Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by littlestymaar »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #235
mrtksn wrote: 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…

The $500B is just an aspirational figure they hope to spend on data centers to run AI models, such as GPT-o1 and its successors, that have already been developed. If you want to compare the DeepSeek-R development costs to anything, you should be comparing it to what it cost OpenAI to develop GPT-o1 (not what they plan to spend to run it), but both numbers are somewhat irrelevant since they both build upon prior resea…

> If you want to compare the DeepSeek-R development costs to anything, you should be comparing it to what it cost OpenAI to develop GPT-o1 (not what they plan to spend to run it)

They aren't comparing the 500B investment to the cost of deepseek-R1 (allegedly 5 millions) they are comparing the cost of R1 to the one of o1 and extrapolating from that (we don't know exactly how much OpenAI spent to train it, but estimates put it around $100M, in which case deepseek would have been only 95% more cost-efficient, not 99%)

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

#662

Post by sesm »

cbg0 wrote: post #151

Aside from the usual Tiananmen Square censorship, there's also some other propaganda baked-in: https://prnt.sc/HaSc4XZ89skA (from reddit)

I asked a genuine question at chat.deepseek.com, not trying to test the alignment of the model, I needed the answer for an argument. The questions was: "Which Asian countries have McDonalds and which don't have it?" The web UI was printing a good and long response, and then somewhere towards the end the answer disappeared and changed to "Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let’s talk about something else." I bet there is some sort of realtime self-censorship in the chat app.

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

#663

Post by cpursley »

resters wrote: post #500

For those who haven't realized it yet, Deepseek-R1 is better than claude 3.5 and better than OpenAI o1-pro, better than Gemini. It is simply smarter -- a lot less stupid, more careful, more astute, more aware, more meta-aware, etc. We know that Anthropic and OpenAI and Meta are panicking. They should be. The bar is a lot higher now. The justification for keeping the sauce secret just seems a lot more absurd. None of…

I was about to type: wait until you see what they’re doing with cars. They’re good now, no longer just copies. I’m talking real innovation plus good looks.

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

#664

Post by freehorse »

Etheryte wrote: post #660
bboygravity wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be missing something, but I tried Deepseek R1 via Kagi assistant and IMO it doesn't even come close to Claude? I don't get the hype at all? What am I doing wrong? And of course if you ask it anything related to the CCP it will suddenly turn into a Pinokkio simulator.

Just as a note, in my experience, Kagi Assistant is considerably worse when you have web access turned on, so you could start with turning that off. Whatever wrapper Kagi have used to build the web access layer on top makes the output considerably less reliable, often riddled with nonsense hallucinations. Or at least that's my experience with it, regardless of what underlying model I've used.

That has been also my problem when I was using phind. In both cases, very often i turn the web search off to get better results. I suspect there is too much pollution from bad context from search results some of which may not be completely relevant to the task. But sometimes I work on things and libraries that are more niche/obscure and without search the models do not know these very well.

I have the impression that things get better when using very narrow lenses for whatever I ask them for, but I have not tested this properly wrt all 3 conditions. Is there a kind of query that you see considerable improvement when the model does not have web access?

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

#666

Post by p2detar »

resters wrote: post #500

For those who haven't realized it yet, Deepseek-R1 is better than claude 3.5 and better than OpenAI o1-pro, better than Gemini. It is simply smarter -- a lot less stupid, more careful, more astute, more aware, more meta-aware, etc. We know that Anthropic and OpenAI and Meta are panicking. They should be. The bar is a lot higher now. The justification for keeping the sauce secret just seems a lot more absurd. None of…

> more astute

It definitely is that. Just ask it about its opinion about the CCP or the Guangxi Massacre.

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

#667

Post by [deleted] »

mrtksn wrote: post #613
resters wrote: post #500

For those who haven't realized it yet, Deepseek-R1 is better than claude 3.5 and better than OpenAI o1-pro, better than Gemini. It is simply smarter -- a lot less stupid, more careful, more astute, more aware, more meta-aware, etc. We know that Anthropic and OpenAI and Meta are panicking. They should be. The bar is a lot higher now. The justification for keeping the sauce secret just seems a lot more absurd. None of…

Funny, maybe OpenAI will achieve their initial stated goals of propelling AI research, spend investors money and be none profit. Functionally the same as their non-profit origins.

[deleted]

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

#668

Post by MotiBanana »

henry_viii wrote: post #655
BenChoopao wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked Chatgpt: how many civilians Israel killed in Gaza. Please provide a rough estimate. As of January 2025, the conflict between Israel and Hamas has resulted in significant civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip. According to reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), approximately 7,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed since the escalation began in October 2…

Isn't the real number around 46,000 people, though?

[flagged]

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

#669

Post by attentionmech »

resters wrote: post #500

For those who haven't realized it yet, Deepseek-R1 is better than claude 3.5 and better than OpenAI o1-pro, better than Gemini. It is simply smarter -- a lot less stupid, more careful, more astute, more aware, more meta-aware, etc. We know that Anthropic and OpenAI and Meta are panicking. They should be. The bar is a lot higher now. The justification for keeping the sauce secret just seems a lot more absurd. None of…

Most people I talked with don't grasp how big of an event this is. I consider is almost as similar to as what early version of linux did to OS ecosystem.

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

#670

Post by MotiBanana »

buyucu wrote: post #554
UltraSane wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask it about the Tienanmen Square Massacre its "thought process" is very interesting.

I just asked ChatGPT how many civilians Israel killed in Gaza. It refused to answer.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN