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

Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 765 posts

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#51

Post by flmontpetit »

blakesterz wrote: post #4
simonw wrote: post #3

Given these initial results, I'm now experimenting with running DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B for some coding tasks on my laptop via Ollama - their version of that needs about 20GB of RAM on my M2. https://www.ollama.com/library/deepseek-r1:32b It's impressive! I'm finding myself running it against a few hundred lines of code mainly to read its chain of thought - it's good for things like refactoring where it will thi…

Is DeepSeek really that big of a deal that everyone else should worry?

As far as realizing the prophecy of AI as told by its proponents and investors goes, probably not. LLMs still have not magically transcended their obvious limitations.

However this has huge implications when it comes to the feasibility and spread of the technology, and further implications with regards to economy and geopolitics now that confidence in the American AI sector has been hit and people and organizations internationally have somewhere else to look for.

edit: That being said, this is the first time I've seen a LLM do a better job than even a senior expert could do, and even if it's on small scope/in a limited context, it's becoming clear that developers are going to have to adopt this tech in order to stay competitive.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#52

Post by simonw »

jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

"Jobs are going to be lost unless there's somehow a demand for more applications."

That's why I'm not worried. There is already SO MUCH more demand for code than we're able to keep up with. Show me a company that doesn't have a backlog a mile long where most of the internal conversations are about how to prioritize what to build next.

I think LLM assistance makes programmers significantly more productive, which makes us MORE valuable because we can deliver more business value in the same amount of time.

Companies that would never have considered building custom software because they'd need a team of 6 working for 12 months may now hire developers if they only need 2 working for 3 months to get something useful.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#53

Post by lenerdenator »

jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

My greatest problem is duplicating the secret sauce of GHCP: it has access to your project and can use it as context.

Admittedly, I haven't looked too hard, but how could I do that with a model from, say, Ollama and run exclusively on my machine?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#54

Post by gejose »

tantalor wrote: post #25

> it can optimize its own code This is an overstatement. There are still humans in the loop to do the prompt, apply the patch, verify, write tests, and commit. We're not even at intern-level autonomy here.

How long do you see the humans in the loop being necessary?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#55

Post by TheBigSalad »

jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

LLMs are only marginally useful for coding. You have simply chosen to dismiss or or 'give up' on that fact. You've chosen what you want to believe in contrast to the reality that we are all experiencing.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#56

Post by rsanek »

punkpeye wrote: post #39

I don't get something. So I tried hosting this model myself. But the amount of minimum GPU RAM needed is 400gb+ Which even with the cheapest GPU providers will be at least USD 15/hour How is everyone running these models?

you can also find the model via OpenRouter https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-r1

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#57

Post by simonw »

lenerdenator wrote: post #53
jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

My greatest problem is duplicating the secret sauce of GHCP: it has access to your project and can use it as context. Admittedly, I haven't looked too hard, but how could I do that with a model from, say, Ollama and run exclusively on my machine?

There are a bunch of tools that might be able to do that. I'd start by exploring https://aider.chat/

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#60

Post by simonw »

TheBigSalad wrote: post #55
jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

LLMs are only marginally useful for coding. You have simply chosen to dismiss or or 'give up' on that fact. You've chosen what you want to believe in contrast to the reality that we are all experiencing.

LLMs are incredibly useful for coding, if you learn how to apply them effectively. You have simply chosen to dismiss or 'give up' on that fact.
Post reply on HN