The Chinese company just unveiled the release of its AI “reasoning” model, R1. DeepSeek is a clever name for the company. The title embodies the promises of AI to employ “deep learning” to analyze sizable amounts of data to solve a wide range of issues.
The release of the AI was referred to as” ” by some observers as a symbol of the monumental impact of the project, which was triggered by the Soviet Union’s first artificial Earth satellite launched in 1957.
Some people have quickly established the announcement’s value. However, it’s important to thoroughly evaluate the claims made about the alleged discovery, including the vocabulary used to shape related news stories.
In my own research, I’ve found that media coverage of new and emerging technology – such as,, nanoparticles, and , – is rich with idioms and comparisons drawn from popular traditions, which has been evident in news reporting DeepSeek’s AI.
Journalists and scientists use metaphors and analogies to help people understand the purpose of technology and its applications. They help to make complex issues easier for laypeople to understand.
However, their use may mislead the public because it obscures the complexity and raises people’s expectations and fears to a level unsupported by the evidence.
Media framing context
The media coverage of DeepSeek’s AI needs to be understood in historical and socio-political context. This context shapes how stories are framed, or the “schemata of interpretation”, or models of what should demand our attention.
In analysing media frames, what is left out of the picture is as important, if not more important, than what is portrayed. When events are still uncertain and tumultuous in their early stages, the early framing of events can have a significant impact on subsequent public attitudes and policies.
When Dolly the sheep’s cloning was announced in 1997 amid growing concerns that the technology might be used to clone humans despite there being no proof that this might take place, legislation to outlaw human cloning was passed.
Other examples that illustrate the significance of the early media framing of tech announcements for subsequent responses can be cited, including news media coverage of , and , in the early 2000s.
]embedded content]
The’ breakthrough’ question
In early media coverage of DeepSeek’s AI, much discussion has centered on whether the technology represents a genuine “breakthrough,” as determined by technical criteria like the model’s efficacy and the number of chips used to “power” the technology.
For example, it’s been reported that DeepSeek’s AI model “”, using 2000 Nvidia chips, which is far fewer than the 16, 000 used by leading US counterparts.
If this claim can be verified and doubts have been raised regarding both this and the actual investment costs, it would appear to be a change in the US big tech companies ‘ established business model.
Early coverage of the claimed breakthrough is supported by the idea that there is a common definition of AI, which is not the case.
Clearly, there’s much at stake in the quest to frame the newly-announced model of AI as either a “breakthrough” or not, particularly in regard to AI becoming increasingly “human-like”, sentient, or “intelligent”, as seen in the field of “”.
A technology that doesn’t demonstrate significant progress in terms of “intelligence” ( however this is measured ) and efficiency will fail to find a market and, as a result, won’t deliver the promised benefits. This is of crucial importance.
Interestingly, DeepSeek’s AI announcement was made soon after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of$ 500 billion US investment in AI infrastructure.
Coincidence, or strategic?
Is this just coincidence, or could it be that DeepSeek, a company that is ultimately accountable to the Chinese Communist Party ( and is reported to ), timed the news release to emphasise the country’s technological ( and by implication, military ) superiority over the US?
According to Time notes,” China issued regulations in 2023 that required businesses to conduct a security review and obtain approvals before their products can be publicly launched.”
Indicative of concerns regarding the app’s data collection, Australian public servants have now been ordered to delete DeepSeek from all government-issued devices.
DeepSeek’s announcement of the release of its AI as an “”  , – meaning that , – has also attracted much media attention.
As part of the alleged innovation, which is implicitly a threat to the US’ lead and monopolization of AI research and intellectual property, access to the “black box” or inner workings of AI ( also known as “open-source” ) is portrayed as a part of the alleged innovation.
As the history of AI makes clear, there’s been growing rivalry between the US and China in their efforts to gain the edge in the” “, on the one hand, and between big tech companies that aim to create and dominate a market in “human-level AI” ( in a “winner-takes-all” scenario ), on the other.
Until the announcement of DeepSeek’s most recent R1 model, North American big tech companies had been assumed to “lead the race”.
But the company ‘s , new models (‘ v3’ in December 2024 and ‘ R1’ in January 2025, respectively ) brought that into question, with reports that” they wiped around a trillion dollars off the market capitalisation of America’s listed tech firms”  , and that Nvidia, a chipmaker had seen its value fall by$ 600bn.
In recent years, the US has attempted to stop China from acquiring the capacity to produce chips, both by “banning exports of the necessary equipment” and by” threatening penalties for non-American firms that might help, too.”
AI’s uncertain path
Regardless of the veracity of the various claims about DeepSeek’s model, the future path of AI development will remain uncertain. Many of the initial promises are unfulfilled, and innovations will emerge in unanticipated ways.
The , is a well-known phenomenon in the field of technological development, with initial hopes and expectations for innovations plateauing then declining, followed by a” trough of disillusionment” as technologies fail to evolve or become “normalised” as they begin to find application ( assuming they prove their benefits ), or are repurposed, perhaps with more modest applications than originally envisaged.
There is already proof that the boom in AI investment may be coming to an end. Some observers have begun to question the advantages of significant AI investment in data centers, chips, and other infrastructure, with at least one author claiming that” “
Hype can only be sustained under certain conditions, and , in response to changing socio-political contexts.
Along with the, the prohibitive costs associated with storing and analysing data, and the growing public concerns about the impact of AI on daily life, including breaches of privacy, identity theft, the creation of deepfakes, and other things, may quickly undermine what has been portrayed as inexorable progress toward an imagined future.
In summary, one should be wary of the hype surrounding “breakthroughs” in AI research from companies like DeepSeek, and to consult with technology’s history before making gloomy or optimistic predictions about a world that is inherently uncertain.