete evidence that Anthropic actually ripped off Deepseek. It is all circumstantial.

   1. senordevnyc · 1790786965 · focus · HN ↗

      Thank you!

      I’m incredibly skeptical that OpenAI is spinning up custom ASICs for improved inference performance, but they never thought of optimizing KV cache until a tiny Chinese lab did it? Give me a break.

      1. bel8 · 1790787379 · focus · HN ↗

         They certainly thought. But were they able to do it now without DeepSeek papers?

         timeline suggests not.

         1. senordevnyc · 1790788382 · focus · HN ↗

            So DS comes up with 437x improvement, and the evidence that O/A copied them is that they dropped caching prices by like 50%? Really?

            1. abcthingx · 1790788784 · focus · HN ↗

               What evidence evidence would actually change your stance on this? a formal admission from OpenAI and Anthropic. Yet that's unlikely

               1. senordevnyc · 1790798561 · focus · HN ↗

                  Any actual evidence would be worth considering. This is a pretty weak correlation and an assumption, nothing more.
            2. croon · 1790841813 · focus · HN ↗

               80%. You can't do that unless you significantly cut costs somewhere. The timing is certainly indicative.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.