DeepSeek R1, Grok3 and newer models by Anthropic and OpenAI – represent a fundamental shift in AI training methods. Instead of relying primarily on massive human-annotated datasets, it learns through interaction, self-generated data, and reward feedback. This new paradigm has far-reaching effects on how much data is collected for training and how it’s used. Below, we analyze how the role of data is changing and what data collection platforms must do to stay relevant in the age of reasoning models.
The New Reality of AI Training
Less Reliance on Mass Labeled Data:
DeepSeek R1’s RL-centric approach significantly reduces the need for enormous human-labeled datasets. Traditionally, AI models improved by consuming ever-bigger labeled corpora, but R1 shows that smarter learning methods can achieve comparable (or better) results with far less human input. In reinforcement learning, the model learns by trial-and-error and feedback, generating its own training signals. This diminishes demand for conventional large-scale annotation projects. For data collection firms whose business was built on labeling volume, this is a dramatic shift – the “race for more data” is giving way to a focus on efficient learning from interactions.
Models Generating Their Own Data:
In the new paradigm, AI systems can create and curate parts of their training data internally. DeepSeek R1, for example, uses a two-model process where one model’s RL-generated reasoning traces become training data for a second model. Compute power is used to generate and refine high-quality data, rather than simply ingesting more raw data. As a result, the role of external data suppliers is shrinking for initial training needs. Industry observers note that as models improve, they increasingly self-supply training examples (synthetic data), meaning “as language models get better, humans play a smaller role in the training process”. This challenges the core business model of data firms that once thrived on sourcing large human-labeled datasets.
Impact on Business Models:
The shift toward RL and self-play undermines the traditional labor-intensive data pipeline. Firms that mainly offer data labeling at scale now may face a decline in demand for such services. Simply put, if cutting-edge models like DeepSeek R1 can achieve top-tier performance without “vast datasets of labeled examples”, then AI developers will require fewer large annotation contracts. The old model of hiring crowds of annotators to label millions of samples is becoming less essential. In its place, quality and specialized data (often smaller in size) are becoming more important than sheer quantity. Data collection companies must recognize that value is moving up the chain – from raw data accumulation to higher-level tasks like ensuring data quality, providing expert knowledge, and supporting reinforcement feedback loops.
Why Quality Data Still Matters
Even DeepSeek's approach needs what they call "cold start" data – carefully curated examples that guide the model toward coherent, reliable outputs. This is where the real shift happens. We're moving from a world of "more data is better" to one where "better data is better."
Consider three key areas where high-quality data becomes crucial:
Reward Modeling
A reinforcement learning system needs to know when it's right. This requires expertly crafted reward models, trained on data that captures not just correct answers, but excellent reasoning. Poor reward signals lead to poor learning, no matter how sophisticated your RL setup is.
Let's look at three real challenges in reward modeling that show why expert data matters:
1. The Multi-Step Reasoning Problem
Imagine teaching a model to solve calculus problems. It's not enough to know if the final answer is correct. Each step matters: setting up the integral, choosing the right substitution, applying the chain rule correctly. A naive reward model might give full points for a correct answer even if the reasoning was flawed. Expert-annotated data helps catch these subtle mistakes. Here’s a simple example:
Wrong approach:
∫ x²e^x dx \= x²e^x \- ∫ 2xe^x dx \= x²e^x \- 2xe^x \+ 2e^x \+ C
Right approach:
∫ x²e^x dx \= x²e^x \- ∫ 2xe^x dx \= x²e^x \- (2xe^x \- ∫ 2e^x dx) \= x²e^x \- 2xe^x \+ 2e^x \+ C
Both get the same answer, but only the second shows proper understanding of integration by parts.
2. The Context-Dependent Validity Challenge
Some answers are only correct in specific contexts. Take medical diagnosis. A reward model needs to understand that the same symptoms might warrant different responses based on patient history, age, or other conditions. This requires expert-level data that captures these nuances.
For instance, a model suggesting "rest and monitor" might deserve:
* High reward for a young, healthy patient with mild symptoms
* Low reward for an elderly patient with the same symptoms but multiple risk factors
* Negative reward for missing critical warning signs that an expert would catch
3. The Explanation Quality Dilemma
Modern language models don't just answer questions – they explain their thinking. But how do you reward good explanations? Consider these responses to a programming question:
Response A: "Use a hash table. O(1) lookup time."
Response B: "A hash table would work well here because we need constant-time lookups. The space trade-off is acceptable since our dataset is small, and we don't need to preserve order. Here's how to implement it..."
Both are technically correct, but B shows deeper understanding and provides more value. Expert-annotated data helps reward models learn these distinctions.
Process Verification
It's not enough to know if the final answer is right. We need to verify each step of the model's reasoning. This demands expert-level annotation that can distinguish between good reasoning and plausible-sounding mistakes.
Benchmarking and Evaluation
As models generate more of their own training data, we need rock-solid benchmarks to ensure they're actually improving. These benchmarks must be curated by experts who understand the nuances of the domain.
