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

331–340 of 765 posts

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#331

Post by numba888 »

smokel wrote: post #203
LeFantome wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ It's a difficult problem to solve, requiring new sets of books, courses etc.” Instead of this, have you considered asking Deep Seek to explain it to you?

Before this comment is being downvoted, please note the irony. The AI models may solve some technical problems, but the actual problems to be solved are of a societal nature, and won't be solved in our lifetimes.

and in the next lifetimes too. humans are good at making problems. only lobotomy and AGI Gods can sort of 'solve' them.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#332

Post by jmward01 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #327
nprateem wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. I think you mean: 1. Simple reasoning 2. ??? 3. AGI

Exactly. I read that parent comment thinking it was totally sarcastic at first, and then realized it was serious. I wish everyone would stop using the term "AGI" altogether, because it's not just ambiguous, but it's deliberately ambiguous by AI hypesters. That is, in public discourse/media/what average person thinks, AGI is presented to mean "as smart as a human" with all the capabilities that entails. But then it is…

AGI is defined by the loss function. We are on the verge of a loss function that enables self determined rewards and learning and that to me is AGI. That is step 3.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#333

Post by WhitneyLand »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #229
WhitneyLand wrote: post #102

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…

> cue the apologists How are you defining apologists here? Anti-AI apologists? Human apologists? That's not a word you can just sprinkle on opposing views to make them sound bad.

Yeah, human apologists basically.

Thanks to Simon for pointing out my point is encapsulated by the AI effect, which also offers an explanation:

"people subconsciously are trying to preserve for themselves some special role in the universe…By discounting artificial intelligence people can continue to feel unique and special.”

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#334

Post by whitehexagon »

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…

Agreed, I switched from qwq now to the same model. I'm running it under ollama on a M1 Asahi Linux and it seems maybe twice the speed (not very scientific but not sure how to time the token generation), and more, dare I say smarter? than qwq, and maybe a tad less RAM. It still over ponders, but not as bad as some of the pages and pages of, 'that looks wrong, maybe I should try...' circles with qwq, but which was already so impressive.

I'm quite new to this, how are you feeding in so much text? just copy/paste? I'd love to be able to run some of my Zig code through it, but I haven't managed to get Zig running under Asahi so far.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#335

Post by 20k »

simonw wrote: post #205
WhitneyLand wrote: post #102

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…

This is called the AI effect - where the goalposts are moved every time an AI system demonstrates a new ability. It's been going on for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

Aka people have been consistently calling out the AI hype as being excessive for decades, despite a weird push by the marketing segments of the programming community to declare everything as being AGI. The current technology is better and has more applications, yes. For certain fields its very exciting. For others its not

The idea that deep blue is in any way a general artificial intelligence is absurd. If you'd believed AI researchers hype 20 years ago, we'd have everything fully automated by now and the first AGI was just around the corner. Despite the current hype, chatgpt and co is barely functional at most coding tasks, and is excessively poor at even pretty basic reasoning tasks

I would love for AI to be good. But every time I've given it a fair shake to see if it'll improve my productivity, its shown pretty profoundly that its useless for anything I want to use it for

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#336

Post by btilly »

the_af wrote: post #314
bubbleRefuge wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think the marginal cost of developing complex software goes down thereby making it affordable to a greater market. There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. Maybe software engineering for the masses. Local small businesses can now maybe afford to take on custom software projects that were before unthinka…

> There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. But will there be a need for fewer engineers, though? That's the question. And the competition for those who remain employed would be fierce, way worse than today. Or so I fear. I hope I'm wrong.

Jevon's Paradox says that you're probably wrong. But I'm worried about the same thing. The moat around human superiority is shrinking fast. And when it's gone, we may get more software, but will we need humans involved?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#337

Post by hammock »

anotherpaulg wrote: post #61

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 It's definitely possible for AI to do a large fraction of your coding, and for it to contribute significantly to "improving itself". As an example, aider currently writes about 70% of the new code in each of its releases. I automatically track and share this stat as graph [0] with aider's release notes. Before Sonnet, most releases were less than…

That's amazing data. How representative do you think your Aider data is of all coding done?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#339

Post by stnmtn »

unshavedyak wrote: post #324
WXLCKNO wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, something like Cursor doesn't fit your needs right?

I've not tried tbh. Most of the workflows i've seen (i know i looked at Cursor, but it's been a while) appear to be to write lengthy descriptions of what you want it to do. As well as struggling with the amount of context you need to give it because context windows are way too small. I feel like i want a more intuitive, natural process. Purely for illustration -- because i have no idea what the ideal workflow is -- I…

I'd recommend trying out Cursor, I personally find it does more or less what you want out of the box.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#340

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

jmward01 wrote: post #332
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I read that parent comment thinking it was totally sarcastic at first, and then realized it was serious. I wish everyone would stop using the term "AGI" altogether, because it's not just ambiguous, but it's deliberately ambiguous by AI hypesters. That is, in public discourse/media/what average person thinks, AGI is presented to mean "as smart as a human" with all the capabilities that entails. But then it is…

AGI is defined by the loss function. We are on the verge of a loss function that enables self determined rewards and learning and that to me is AGI. That is step 3.

You're just proving my point. "AGI is defined by the loss function" may be a definition used by some technologists (or maybe just you, I don't know), but to purport that that equals capability equivalence with humans in all tasks (again, which is how it is often presented to the wider public audience) shows the uselessness or deliberate obfuscation embedded in that term.
Post reply on HN