As models get better, safe-and-secure sandboxes/environments are going to be the way forward. With the recent rise in cases where models can somehow gain access to the internet and blast past the sandbox, it's very important to have all the resources contained within the sandbox with no access to the outside world.<p>DSec is a good step in this direction!
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.
Compare to <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783</a>
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
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<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
It’s top comment because it’s anti-Chinese.
I don't know the original intentions, but I don't feel it's anti Chinese just by itself.<p>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.<p>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.)
> It’s top comment because it’s anti-Chinese.<p>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.
Just look for the “corresponding author”
> there are 31 others not shown<p>just click the link and it will show the others, this seems to be a limitation/UI feature of arxiv. The paper itself contains the full list
Lmao with the conspiracy. Large scale experimental research is always like this, many papers in experimental physics have pages of authors.
Competitors will try to touch everyone on the list.
Maybe aquihire like Nvidia with groq?
Yeah what possible company can try to lure 100 people... Just for reference, Linkedin has 17,000+ full time employees.
I miss the YOLO (CNN computer vision model) days where one dude can publish a paper, completely disregard academic conventions, and yet push the field forward by leap and bounds.
Yea those days were cool. Shame he quit doing research once he realized the biggest application for his work was killing people with robots I guess. It was a nice period of time. Before everyone in industry realized the cool stuff they were building was likely only going to be used to surveil the public, target people, remove skilled labor, and probably develop new weapons (whether people call them that now or not isn't relevant). Good old days.
click the link, or read the PDF.<p>all authors are listed. there is no conspiracy to hide authorship.<p>arxiv simply want to keep the page short not too long.
380.000 concurrent sandboxes on 160 Epyc based server nodes. Crazy stuff
Very similar to Google Ax, looks like it's Deepseek answer to Google
12 sandboxes per code is insane, I wonder how many of these sandboxes are idle at a time. Depending on the tasks assigned the resource requirements are different. Compare an agent doing pdf conversion and one responding to a simple question. One is cpu bound the other is mostly network wait.<p>This is an interesting problem from infra perspective since you cannot predict the workload. On a bigger scale you may get away with forecasts.<p>Im waiting for tech that elastically allocates cpu/mem without restarting a container.
Appears to be similar to what Google is building with ax <a href="https://github.com/google/ax" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/google/ax</a>
Is this like agent substrate?
I wonder if they are signalling that if they can do this for training, then they can create an style agent swarm to hack anyone with 380k concurrent agents.
Is there a lab more innovative than DeepSeek? Imagine if they had the same compute resources that Anthropic and OpenAI have.
Food for thought: Constraints are the source of creativity.
Yeah if they had the resources of an OpenAI or anthropic they’d be OpenAI or Anthropic. Scrappy underdogs have to be nimble and innovative.
Possibly relevant: 突破技术壁垒, "break the technical barricade" -> overcome an obstacle through innovation (in this case, sub SOTA GPUs at least).<p>Native Chinese speakers to confirm....
your translation is correct, I would say Chinese labs may be able to figure out the current capability of latest frontier models in 3-6 months, but then Anthropic and OpenAI may have already been ASI in that time already. China's main problem is still lack of (good) chips, and that is a hardware issue that is unlikely to be solved for a while. and more effort for efficiency means less effort for actual capability improvements. we have already seen what anthropic can do if they focus on efficiency with opus 5.5
This isn’t a law.
Short term they might have less compute, but long term they will most definitely have more compute. They don't have to worry about energy, they don't have to worry about people blocking them building data centers the only thing stopping them is there no Chinese manufacturer that can produce a chip as good as Nvidia but I would bet that solved in a year or so.
This is literally just a scheduler over firecracker man what
Just because other companies don't write papers about what they do doesn't mean they aren't innovative...
I'm actually the most innovative, I've written thousands of papers advancing the state of human knowledge. They're just in my basement and I don't show anyone.
Sure, but we’ll never know what they do or if it is innovate because we won’t know what they do.
"Necessity is the mother of invention."<p>Not sure they'd be the same without the constraints.
>"Within one scale unit, the platform spans nearly 160 CPU nodes with 30K cores and ∼250 TB of DRAM. It manages petabytes of layers and images. On a typical day, a single scale unit serves about 3 M sandbox instances, with peak concurrency reaching ∼380K and a creation rate exceeding 5,000 instances per second."<p>Impressive numbers!<p>Whoever would have thought (in prior years) that in 2026 <i>AI Agents</i> (not people or corporations, at least not directly) seem to be (or seem to be rapidly becoming) the biggest <i>consumers</i> of cloud computing resources...<p>Anyway, a very interesting paper and environment!
So.. serverless ?
The topic isn't as interesting as how 131 authors communicated to get this out.
Doesn't deepseek have like 150-200 employees?<p>I wonder how those few that were left out feel :)
I don't understand why half the comments here are about the author list, this is very common practice in e.g. large-scale physics experiments and biology, and every new GPT release from OpenAI equally had papers with tons of authors
Agreed, I'm very confused as well. It's like no-one here has been paying attention to research papers.<p>Or they are just rushing to say anything, and it's much easier to comment on that than the content of the paper.
Some people don’t want to recognize the important work that went into this.
Is it possible they're doing a research lab "socialism style" and everyone gets equal credit for just being a part of the lab, regardless of actual input into the specific papers? If they're innovating in computer, maybe they're not so afraid of innovating in social/academic structures as well?
This is common practice in Biology labs in the west I think
The west does it too in experimental papers. This is not a socialism thing.
I am author in two author papers, but also in 200 author papers. Nothing wrong with it. In our field they are studies among a dozen centers, where each center has to do something and the results are pooled to some central hub. If I do a relatively easy data prep before sending to the hub, I go among the authors, it is just the way it works. A huge work that is spreaded thinly, or else can't be done unless you ask people to work without attributio. That might work once or twice, but not more, if you are the person who ask for favours but returns nothing.
It's not socialism to recognize the people who actually did the work. I realize it may seem to be capitalist to actually believe that managers or ceos are actually building products at all. But anyone who has worked an engineering role is well aware that's not how it goes and it's not capitalism to do that it's just crappy human behavior. Yea like how Elon musk is actually building those rockets while designing AI systems and new cars or huang is out there giving tips to the people designing the chips ...<p>A nice work perk is recognizing your teams accomplishments publicly. Give it a try. I hear even capitalists like to be treated as if they are human. Some dude named deming used to talk about workers pride. Sort of a smart guy I guess...
This is your brain on propaganda.
That number of authors though
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Will admit that I haven’t read it yet, just saw the crazy number of authors and think this may compete for one of the papers with the most authors.
This one [0] about the Higgs boson is hard to beat. Pages 25-32 are just full of around 5150 „authors“, pages 33-37 are their affilliations.<p>[0] <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214</a>
Even without that particularly special case, high-energy physics collaborations have long since broken the idea of authors. There are now many collaborations with hundreds of authors publishing regularly and quite a few that are into the thousands.
I think the number is ~2930 authors according to the CDS [1] which is comparable to the corresponding CMS paper which has about ~2900 authors [2]<p>[1] <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/1471031" rel="nofollow">https://cds.cern.ch/record/1471031</a><p>[2] <a href="https://impact.ornl.gov/en/publications/observation-of-a-new-boson-at-a-mass-of-125-gev-with-the-cms-expe/" rel="nofollow">https://impact.ornl.gov/en/publications/observation-of-a-new...</a>
how do you even keep up with the amount of research coming out these days