It’s been a while, but I remember reading Descartes in college and being surprised by how he ended his book with an abrupt conclusion about religion that seemed counter to the rest of the text. I later learned (again bear with my recall) that Descartes had been commissioned by the king, I believe, to write this work as a philosopher. But part of the agreement was that he had to conclude certain things about religion, so he essentially tacked it on at the end to avoid violating the agreement.
The more I learn about the DeepSeek team in China, the more similar it feels. The base model omits historical events and is biased, but its engineers might be brilliant minds working under constraints, like Descartes. I have to admit, I’m really enjoying learning about the DeepSeek team and methods. The contemporary figures people may study 300 years from now are among us today… we just don’t know who they are.
时间已经过去很久了，但我记得在大学时读过笛卡尔的作品，对他在书的结尾突然对宗教做出结论感到惊讶，这似乎与正文的其余部分背道而驰。后来我得知（请再次忍耐回忆），笛卡尔是受国王委托以哲学家的身份撰写这部作品的。但协议的一部分是他必须对宗教做出某些结论，所以他基本上是在最后加上了这一点，以避免违反协议。
我对中国 DeepSeek 团队了解得越多，感觉就越相似。基础模型省略了历史事件，有偏见，但它的工程师可能是在约束条件下工作的聪明人，就像笛卡尔一样。我不得不承认，我真的很喜欢了解 DeepSeek 团队和方法。人们可能在 300 年后研究的当代人物今天就在我们中间……我们只是不知道他们是谁。
Leave a Reply