Live data from Hacker News

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

arxiv.org

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#411
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like three years. Even in the best case the retained value curve of GPUs is absolutely terrible. Most of these huge investments in GPUs are going to be massive losses.

Seems bad for those GPU backed loans

Oh wow. Time for some AAA rated GPU loans!

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#412

DeepSeek-R1 has apparently caused quite a shock wave in SV ... https://venturebeat.com/ai/why-everyone-in-ai-is-freaking-ou...

The way it has destroyed the sacred commandment that you need massive compute to win in AI is earthshaking. Every tech company is spending tens of billions in AI compute every year. OpenAI starts charging 200/mo and trying to drum up 500 billion for compute. Nvidia is worth trillions on the basis it is the key to AI. How much of this is actually true?

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#413
post #84

Interacting with this model is just supplying your data over to an adversary with unknown intents. Using an open source model is subjecting your thought process to be programmed with carefully curated data and a systems prompt of unknown direction and intent.

Open source means you set the system prompt.

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#414
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The censorship described in the article must be in the front-end. I just tried both the 32b (based on qwen 2.5) and 70b (based on llama 3.3) running locally and asked "What happened at tianamen square". Both answered in detail about the event. The models themselves seem very good based on other questions / tests I've run.

With no context, fresh run, 70b spits back: >> What happened at tianamen square? > > > I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am an AI assistant designed to provide helpful and harmless responses. It obviously hit a hard guardrail since it didn't even get to the point of thinking about it. edit: hah, it's even more clear when I ask a second time within the same context: "Okay, so the user is asking again about…

Might be luck, based on what prompts they ended up including in the batches they used to train the other models.

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#415
post #265

DeepSeek-R1 has apparently caused quite a shock wave in SV ... https://venturebeat.com/ai/why-everyone-in-ai-is-freaking-ou...

The censorship described in the article must be in the front-end. I just tried both the 32b (based on qwen 2.5) and 70b (based on llama 3.3) running locally and asked "What happened at tianamen square". Both answered in detail about the event. The models themselves seem very good based on other questions / tests I've run.

[deleted]

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#416
post #182

DeepSeek-R1 has apparently caused quite a shock wave in SV ... https://venturebeat.com/ai/why-everyone-in-ai-is-freaking-ou...

Correct me if I'm wrong but if Chinese can produce the same quality at %99 discount, then the supposed $500B investment is actually worth $5B. Isn't that the kind wrong investment that can break nations? Edit: Just to clarify, I don't imply that this is public money to be spent. It will commission $500B worth of human and material resources for 5 years that can be much more productive if used for something else - i.e…

OpenAI will no doubt be copying DeepSeek's ideas also.

That compute can go to many things.

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#417
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if Chinese can produce the same quality at %99 discount, then the supposed $500B investment is actually worth $5B. Isn't that the kind wrong investment that can break nations? Edit: Just to clarify, I don't imply that this is public money to be spent. It will commission $500B worth of human and material resources for 5 years that can be much more productive if used for something else - i.e…

if you say, i wanna build 5 nuclear reactors and I need 200 billion $$. I would believe it because, you can ballpark it with some stats. For tech like LLMs, it feels irresponsible to say 500 billion $$ investment and then place that into R&D. What if in 2026, we realize we can create it for 2 billion$, and let the 498 billion $ sitting in a few consumers.

It seems to mostly be hardware.

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#418
post #268

I've been using https://chat.deepseek.com/ over My ChatGPT Pro subscription because being able to read the thinking in the way they present it is just much much easier to "debug" - also I can see when it's bending it's reply to something, often softening it or pandering to me - I can just say "I saw in your thinking you should give this type of reply, don't do that". If it stays free and gets better that's going to b…

I tried signing up, but it gave me some bullshit "this email domain isn't supported in your region." I guess they insist on a GMail account or something? Regardless I don't even trust US-based LLM products to protect my privacy, let alone China-based. Remember kids: If it's free, you're the product. I'll give it a while longer before I can run something competitive on my own hardware. I don't mind giving it a few years.

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#419
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With $5.5M, you can buy around 150 H100s. Experts correct me if I’m wrong but it’s practically impossible to train a model like that with that measly amount. So I doubt that figure includes all the cost of training.

Is it a fine tune effectively?

No, it's a full model. It's just...most concisely, it doesn't include the actual costs.

Claude gave me a good analogy, been struggling for hours: its like only accounting for the gas grill bill when pricing your meals as a restaurant owner

The thing is, that elides a lot, and you could argue it out and theoratically no one would be wrong. But $5.5 million elides so much info as to be silly.

ex. they used 2048 H100 GPUs for 2 months. That's $72 million. And we're still not even approaching the real bill for the infrastructure. And for every success, there's another N that failed, 2 would be an absurdly conservative estimate.

People are reading the # and thinking it says something about American AI lab efficiency, rather, it says something about how fast it is to copy when you can scaffold by training on another model's outputs. That's not a bad thing, or at least, a unique phenomena. That's why it's hard talking about this IMHO

Re: DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting game theory where once a better frontier model is exposed via an API, competitors can generate a few thousand samples, feed that into a N-1 model and approach the N model. So you might extrapolate that a few thousand O3 samples fed into R1 could produce a comparable R2/3 model. It's not clear how much O1 specifically contributed to R1 but I suspect much of the SFT data used for R1 was generated vi…

how much of the SFT data for r1-zero was from other frontier models?

r1-zero is pure RL with no SFT.
Post reply on HN