Live data from Hacker News

Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

simonwillison.net

181–190 of 765 posts

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#181
post #152
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…

What does distil qwen 32b mean? It uses qwen for what?

deepseek fine-tuned qwen32b with data generated by deepseek671b

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#182
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh it performed a 1:1 conversion of ARM NEON to wasm SIMD, which with the greatest will in the world is pretty trivial work. Its something that ML is good at, because its the same problem area as "translate this from english to french", but more mechanistic This is a task that would likely have taken as long to write by hand as the AI took to do it, given how long the actual task took to execute. 98% of the work is f…

Every time AI achieves something new/productive/interesting, cue the apologists who chime in to say “well yeah but that really just decomposes into this stuff so it doesn’t mean much”. I don’t get why people don’t understand that everything decomposes into other things. You can draw the line for when AI will truly blow your mind anywhere you want, the point is the dominoes keep falling relentlessly and there’s no end…

The argument has never changed the argument has always been the same.

LLMs do not think, they do not perform logic they are approximating thought. The reason why CoT works is because of the main feature of LLMs, they are extremely good at picking reasonable next tokens based on the context.

LLM are good and always have been good at three types of tasks:

- Closed form problems where the answer is in the prompt (CoT, Prompt Engineering, RAG)

- Recall from the training set as the Parameter space increases (15B -> 70B -> almost 1T now)

- Generalization and Zero shot tasks as a result of the first two (this is also what causes hallucinations which is a feature not a bug, we want the LLM to imitate thought not be a Q&A expert system from 1990)

If you keep being fooled by LLM thinking they are AGI after every impressive benchmark and everyone keeps telling you that in practice LLM are not good at tasks that are poorly defined, require niche knowledge, or require a special mental model that is on you.

I use LLM every day I speed up many tasks that would take 5-15 mins down to 10-120 seconds (worst case for re-prompts). Many times my tasks take longer than if I had done it myself because it’s not my work im just copying it. But overall I am more productive because of LLM.

Does LLM speeding up your work mean that LLM can replace Humans?

Personally I still don’t think LLM can replace Humans at the same level of quality because they are imitating thought not actually thinking. Now the question among the corporate overlords is will you reduce operating costs by XX% per year (wages) but reducing the quality of service for customers. The last 50 years have shown us the answer…

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#183

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?

there are smaller distillations all the way down to 1.5b parameters. I'm running 7b on my laptop.

https://ollama.com/library/deepseek-r1

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#184
post #109
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.…

"I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding" I more often heard the argument, they are not useful for them. I agree. If a LLM would be trained on my codebase and the exact libaries and APIs I use - I would use them daily I guess. But currently they still make too many misstake and mess up different APIs for example, so not useful to me, except for small experiments. But if I…

The idea is that you give the libraries and APIs as context with your prompt.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#185
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time AI achieves something new/productive/interesting, cue the apologists who chime in to say “well yeah but that really just decomposes into this stuff so it doesn’t mean much”. I don’t get why people don’t understand that everything decomposes into other things. You can draw the line for when AI will truly blow your mind anywhere you want, the point is the dominoes keep falling relentlessly and there’s no end…

The thing is, that's not true at all. AI is great for some tasks, and poor for other tasks. That's the reason to break it down like this, because people are trying to explain where AI will and won't revolutionise things, instead of following along with the already-popping AI bubble uncritically For example: AI's smash translation. They won't ever beat out humans, but as an automated solution? They rock. Natural langu…

You need to substitute "AI" with "LLMs" or "current transformer architecture" or something. AI means something completely new every few years so speaking of what AI can't do or can never do doesn't make any sense.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#186
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.…

> it isn't entirely bluster "Development" is effectively translating abstractions of an intended operation to machine language. What I find kind of funny about the current state is we're using large language models to, like, spit out React or Python code. This use case is obviously an optimization to WASM, so a little closer to the metal, but at what point to programs (effectively suites of operations) just cut out t…

I've wondered about this too. The LLM could just write machine code. But now a human can't easily review it. But perhaps TDD makes that ok. But now the tests need to be written in a human readable language so they can be checked. Or do they? And if the LLM is always right why does the code need to be tested?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#187
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is great. Really! Buuut... How do you get these tools to not fall over completely when relying on an existing non-public codebase that isn't visible in just the current file? Or, how do you get them to use a recent API that doesn't dominate their training data? Combining the both, I just cannot for the life of me get them to be useful beyond the most basic boilerplate. Arguably, SIMD intrinsics are a one-to-one…

"Or, how do you get them to use a recent API that doesn't dominate their training data?" Paste in the documentation or some examples. I do this all the time - "teaching" an LLM about an API it doesn't know yet is trivially easy if you take advantage of the longer context inputs to models these days.

I've tried this. I've scraped example pages directly from github, and given them a 200 line file with the instructions "just insert this type of thing", and it will invariably use bad APIs.

I'd be happy to share the example with you.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#188
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

It's interesting. Maybe I'm in the bigtech bubble, but to me it looks like there isn't enough work for everyone already. Good projects are few and far between. Most of our effort is keeping the lights on for the stuff built over the last 15-20 years. We're really out of big product ideas.

This is very similar to my experience as a software development agency to enterprise customers. Out of big product ideas.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#190

That PR is a maintainer's nightmare. "Here's a massive bunch of AI generated code. LGTM. Let me know if there are any problems"

The code had tests, which is the real-world check against bad code, both AI and human written.

Except for the pesky turtles nature of that logic..
Post reply on HN