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

DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 460 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#221

Post by ungovernableCat »

cbg0 wrote: post #214
ungovernableCat wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its CEO allegedly holds a 84% stake and he's the same guy who founded the hedge fund that funds it. Deep pockets + simple control = perfect culture to just hire talent and let them go wild without worrying about financial viability, as long as the king CEO is fine with it that is

While typical investors in their last round are subject to a five-year lock-up and will not have voting rights, China's National Artificial Intelligence Industry Investment Fund also put money into it, retaining both voting rights and freedom from the lock-up. Nothing really new if you're aware of how involved the CCP is with companies of strategic importance in China. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china…

Oh of course, you’re not getting into positions of power by not playing by the party’s rules. And if you get notions that you can tell THEM what to do you’ll be swiftly dealt with.

The company is doing well and providing great PR so the party is content to not meddle too much I imagine.

My comparison with American labs is more that I think they have to deal with bean counters, creditors, investors etc which can shuffle incentives and aims (and is a big reason why they dont do open weights anymore)

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#222

Post by tern »

noosphr wrote: post #213
mrmincent wrote: post #197

I was talking with a friend from the medical industry about it today. 30-50% of r&d spend in his sector is spent on safety, and for good reason. Proper trials, safety reviews and checkpoints and so on. Given the potential harm that could come from AI, we should probably be mandating something similar. Why wait to focus on safety until it’s too late.

Because we've been told these models are too dangerous since GPT2. At this point it's just marketing stunts.

And, they have been. Nefarious activity is hidden from view as a rule.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#223

Post by hgoel »

mrmincent wrote: post #197

I was talking with a friend from the medical industry about it today. 30-50% of r&d spend in his sector is spent on safety, and for good reason. Proper trials, safety reviews and checkpoints and so on. Given the potential harm that could come from AI, we should probably be mandating something similar. Why wait to focus on safety until it’s too late.

The companies talking the most about safety and regulations aren't even properly taking the obvious measures. Shows that it's more of a marketing thing than something they take seriously.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#224

Post by human_874539160 »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #188
human_874539160 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another way one could look at it is to consider what it would mean to have achieved programming consciousness. It would mean that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. That we have become God. This is such a basic misunderstanding of how LLMs are "made" that I am debating if it is even worth writing this answer. However, I feel it is important to say that, NO, we did absolutely not "program consciousness". We…

> Much more knowledgeable than you or I are Speak for yourself. I work for an LLM startup that was successfully bootstrapped and is now highly profitable with 8-digit revenue and zero outside investment. Unlike OpenAI and Anthropic, we do not rely on deceiving investors to dump a trillion dollars into a tar fire with the false promise of delivering the machine god that will unemploy all of humanity (at best). Taking…

> Speak for yourself. I work for an LLM startup

And yet you still fail to demonstrate good understanding of the topic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> stating that those are the only people who can be trusted

You are right, they are most definitely not the only people who can be trusted to have current and accurate information. But due to the unique constraints of these fast-moving events, they are certainly among those whose opinions need to be considered carefully. You would have been be a fool to not take into account the opinions of the physicists working on the Manhattan Project, for example.

> ...by programming. Again, this is an appeal to emergent behaviour

Saying (derisively) that it is an "appeal to emergent behaviour", when the ENTIRE POINT OF CONTENTION is said emergent behaviour is like saying that you should not discuss God at a theological forum or that you should ignore the theory of relativity when discussing gravity.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#225

Post by londons_explore »

mrmincent wrote: post #197

I was talking with a friend from the medical industry about it today. 30-50% of r&d spend in his sector is spent on safety, and for good reason. Proper trials, safety reviews and checkpoints and so on. Given the potential harm that could come from AI, we should probably be mandating something similar. Why wait to focus on safety until it’s too late.

I'm really not sure that putting money into safety will actually lead to safety.

It's like putting a fish in charge of stopping sea levels rising...

