upvote
Then don't use the cloud-based Chinese providers, use cloud-base US/EU providers using Chinese models. The interesting Chinese models are all open making this issue mostly moot.
reply
A key point here is open in terms of being able to download and use it, not open as knowing what data and instructions were fed into it when training.

A paranoid part of me thinks that these models are all inherently biased and instructed to be pro CCP, with specific gaps in their training data related to undesirable historic events and political ideas.

reply
The same thing applies to US models. Check out various system prompt leak repos on github. There are also prompt injections by various parallel "alignment" models that pre-process the prompt before it's sent to the main one with questionable guidance.

You'd be surprised how much of bias exists in easily extractable information. Now imagine how much of that happens during training, that you can't easily extract.

So this is largely a moot point. Yes, Chinese models will likely have some weird things injected into them. But so do the US models. Do I care? Not in the slightest. Models are my code monkeys, and if the code leaves my machine, I assume IP is leaked be it a Chinese model that clearly tells me they do use the data, or US models that pinky promise they don't.

reply
Sure but that goes both ways. Any dataset has a bias. My coding doesn’t need to know about Tienamen square.
reply
Applies both ways, ask it about Israel.
reply
Saner companies ask the same question about models from their own country too.
reply
I wonder if I could start a US-based company with good data regulation and just serve open-weight models at a competitive price. I feel like the real barrier is just that most companies willing to adopt AI usage enough to make it worth it at this point don't want to be using inferior models.
reply
Here's a free startup idea: operate an open-weight model service, and offer "Verified AI Integrity," which signs the input tokens, the seed for the randomness in selecting outputs, and the model ID, proving that the result of the call to AI was completely "organic" and was not interfered with.

Your main audience would be snake oil salesmen trying to prove their AI products are unbiased and not under the thumb of any outside influence. This doesn't address the biases of the model itself, but that's not your business. Your business is selling tokens and security certificates. If you can get the right angel investor, you could maybe have your new standard required for some government applications.

reply
Yes, you can. There are multiple inference providers out there. The problem is, it’s hard to beat the Chinese providers in cost. And you also have to compete with frontier model providers’ subsidized offerings.
reply
They charge the exact same prices. So many people in these comments have no idea what they're talking about. Even if they did charge less, nobody is going to deal with the latency of sending requests to China.

edit: Actually American inference providers are cheaper for Chinese models. There's way more competition here because the Chinese aren't idiots and investing every last dollar they have into data centers for llms that don't make money..

reply
Can you please link me DeepSeekV4 provider that's cheaper than their official offering? And not all tasks require low latency.

Also, there are a lot of competition in China. Like a lot. You might know better than me as well, but although the biggest AI-labs are based in USA, the adoption is weirdly global. Like as a general sense of what's going on - you can see AI-related ads literally everywhere in Tokyo, almost all the time, in every single screen in public.

reply
Cro.ai seems to be: https://crof.ai/

Of course though they are not necessarily a viable solution for companies with security requirements etc. given it is just a single person project, but they still serve as a proof it can be done.

reply
This costs more.
reply
Not as far as I can tell. Are we seeing different things?

For deepseek-v4-pro:

- $0.350 in, $0.003000 cache, $0.80 out https://crof.ai/pricing

- $0.435 in, $0.003625 cache, $0.87 out https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing

reply
Deepseek's api platform for V4 Pro is the only example of this, and Deepseek V4 Flash is cheaper (usually) than from Deepseek itself on openrouter via DeepInfra.

Deepseek shot themselves in the foot because they never intended to serve V4 Pro for .80c mm ouput, that was a promotional price that was meant to expire (and still might). They intended for v4 to cost $4.00 per million but Western inference providers drove down the price because they can operate at negative margins to try and push competition out. I can assure you they are losing a ton of money @ ~80cents.

My point is, its Western inference providers that are establishing the floor price of inference. They are willing to operate at a loss in order to put their competition out of business. Chinese providers are typically at or above the prices set by American/western providers if you go looking on the Chinese internet. You aren't going to get deals from China for inference except through this one instance with Deepseek v4 Pro which wasn't even supposed to be permanent pricing.

reply
By "cost" I think the parent means the provider's own costs, not the cost of inference to the customer. The cost of land, labor, and electricity are significantly lower in China than in the US.
reply
There are plenty of US-based inference providers available, including AWS, that serve Chinese models at competitive prices (vs frontier US models). They also have lots of usage. Not necessarily for coding, but for other enterprise tasks.
reply
Have you heard of openrouter? There's 1000 of these companies already. Do something else.
reply
It's called AWS. Bedrock is right there. Price or data policy is never the issue. The models themselves are the problem -- most large US companies are not going to touch them.

Source: directly involved in these discussions. You can downvote as much as you'd like but you can't ignore the facts.

reply
> The models themselves are the problem -- most large US companies are not going to touch them.

Can you expand on this?

reply
Some suits with no understanding of how LLMs work are scared that the models might hack them, or believe that they'd have to send data to China because they do not know that open models can be run on your own infra.
reply
You can run DeepSeek as it's open weights, unlike Claude or GPT.
reply
Do you trust OpenAI with your code, data, PII? What makes you so sure it's not all part of the next training set anyway?
reply
There are some objections here saying that some US firms are using Chinese AI providers, but I wonder if any of those are subject to compliance. Large firms that are disproportionately responsible for AI spending are all subject to compliance.
reply
Deepseek has some models in Bedrock. There is definitely a huge market for a "good enough" model running within the country of the company
reply
> Deepseek has some models in Bedrock.

Just looked into it, seems like at most they have just 3.2, not 4: https://aws.amazon.com/bedrock/pricing/

Looking around their catalogue more, most of their models seem quite outdated, aside from the OpenAI and Anthropic ones (but those get more expensive). I wouldn't willingly pick Bedrock and would instead throw money at OpenRouter, that has both a bunch of providers, as well as almost any model for you to try.

reply
Azure AI Foundry has Deepseek 4
reply
deleted
reply
[dead]
reply