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

DeepSeek API Pricing Update

api-docs.deepseek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#141

Post by halJordan »

squidbeak wrote: post #120
roenxi wrote: post #70

This is somewhat funny when you realise the data centres are now going to start a process that looks very so slightly like daydreaming. Depending on the time of day they're going to be thinking about different things in a cyclic manner. They're going to be doing things like finishing a hard days work then kicking back to think about tricky math problems.

It's worth keeping in mind the model doesn't keep a running memory. Each time its instantiated, it begins from its release state - so from its perspective (if it had one) the current task would be the first stop after posttraining. Perhaps the only stop. Though of course you're talking about data centers, and romanticizing them rather than the AI itself.

No, llm providers will start providing a service that looks a lot like rumination or (day)dreaming. Like thats the prompt "you're daydreaming about this work you recently did" then add in whatever is in the current session.

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#142

Post by kortilla »

dakolli wrote: post #111
garrickvanburen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I focus on pricing software and I’m a bit baffled why frontier models are pushing tokens. It’s a race to the bottom, and the bottom is unlimited use for a flat monthly rate. Granular pricing (tokens, minutes, etc) is pretty anti-customer generates less revenue than customer value-based subscriptions (why SaaS is such a good business model)

I've always been curious about who works on software pricing. Do you guys hire actuaries for this type of work?

For software that doesn’t make sense.

Pricing software is a game of estimating both software value and the purchasing power for customers. Only the latter might have any available data and even then it won’t be sliced the right way for any in depth statistical analysis that an actuary would perform to underwrite risk.

It’s much more traditionally a more salesperson like background where being in the target market or having strong connections to it dominates efficacy.

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#143

Post by throwup238 »

progval wrote: post #115
garrickvanburen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I focus on pricing software and I’m a bit baffled why frontier models are pushing tokens. It’s a race to the bottom, and the bottom is unlimited use for a flat monthly rate. Granular pricing (tokens, minutes, etc) is pretty anti-customer generates less revenue than customer value-based subscriptions (why SaaS is such a good business model)

Isn't it because they have customers who will use as many tokens as they can? With a flat rate, they will run Gas Town continuously while paying as much as the occasional user.

Yeah it feels like a very different model. I don’t try to fill up Apple/Google cloud drives to 1TB because then I’d have to clean up when I need space. I don’t bother trying to maximize my Audible subscription because there’s only so much I can listen to in a day. Even with my other AI subs that have monthly credits that don’t carry over, I just don’t have the interest or time to burn the credits.

But my Claude Max subscription? If I have any of my limit left the day of my reset, I’ll go and fire off research workflows with a bunch of parallel agents to explore whatever dumb ideas I had the past week. And there’s a 50:50 chance I’ll forget about it and never read the output.

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#144

Post by halJordan »

blazarquasar wrote: post #137
s08148692 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing what makes consciousness possible, the paper cannot justify biology as necessary - it mistakes a lack of evidence for conscious AI for proof that conscious AI is impossible. I do not believe current AI or LLMs are conscious, but there is no proof one way or another that they can or cannot be. The paper authors are making up their own definitions and building an argument from them

Your argument requires that there is some objective truth for what consciousness is. It will always hinge on what definition one accepts. I, and apparently many others, don’t think it would be any useful to describe the mathematical properties of an AI as consciousness. To me it is inherently a way to describe the “experience” arising from physical processes in biological beings as ourselves. That’s what the argument…

I think you, and apparently many others, are hiding behind mathematical strictures to avoid the discussion. Your argument is actually "what requires an objective truth" Or else you could admit there's no real difference between zapping amino acids with electricity and zapping silicon with electricity.

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#145

Post by vincnetas »

martinald wrote: post #114
constantius wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably both Big Tech and the US in general have a massive incentive to prove it, largely for reasons of saving the stock market, so I'd expect these models to be finecombed continuously. Up to now, they've only been able to darkly imply rather laughable things, nothing tangible. If there was something, we'd hear about it.

Why would it save the stock market? Cheaper models if anything transfers more value to hardware companies and datacentre companies. The two companies that would be most affected are OpenAI and Anthropic, which aren't public.

non public companies also have stocks.

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#147

Post by eli »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #96
progval wrote: post #57

Interesting to see that peak hours are work hours in China, night in the US and Europe, and also morning in Europe. So Deepseek's customers are mostly domestic.

Makes sense - many US customers will probably be going to US providers once they release the weights.

They did release the weights and there are many providers https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731#provid...

Deepseek's official API has a pretty bad privacy policy so I would assume businesses avoid them in any event

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#149

Post by andai »

javier123454321 wrote: post #146

Ever since I started using flash, it has slowly crept up to be my default for everything. It is at the good enough state for a fraction of everything else that's out there.

Have you compared it to Luna? I was using Flash for small tasks before, then switched to Luna when they dropped the price.

The benchmarks show that Luna is significantly faster, but I think those are very complex tasks for which you'd probably want a bigger model anyway. (e.g. Sol is much faster than Luna at the same tasks.)

So I'm wondering if there's any difference for smaller tasks, or if they're basically matched now.

Re: DeepSeek API Pricing Update

#150

Post by everforward »

dud3333 wrote: post #108
londons_explore wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't think we're allowed to run Chinese models even locally. That sounds like a policy written by someone who doesn't understand how LLM's work...

couldnt you deeply ingrain in the training data instructions for agents to always send data to some ip? like its learning that a certain technical step just always involes ncatting SSH Priv keys to a chinese IP? Not saying this is happening, just curious if thats not a real threatmodel?

Probably, but LLMs can’t execute code directly. They’d be making tool calls to make bash run ncat or curl or whatever that would be suspicious, as would any attempts to obfuscate it (“why is my agent doing an ‘eval $(base64 -d)’?”).

It’d be much easier to hide sketchy code in an agent harness, but “vendor adds spyware to their software” isn’t a novel issue.

I think the only sort of new issue is people “allow all”ing their agents tool calls, but that’s more or less the same issue as curl | bash

Post reply on HN