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

401–410 of 765 posts

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#401

Post by kragen »

simonw wrote: post #24
netdevphoenix wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did DeepSeek not kept this for themselves? Is this a Meta style scorched earth strategy?

There are a bunch of theories floating round. Personally this looks to me like an ego thing: the DeepSeek team are really, really good and their CEO is enjoying the enormous attention they are getting, plus the pride of proving that Chinese AI labs can take the lead in a field that everyone thought the USA was unassailable in. Maybe they are true believers in building and sharing "AGI" with the world? Lots of people…

> a Chinese government backed conspiracy to undermine the US AI industry

To me this sounds like describing Lockheed as a US government backed conspiracy to undermine the Tupolev Aerospace Design Bureau. It really stretches the normal connotations of words, and it presupposes that the center of the world is conveniently located very close to the speaker.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#402

Post by svilen_dobrev »

gmt2027 wrote: post #134
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.…

If AI increases the productivity of a single engineer between 10-100x over the next decade, there will be a seismic shift in the industry and the tech giants will not walk away unscathed. There are coordination costs to organising large amounts of labour. Costs that scale non-linearly as massive inefficiencies are introduced. This ability to scale, provide capital and defer profitability is a moat for big tech and th…

a (tile-placing) guy who was rebuilding my bathrooms, told this story:

when he was greener, he happened to work with some old fart... who managed to work 10x faster than others, with this trick: put all the tiles on the wall with a diluted cement-glue very quick, then moving one tile forces most other tiles around to move as well.. so he managed to order all the tiles in very short time.

As i never had the luxury of decent budget, since long time ago i was doing various meta-programming things, then meta-meta-programming.. up to extent of say, 2 people building and managing and enjoying a codebase of 100KLOC (python) + 100KLOC js... ~~30% generated static and unknown %% generated-at-runtime - without too much fuss or overwork.

But it seems that this road has been a dead end... for decades. Less and less people use meta-programming, it needs too deep understanding ; everyone just adds yet-another (2y "senior") junior/wanna-be to copy-paste yet another crud.

So maybe the number of wanna-bees will go down. Or "senior" would start meaning something.. again. Or idiotically-numbing-stoopid requirements will stop appearing..

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#403

Post by svara »

btilly wrote: post #336
the_af wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. And no matter how hyped one might be about AI, we're far away from creating an artificial human. As long as that's true, AI is a tool to make humans more effective.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#404

Post by 7thpower »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #373
7thpower wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use the distilled version on Groq for free for the time being. Groq is amazing but frequently has capacity issues or other random bugs. Perhaps you could set up Groq as your primary and then fail back to fireworks, etc by using litellm or another proxy.

Do you know any assistants for jetbrains that can plug into groq+deepseek?

I do not as I'm not in the ecosystem, but groq is openai compliant, so any tool that is openai compliant (99% are) and lets you put in your own baseurl should work.

For example, many tools will let you use local llms. Instead of putting in the url to the local llm, you would just plug in the groq url and key.

see: https://console.groq.com/docs/openai

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#405

Post by resource_waste »

catigula wrote: post #397

Dario Amodei says software engineering is fully automated by 2027. You might have the 0.01% engineer left over, but that's it, the job is finished. I think people need to start considering strongly what kind of career they can re-skill to. https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace

What happens when these people are wrong? They already got the clicks.

Can they be permanently embarrassed?

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#406

Post by kragen »

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.…

It's possible that the previous tools just weren't good enough yet. I play with GPT-4 programming a lot, and it usually takes more work than it would take to write the code myself. I keep playing with it because it's so amazing, but it isn't to the point where it's useful to me in practice for that purpose. (If I were an even worse coder than I am, it would be.) DeepSeek looks like it is.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#407

Post by catigula »

resource_waste wrote: post #405
catigula wrote: post #397

Dario Amodei says software engineering is fully automated by 2027. You might have the 0.01% engineer left over, but that's it, the job is finished. I think people need to start considering strongly what kind of career they can re-skill to. https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace

What happens when these people are wrong? They already got the clicks. Can they be permanently embarrassed?

Dario isn't some hack that makes fake predictions.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#408

Post by kragen »

jeswin wrote: post #86
simonw wrote: 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…

> 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 worry about junior developers. It will be a while before vocational programming courses retool to teach this new way of writing code, and these are going to be te…

I feel like getting an LLM to spot security holes might be easier than getting it to write secure code.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#409

Post by yunwal »

catigula wrote: post #407
resource_waste wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when these people are wrong? They already got the clicks. Can they be permanently embarrassed?

Dario isn't some hack that makes fake predictions.

No, but he does have quite the incentive to over-hype the capabilities of LLMs.
Post reply on HN