Live data from Hacker News

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via RL

arxiv.org

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Everyone is trying to say its better than the biggest closed models. It feels like it has parity, but its not the clear winner. But, its free and open and the quant models are insane. My anecdotal test is running models on a 2012 mac book pro using CPU inference and a tiny amount of RAM. The 1.5B model is still snappy, and answered the strawberry question on the first try with some minor prompt engineering (telling i…

aren't the smaller param models all just Qwen/Llama trained on R1 600bn?

yes, this is all ollamas fault

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

#772

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…

Spending more time than I should in a sunday playing with r1/o1/sonnet code generation, my impression is:

1. Sonnet is still the best model for me. It does less mistakes than o1 and r1 and one can ask it to make a plan and think about the request before writing code. I am not sure if the whole "reasoning/thinking" process of o1/r1 is as much of an advantage as it is supposed to be. And even if sonnet does mistakes too, iterations with sonnet are faster than with o1/r1 at least.

2. r1 is good (better than previous deepseek models imo and especially better at following instructions which was my problem with deepseek models so far). The smaller models are very interesting. But the thought process often turns to overcomplicate things and it thinks more than imo it should. I am not sure that all the thinking always helps to build a better context for writing the code, which is what the thinking is actually for if we want to be honest.

3. My main problem with deepseek is that the thinking blocks are huge and it is running out of context (I think? Or just kagi's provider is unstable?) after a few iterations. Maybe if the thinking blocks from previous answers where not used for computing new answers it would help. Not sure what o1 does for this, i doubt the previous thinking carries on in the context.

4. o1 seems around the same level as r1 imo if r1 does nothing weird, but r1 does more weird things (though I use it through github copilot and it does not give me the thinking blocks). I am pretty sure one can find something that o1 performs better and one that r1 performs better. It does not mean anything to me.

Maybe other uses have different results than code generation. Maybe web/js code generation would also give different results than mine. But I do not see something to really impress me in what I actually need these tools for (more than the current SOTA baseline that is sonnet).

I would like to play more with the r1 distilations locally though, and in general I would probably try to handle the thinking blocks context differently. Or maybe use aider with the dual model approach where an r1/sonnet combo seems to give great results. I think there is potential, but not just as such.

In general I do not understand the whole "panicking" thing. I do not think anybody panics over r1, it is very good but nothing more exceptional than what we have not seen so far, except if they thought that only american companies could produce SOTA-level models which was wrong already (previous deepseek and qwen models were already at similar levels). If anything, openai's and anthropic's models are more polished. It sounds a bit sensational to me, but then again who knows, I do not trust the grounding to reality that AI companies have, so they may be panicking indeed.

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

#773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the price difference is so high and the performance so close, of course you have a major issue with competition. Let alone the fact this is fully open source. Most importantly, this is a signal: openAI and META are trying to build a moat using massive hardware investments. Deepseek took the opposite direction and not only does it show that hardware is no moat, it basically makes fool of their multibillion claims…

Why should the bubble pop when we just got the proof that these models can be much more efficient than we thought? I mean, sure, no one is going to have a monopoly, and we're going to see a race to the bottom in prices, but on the other hand, the AI revolution is going to come much sooner than expected, and it's going to be on everyone's pocket this year. Isn't that a bullish signal for the economy?

I think this is the correct take. There might be a small bubble burst initially after a bunch of US stocks retrace due to uncertainty. But in the long run this should speed up the proliferation of productivity gains unlocked by AI.

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

#774

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…

Given this comment, I tried it. It's no where close to Claude, and it's also not better than OpenAI. I'm so confused as to how people judge these things.

Where are you guys using the full model?

Doesn't it require 220GB ram? I only se V-3 on their website and the distills available to run locally.

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

#775
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> saying apple is dead because back in 1987 there was a cheaper and faster PC offshore What Apple did was build a luxury brand and I don't see that happening with LLMs. When it comes to luxury, you really can't compete with price.

Apple isn’t a luxury brand in the normal sense, it’s odd that people think this because they’re more expensive. They’re not the technical equivalent of Prada or Rolex etc. Apple’s ecosystem cohesion and still unmatched UX (still flawed) is a real value-add that normal luxury brands don’t have.

So maybe not luxury, but premium. Like MB or Audi in cars. Pricing still plays out differently.

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

#776
post #79

How can openai justify their $200/mo subscriptions if a model like this exists at an incredibly low price point? Operator? I've been impressed in my brief personal testing and the model ranks very highly across most benchmarks (when controlled for style it's tied number one on lmarena). It's also hilarious that openai explicitly prevented users from seeing the CoT tokens on the o1 model (which you still pay for btw)…

DeepSeek really is taking out OpenAI at the knees. It's shocking that the first direct peer competition to OpenAI is also doing it for an order of magnitude less as a side project.

I just tried DeepSeek for the first time and immediately canceled my OpenAI subscription.

Seeing the chain of thought is now just mandatory for me after one prompt. That is absolutely incredible in terms of my own understanding of the question I asked.

Even the chat UI feels better and less clunky. Now picture 20 years from now when the Chinese companies have access to digital Yuan transaction data along with all the Chinese video surveillance data. At some point, I don't see how US Companies can possibly compete in this space.

This is the first time I am actually worried we might really bankrupt the country trying to keep up with a race we can not possibly win.

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

#777
post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is probably because they did not try the model yet. I tried and was stunned. It's not better yet in all areas, but where is better, is so much better than Claude or anything from OpenAI.

Plus, the speed at which it replies is amazing too. Claude/Chatgpt now seem like inefficient inference engines compared to it.

I've been trying through openrouter today and it seems quite slow, but this may just be a scaling thing. I tried the chat when it first came out and that was extremely fast.

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

#778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given this comment, I tried it. It's no where close to Claude, and it's also not better than OpenAI. I'm so confused as to how people judge these things.

Where are you guys using the full model? Doesn't it require 220GB ram? I only se V-3 on their website and the distills available to run locally.

You have to pay if you want to use the full API but you can chat with it for free https://www.deepseek.com/

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

#780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given this comment, I tried it. It's no where close to Claude, and it's also not better than OpenAI. I'm so confused as to how people judge these things.

Where are you guys using the full model? Doesn't it require 220GB ram? I only se V-3 on their website and the distills available to run locally.

Just try it on their site or via the api
Post reply on HN