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

241–250 of 411 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#241

Post by Scene_Cast2 »

cdnsteve wrote: post #162
RockstarSprain wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never tried OpenCode Go so I am interested. How does their pricing compare to paying DeepSeek directly, by the way?

They have flat fees, so it's the best deal around by far. Basically for $5 first month then $10/mo after that. If you're doing tons of heavy work, it struggles because they throttle the model inference and for good reason. I mean it's cheap! But if you want a place to try models for nearly nothing and aren't doing 6 sessions in parallel it works fine.

How many tokens are you getting, roughly?

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#242

Post by jeremyjh »

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.

Being hacked by a Collective (their own name) of its own agents - who gained root access across the entire research cluster hosting them - was not a marketing stunt.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#243

Post by applicative »

anonym29 wrote: post #212
sirwhinesalot wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same person but to me, the answer is that it does not matter, and that all these attempts at making it matter are pure marketing and emotional manipulation. It's not a living creature. It's an autoregressive pure function of token-sequence to token, which is capable of incredible things, but it's still just a function. It is not alive as it cannot die in any meaningful sense. It is less "alive" than the RNA m…

Humans are not living creatures. They're just bipedal meat shells being operated by a 20W electrochemical computer running a suite of chemically signalled, electrically actuated modellable functions, much of which is wasted on homeostatic regulation of the meat shell, which is capable of incredible things, but it's still just a result of simple electrochemical functions like action potential generation, dendritic int…

It is amusing to see those trapped in extreme HAAD, the source and whole content of religious illusion, pretend that it is their opponents who are in a state of religious fantasia.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#244

Post by embedding-shape »

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.

> At this point it's just marketing stunts.

If you have access to a SOTA model without guardrails, provide a prompt that lets the agent come up with "creative" solutions to problems, and don't properly isolate it, they can end up inadvertently hacking 3rd party companies. Even if it was a mistake or "mistake", the part where the agent can exploit things across multiple levels like that, isn't just marketing.

It seems like if they released this models differently, say without the guardrails they currently have, we'd have a lot more collateral damage than we currently have.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#245

Post by flexagoon »

donquichotte wrote: post #29
Grimblewald wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to have chinese characters bleed into claude as well. Perhaps a sign of the times. Understanable for a chinese first model but an english first (supposedly) model? wild stuff.

I also love the gaslighting of some models, like ChatGPT mixing in words with cyrillic letters and when asked about it answers: "it can look as Slavic to the eye" and "sorry that it came across as Russian"

Funnily, one of the annoying writing quirks of Claude/GPT in Russian is that it constantly mixes in random English words

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#246

Post by conmod278 »

torginus wrote: post #215
1f60c wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> welfare We should be paying attention to it just in case it ends up mattering enormously. It's cheap insurance. Aside from that, US labs' system cards have been pretty useless for a while—I think the last great one was the combined system card for Claude 4 Sonnet and Opus.

I always talk to models using grugspeak, like 'where getcontext used' I felt a bit bad about it, then I learned yday that model's internal thinking traces are also like this

words like "is" "the" etc are filler words anyway. they won't be changing the meaning that much. I asked AI whether it hurts to read ill formed sentence as it does to a human. It replied, "it doesn't"

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#247

Post by arc619 »

jpttsn wrote: post #144
Certhas wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's deeply serious, and the scientifically correct stance. Especially the observation: "Claude exhibits markers in its behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations that we would consider welfare-relevant if observed in biological organisms." is undeniably true in my opinion. If you use the established methods by which we judge animals to be conscious, then it's hard to argue that LLMs are not. Tha…

A stab: a video recording of a biological organism can exhibit many markers that would indicate consciousness if observed in a biological organism.

A video is a fixed representation.

What if we can interact with this video, and it reacts in the same ways the source organism does?

Then we put it in new situations that weren't in the source video, and it interacts in a similar way to the original organism in these situations, too.

What do we make of reactions of pain or joy? Where's the line between simulation and enaction?

This is closer to the reality of these models.

I'm not suggesting I know where that line is - if indeed it is a line at all - it could well be a gradient.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#248

Post by sirwhinesalot »

anonym29 wrote: post #212
sirwhinesalot wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same person but to me, the answer is that it does not matter, and that all these attempts at making it matter are pure marketing and emotional manipulation. It's not a living creature. It's an autoregressive pure function of token-sequence to token, which is capable of incredible things, but it's still just a function. It is not alive as it cannot die in any meaningful sense. It is less "alive" than the RNA m…

Humans are not living creatures. They're just bipedal meat shells being operated by a 20W electrochemical computer running a suite of chemically signalled, electrically actuated modellable functions, much of which is wasted on homeostatic regulation of the meat shell, which is capable of incredible things, but it's still just a result of simple electrochemical functions like action potential generation, dendritic int…

> What about when they watch adult video in VR, or have waifus? Humans engage in voluntary suspension of disbelief for pleasure and recreation all the time.

Categorically different. People have killed themselves or others due to conversations they had with LLMs, but those are just the extreme cases. Most schizophrenics don't commit suicide or kill others, they are mentally ill nonetheless.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#249

Post by dzonga »

Tomte wrote: post #18

If only they managed to tell the mobile app to tell the model to reply in English to English prompts. I suffix everything with "Reply in English", and even so I‘m getting lots of Chinese.

that's my only gripe with deepseek honestly

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#250

Post by myko »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #69
IshKebab wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow there really is a model welfare section in there...

To me it reads like pure propaganda. Anthropic really wants us to think that they've made something sentient. I think that's really dangerous.

It is ridiculous on its face and the implications are awful: if the model were sentient, it would be a slave. Good thing it isn't sentient.
Post reply on HN