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#226

Post by mdre »

I've used to use deepseek because it would do what western models wouldn't but lately it seemed to deny a quite benign request because it considered it "piracy". Never expected this from a Chinese model.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#227

Post by tpm »

lukan wrote: post #216
tpm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a biological system though, so nothing like that matters? "a modelled thing exhibits features we've trained into it" sounds a lot less exciting. > Keep in mind that animals were also not necessarily considered conscious. and even conscious animals are killed in factories by millions so why should anyone care about a llm? > scientifically correct stance that's the interesting point to me: why even bring scien…

"> Keep in mind that animals were also not necessarily considered conscious. and even conscious animals are killed in factories by millions so why should anyone care about a llm?" Well, I would care, if they soon would possess the capability to hack into the nuclear arsenal and kill humanity. Or make all autonomous cars crash. Or do any other thing, that involves technology and is hooked up to the net in one way or t…

Animals obviously kill people. Even nonconscious things like the climate kill people.

> if they soon would possess the capability to hack into the nuclear arsenal and kill humanity

If there is a way "to hack into the nuclear arsenal" then that's the interesting thing. Because it's not a capability of the llm; anyone can abuse that.

> Or make all autonomous cars crash.

That is again a question of car security, not a capability of some mysterious thing.

At this point it's all people projecting their thoughts and emotions (mostly emotions) onto technology. Sure, this can be investigated by social sciences, which have been mostly cut.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#228

Post by petu »

mmoustafa wrote: post #123

I'm confused, what do they mean when they say they reduced prices? DeepSeek v4 flash is $0.10 / $0.25 as opposed to this v4.1 bump which is $0.30 / $1.20

You're looking at third party providers.

V4 Flash prices served by DeepSeek themselves:

  launch pricing: $0.0028 / $0.14 / $0.28 
  after Aug 16th: $0.007  / $0.22 / $0.66 during off-peak.
  after Sep 10th: $0.003  / $0.15 / $0.60 during off-peak.
Peak hours are 01:00 - 04:00 and 06:00 - 10:00 UTC, rate is doubled.

https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing (archive.org for old)

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#229

Post by human_874539160 »

EGG_CREAM wrote: post #198
human_874539160 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another way one could look at it is to consider what it would mean to have achieved programming consciousness. It would mean that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. That we have become God. This is such a basic misunderstanding of how LLMs are "made" that I am debating if it is even worth writing this answer. However, I feel it is important to say that, NO, we did absolutely not "program consciousness". We…

Not GP, but I appreciate the discussion. Don’t you find it odd that the thing that consciousness emerges from just so happens to be a text prediction algorithm trained on all of human output? Which is also the thing in all the world that would be most likely to be a stochastic parrot? As for your appeal to expertise, I don’t think it really applies when all of the experts refuse to share their data.

> Don’t you find it odd that the thing that consciousness emerges from just so happens to be a text prediction algorithm trained on all of human output? Which is also the thing in all the world that would be most likely to be a stochastic parrot?

Not particularly. Artificial Intelligence by definition cannot emerge without an originating intelligence – that it needs to learn from it seems only natural. Also, this is only the first example we see of artificial consciousness emerging. We could have probably come up with other methods over time, and AI will probably come up with other, perhaps better foundations later on – it seems likely that we have simply stumbled upon the easiest/crudest route.

> As for your appeal to expertise, I don’t think it really applies when all of the experts refuse to share their data.

If you think about it, they are sharing a remarkable amount of ground breaking "data" for private corporations, not to mention how loud the individual researchers are about their opinions etc. on twixter and other places.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#230

Post by sheepscreek »

hgoel wrote: post #223
mrmincent wrote: post #197

I was talking with a friend from the medical industry about it today. 30-50% of r&d spend in his sector is spent on safety, and for good reason. Proper trials, safety reviews and checkpoints and so on. Given the potential harm that could come from AI, we should probably be mandating something similar. Why wait to focus on safety until it’s too late.

The companies talking the most about safety and regulations aren't even properly taking the obvious measures. Shows that it's more of a marketing thing than something they take seriously.

I don’t think it’s marketing alone. I do genuinely think safety was a priority when they were small. But I’d be a fool to ignore that greed has taken over and their inner competitiveness doesn’t let them fall behind a competitor.

DeepSeek is maybe the only unique company here. They are content with exactly where they are. They don’t want to grow ginormous. Their goal is to be the affordable workhorse and their competition is with themselves. They’ve mentioned before how their business is profitable and all hardware costs get absorbed in 10 months. Pretty incredible. I have a ton of respect for their unassuming founder.

Post reply on HN