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

DeepSeek v4

api-docs.deepseek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4

#201

Post by schneehertz »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #160

> pricing "Pro" $3.48 / 1M output tokens vs $4.40 I’d like somebody to explain to me how the endless comments of "bleeding edge labs are subsidizing the inference at an insane rate" make sense in light of a humongous model like v4 pro being $4 per 1M. I’d bet even the subscriptions are profitable, much less the API prices. edit: $1.74/M input $3.48/M output on OpenRouter

This price is high even because of the current shortage of inference cards available to DeepSeek; they claimed in their press release that once the Ascend 950 computing cards are launched in the second half of the year, the price of the Pro version will drop significantly

Re: DeepSeek v4

#202

Post by masafej536 »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #160

> pricing "Pro" $3.48 / 1M output tokens vs $4.40 I’d like somebody to explain to me how the endless comments of "bleeding edge labs are subsidizing the inference at an insane rate" make sense in light of a humongous model like v4 pro being $4 per 1M. I’d bet even the subscriptions are profitable, much less the API prices. edit: $1.74/M input $3.48/M output on OpenRouter

Point taken but there isnt any western providers there yet. Power is cheaper in china.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#203

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #176
greenknight wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, it doesnt need to beat 4.7. it just needs to do somewhat well against it. This is free... as in you can download it, run it on your systems and finetune it to be the way you want it to be.

> you can download it, run it on your systems In theory, sure, but as other have pointed out you need to spend half a million on GPUs just to get enough VRAM to fit a single instance of the model. And you’d better make sure your use case makes full 24/7 use of all that rapidly-depreciating hardware you just spent all your money on, otherwise your actual cost per token will be much higher than you think. In practice y…

Sure, but that’s an incredibly short term viewpoint.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#204

Post by m00x »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #160

> pricing "Pro" $3.48 / 1M output tokens vs $4.40 I’d like somebody to explain to me how the endless comments of "bleeding edge labs are subsidizing the inference at an insane rate" make sense in light of a humongous model like v4 pro being $4 per 1M. I’d bet even the subscriptions are profitable, much less the API prices. edit: $1.74/M input $3.48/M output on OpenRouter

They are profitable to opex costs, but not capex costs with the current depreciation schedules, though those are now edging higher than expected.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#205

Post by renticulous »

gbnwl wrote: post #102
wordpad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The players barely ever change. People don't have problems following sports, you shouldn't struggle so much with this once you accept top spot changes.

I didn't express this well but my interest isn't "who is in the top spot", and is more _why and _how various labs get the results they do. This is also magnified by the fact that I'm not only interested in hosted providers of inference but local models as well. What's your take on the best model to run for coding on 24GB of VRAM locally after the last few weeks of releases? Which harness do you prefer? What quants do…

Follow the AI newsletters. They bundle the news along with their Op-Ed and summarize it better.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#206

Post by darkwater »

sandGorgon wrote: post #178
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need to compare models to Opus anymore. Opus users don't care about other models, as they're convinced Opus will be better forever. And non-Opus users don't want the expense, lock-in or limits. As a non-Opus user, I'll continue to use the cheapest fastest models that get my job done, which (for me anyway) is still MiniMax M2.5. I occasionally try a newer, more expensive model, and I get the same resu…

actually this is not the reason - the harness is significantly better. There is no comparable harness to Claude Code with skills, etc. Opencode was getting there, but it seems the founders lost interest. Pi could be it, but its very focused on OpenClaw. Even Codex cli doesnt have all of it. which harness works well with Deepseek v4 ?

What's the issue with OC? I tried it a bit over 2 months ago, when I was still on Claude API, and it actually liked more that CC (i.e. the right sidebar with the plan and a tendency at asking less "security" questions that CC). Why is it so bad nowadays?

Re: DeepSeek v4

#207

Post by oceanplexian »

post-it wrote: post #116
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need to compare models to Opus anymore. Opus users don't care about other models, as they're convinced Opus will be better forever. And non-Opus users don't want the expense, lock-in or limits. As a non-Opus user, I'll continue to use the cheapest fastest models that get my job done, which (for me anyway) is still MiniMax M2.5. I occasionally try a newer, more expensive model, and I get the same resu…

What do you run these on? I've gotten comfortable with Claude but if folks are getting Opus performance for cheaper I'll switch.

You can just use Claude Code with a few env vars, most of these providers offer an Anthropic compatible API

Re: DeepSeek v4

#208

Post by elefanten »

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #188
sidcool wrote: post #45

Truly open source coming from China. This is heartwarming. I know if the potential ulterior motives.

American companies want a scan of your asshole for the privilege of paying to access their models, and unapologetically admit to storing, analyzing, training on, and freely giving your data to any authorities if requested. Chinese ulteriority is hypothetical, American is blatant.

It’s not remotely hypothetical you’d have to be living under a rock to believe that. And the fusion with a one-party state government that doesn’t tolerate huge swathes of thoughtspace being freely discussed is completely streamlined, not mediated by any guardrails or accountability.

This “no harm to me” meme about a foreign totalitarian government (with plenty of incentive to run influence ops on foreigners) hoovering your data is just so mind-bogglingly naive.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#209

Post by NitpickLawyer »

masafej536 wrote: post #202
revolvingthrow wrote: post #160

> pricing "Pro" $3.48 / 1M output tokens vs $4.40 I’d like somebody to explain to me how the endless comments of "bleeding edge labs are subsidizing the inference at an insane rate" make sense in light of a humongous model like v4 pro being $4 per 1M. I’d bet even the subscriptions are profitable, much less the API prices. edit: $1.74/M input $3.48/M output on OpenRouter

Point taken but there isnt any western providers there yet. Power is cheaper in china.

As this is a new arch with tons of optimisations, it'll take some time for inference engines to support it properly, and we'll see more 3rd party providers offer it. Once that settles we'll have a median price for an optimised 1.6T model, and can "guesstimate" from there what the big labs can reasonably serve for the same price. But yeah, it's been said for a while that big labs are ok on API costs. The only unknown is if subscriptions were profitable or not. They've all been reducing the limits lately it seems.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#210

Post by injidup »

0-_-0 wrote: post #194
necovek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the training data and training scripts since you are calling this open source ? Edit: it seems "open source" was edited out of the parent comment.

Weights are the source, training data is the compiler.

You got it the wrong way round. It's more akin to.

1. Training data is the source. 2. Training is compilation/compression. 3. Weights are the compiled source akin to optimized assembly.

However it's an imperfect analogy on so many levels. Nitpick away.

Post reply on HN