The Path Forward for AI Labs and data platforms
The success of DeepSeek R1 doesn't mean we should abandon traditional training data. Instead, it shows us how to be smarter about it. Here's what leading AI labs and data platforms should consider:
1. Pivot to Quality and Specialization:
Rather than competing on volume, data collection platforms should pivot to curating high-quality, domain-specific datasets. In the DeepSeek R1 era, a handful of carefully chosen data points can be more impactful than thousands of generic ones. For example, DeepSeek R1 was “cold-started” with a small, high-quality dataset of human-written reasoning chains to guide its learning. This expert-curated data fixed issues that pure RL training left unresolved (like coherence and readability) and improved the model’s overall performance. Data firms should similarly focus on assembling expert-annotated data in niche domains or complex tasks, where quality matters most. By offering curated collections of long-tail or high-signal data (e.g. medical case annotations, legal reasoning steps, or validated engineering diagrams), they provide value that an RL-driven model wouldn’t get from its own self-generated experience. Such specialization aligns with industry trends: the drive for more specialized data is growing, with labs seeking niche datasets that their models cannot simply scrape or simulate
2. Invest in Expert Validation
As models generate more of their own training data and reasoning, there is a critical need for process verification and output validation. Data firms can step in as the quality assurance layer for AI training. This means verifying the accuracy and safety of model outputs, filtering out faulty self-generated data, and ensuring the integrity of the RL process. DeepSeek R1’s training relied on rule-based checks – for instance, automatically verifying code answers or math solutions for correctness. Building on this idea, data companies can provide human oversight to verify things machines can’t easily check. For example, humans can review a sample of the model’s reasoning traces to ensure they truly make sense, or validate that an RL-trained chatbot’s responses are factually correct and not just fluent nonsense. Firms might create specialized validation teams to audit model outputs for biases, errors, or policy compliance, giving AI labs an external check on their largely self-supervised training data. Additionally, offering evaluation-as-a-service – where the firm supplies test datasets and human judges to evaluate a model’s performance on difficult tasks – can be a natural extension of their role. Such validation services address a key need: making sure that as models learn with less direct supervision, they maintain reliability and accuracy through independent assessment.
3. Build Better Reward Models
The success of reinforcement learning depends entirely on having accurate reward signals. This requires carefully constructed datasets that capture expert judgment about both outcomes and reasoning processes. Data firms should continue to invest into managing and supplying the human-in-the-loop feedback that trains these models’ reward systems. This can include developing reward models (using human-labeled examples of good vs. bad outcomes) and providing teams of annotators to rank AI outputs. Industry analysis shows that data budgets are shifting heavily toward preference data for RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback). In fact, with advanced models, the need for classic instruction-tuning data is shrinking, and human preference/reward data now commands 100% of some training budgets. Data firms should seize this opportunity by offering expertise in reward model development and tuning
The Hidden Costs of Poor Data
While DeepSeek R1 shows we can build powerful models with less data, it also reveals the risks of cutting corners. Poor quality training data leads to:
* Unstable learning processes
* Hidden biases in model behavior
* Unreliable performance on complex tasks
* Safety and alignment issues
These problems compound over time, becoming more expensive to fix the later they're discovered.
Looking Ahead
The AI field is evolving rapidly, and DeepSeek R1 shows us something crucial: models are getting better at learning from themselves. But this self-improvement only works when it's built on a foundation of expert knowledge. This is where PhD-level data becomes essential.
Why PhD-level expertise matters:
* These experts understand the deep structure of problems, not just surface patterns
* They can identify subtle flaws in reasoning that could compound during self-training
* They bring domain expertise that helps models learn genuine understanding, not just pattern matching
* They can craft reward signals that guide models toward true mastery, not just computational shortcuts
Think about physics. A model might learn to solve equations through reinforcement learning, but without PhD-level guidance, it might miss the underlying principles that make physics work. The same applies across domains – from mathematics to medicine, from computer science to linguistics.
For AI labs pushing the boundaries, this means rethinking data strategy. The focus should shift from "how much data can we get?" to "how do we get the deepest expertise into our training pipeline?" This might mean:
* Building specialized teams of PhD annotators for different domains
* Creating rigorous validation protocols that leverage deep academic expertise
* Developing reward models that capture not just correctness, but depth of understanding
* Using expert insight to identify and correct subtle biases before they become systemic issues
* Forming strategic partnerships or long-term contracts with specialized providers, embedding their experts on projects or co-developing data solutions. In some scenarios, an AI Lab might even acquire a data firm to secure exclusive access to its talent and services (much like how certain tech firms have acquired design or cybersecurity companies to bolster those capabilities internally)
The next breakthrough in AI won't come from bigger datasets. It will come from better ones. The labs that understand this – that invest in PhD-level data now – will build the next generation of truly intelligent systems. The others will find themselves training increasingly sophisticated models on increasingly inadequate foundations.
The future of AI belongs to those who recognize that at the bleeding edge of technology, there's no substitute for deep expertise. In a world where models can generate their own training data, the human experts who guide and validate that process become more valuable, not less.
Make this your advantage. The next reasoning model is waiting to be built on a foundation of true expertise.
Comentarios