Last thing I do before bed last night is watch this episode. First thing I see when I open Lemmy is this meme. Cheers mate 😂🤣😂

So this is where human men learned it from.

I’ll see myself out 😜

deleted by creator

Ngl. The first time I was ever asked to give one of my employees a PIP, I swear I thought they were getting a promotion 🙈

Hehehehehehe…penetrator

“Holy potatoes” 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀

[Republicans] say US will set new tariff rates for countries, skirting negotiations.

Don’t forget it’s a whole party. Never forget and never let anyone else when he inevitably is gone. We need to stay on point.

Yep. While other reasons are valid as the article mentions, review bombs only come from butthurt incels who don’t want to see women and poc be successful while they bemoan their pathetic lives while feverishly wanking it to crypto trends.

I actually came across this line during a chronological rewatch myself. Tonight is TMP!

It is for the glory of ALL memes. May the Eyes of Gowron smile upon us all.

Also. Time loop ban coming in 3….2….

Hard to run 6’ down

Someone just do it already…

But yeah. Fuck Google

This is my favourite take on this yet

🎉Lower decks! Lower decks! Lower decks! Lower decks!🎉

Basically once they started being a military contractor actively implementing new AI solutions aiding Israel, the US, and more. Or, when they started doing evil instead of avoiding it.

(Please don’t @ me with all the “yeah but they did THIS AND THAT years ago… we all have our own cutoff point).

Snap. Now I need to write a parody of Avenue Q’s “The Internet Is For Porn” lol

Gee I hope not. I want to see the corpse.

I asked OpenAI the same. Only without the snark, and noted that US politicians and OpenAI pressers should not be considered evidence without facts:

Great question—and a healthy dose of skepticism.

If we assume U.S. lawmakers may be misrepresenting the situation or overstating the threat (intentionally or otherwise), then it’s worth asking: What counter-evidence or independent information exists that disputes the claims against DeepSeek?

Here’s what we can currently analyze:

1.

OpenAI’s Role and Statements

• The accusation is that DeepSeek used OpenAI data without authorization.
• OpenAI has not released detailed technical evidence (as of now) proving DeepSeek “stole” data.
• It is also unclear what “unauthorized use” means here—was it scraping publicly available content generated by ChatGPT? That’s not the same as hacking or violating terms.

Counterpoint: Unless OpenAI provides forensic evidence (e.g., logs showing data scraping from banned accounts or circumvention of APIs), their claim is not independently verifiable.

2.

Open-source AI Training Practices

• DeepSeek R1 and other models are trained on publicly available data, much like LLaMA, Falcon, Mistral, etc.
• Many open-source LLMs train on similar corpora, including data from books, code repositories, and even internet crawls, which may contain ChatGPT outputs.
• No proof has been provided that DeepSeek used proprietary datasets beyond what’s publicly available or scraped from the internet.

Counterpoint: If DeepSeek simply trained on web data that happened to contain ChatGPT responses (which are abundant online), that wouldn’t constitute theft by typical AI research standards.

3.

DeepSeek’s Own Transparency

• DeepSeek has published detailed model cards and training parameters for R1, a transparency move rare among Chinese AI firms.
• This suggests a desire to appear cooperative or aligned with global AI openness norms—not necessarily what a covert “spy tool” would do.

Counterpoint: Spyware tools or state-controlled AI systems don’t usually go open source and document their architectures.

4.

No Independent Audit or Third-Party Verification

• As of now, there’s no independent audit of DeepSeek’s model, training corpus, or infrastructure.
• The accusations rest heavily on political framing, not technical forensics released to the public.

5.

Broader Pattern of U.S. Tech Nationalism

• U.S. lawmakers have a history of labeling Chinese tech firms as threats without providing concrete, public-facing evidence (Huawei, TikTok, etc.).
• This doesn’t mean the threats are false, but it does mean we should demand proof beyond committee soundbites.

TL;DR – Is there counter-evidence?

Not conclusive counter-evidence, but there’s a lack of compelling public proof supporting the claim. The case against DeepSeek is built on:

• OpenAI’s statements (without shared evidence),
• Political concerns about China,
• and suspicions rooted in strategic competition.

That’s not enough to say DeepSeek is innocent—but it’s not enough to prove guilt either

Goodness is this the best place on all of Lemmy 🤣💚

Please someone tell me they have a file called gowron_eyes.png to share