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

261–270 of 483 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#261

Post by thinkingtoilet »

kroaton wrote: post #233
impulser_ wrote: post #23

I think it's very clear that DeepSeek is obviously the best AI lab in the world. Every model release seems like it packed with wonderful research and advancements.

Considering the fact that Google/Anthropic/OpenAI have WAY more compute and the race is this close, it's obvious that DeepSeek/GLM/Qwen teams are better or we're approaching a wall in terms of progress.

Often times these limitations for you to be creative. When you can't just throw more processing power at the problem you figure other things out.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#262

Post by mrob »

Certhas wrote: post #121
myaccountonhn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your definition of sentient? Or, maybe more precisely, consciousness? I think it's reasonable to at least start thinking about these questions. It has long been established that LLMs have good theory of mind [1]. And there is a bunch of empirical research about all sorts of capabilities that we typically associate with consciousness [2], like identity [3] and metacognition [4]. The METR report shows agents sac…

I believe consciousness is necessarily stateful. The LLM itself (ignoring implementation details that don't change the results) is a deterministic pure function. It's functionally equivalent to an enormous lookup table. If I accepted LLMs as conscious, then I would have to accept panpsychism, which I do not, and which most other humans also act as though they do not.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#263

Post by mordae »

pampas wrote: post #161

I've run some evals on my puzzle game https://redactle.net/llm-leaderboard Deepseek v4.1 flash is able to solve it some of the time. I've found it burns through more reasoning tokens than any other model. Google models like Gemini 3.8 Flash are still dominating and is able to one-shot most evals while being the cheapest. I'm curious what other unique evals people are running.

Since it has low activated parameter count but huge total parameter count it needs more tokens to move the relevant information into the context.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#264

Post by benjiro29 »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #2

Already on HuggingFace: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash The bad news is that the original v4 flash was 284B, which was large but still somewhat reasonable for running locally. This one is 552B so almost twice that, so the huge gains in benchmark scores make sense - it's not really flash anymore, imo. I've no idea about actual performance vs benchmaxxing, though deepseek was fairly trustworthy a…

it's not really flash anymore, imo.

Flash is about speed ... Flash models are supposed to be fast, way faster then their big brothers that are "better" but way slower.

Its just that up to now, getting more speed involved cutting back on the parameter count, what ended up making the Flash models more "dumber" in exchange for speed.

What we see with DS v4.1 Flash, is that DeepSeek has found a way to make a Flash model, that is 2x a 2.5x faster then the older Flash version, while increasing the intelligence (more parameters). To the point that it goes past Kimi K3 and GLM 5.3 in most tests, with a blazing 250 to 400t/s.

AND its also priced as a Flash model (they even reduced the price back to almost old v4 Flash price), despite it now rivaling those 10x to 30x more expensive competitors.

The issue that people can not fit it into local setups, is not how companies design their models. They design it for their own needs. A old flash needed less parameters to be fast, and local users had the benefit of it fitting in 256GB memory.

Companies who run locally, are perfectly able to buy a few H200/B200 and get a setup that run a model that almost rivals Opus 5.0 in their office. How to say this without getting downvoted. People get way too fired up if a model does not fit, despite that they can still run the old v4.0, qwen 27b, 35b, 3.8 Next and other models. The fact that these models are being released for free, is already amazing by itself. I am still waiting to see what Anthropic and OpenAI and Google are releasing for free... O wait ... ;0

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#265

Post by orbital-decay »

adamzenith wrote: post #113
swiftcoder wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scientists who have spent their lives studying this Please point me to one actual accredited scientist who has spent a lifetime studying AI alignment? Pretty much this whole field is only 5 years old

The field is much older, MIRI is ~20 years old. Look up Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Yes, he's the exact reason people are distrustful. He's a crank who learned about reward hacking and made a new religious movement out of it, pretending it's a world-ending issue and deliberately avoiding much more serious issues like the concentration of power. Typical cult leader and manipulator, and his disciples in charge of major AI shops aren't any better.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#266

Post by Matl »

WithinReason wrote: post #139
Certhas wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your definition of sentient? Or, maybe more precisely, consciousness? I think it's reasonable to at least start thinking about these questions. It has long been established that LLMs have good theory of mind [1]. And there is a bunch of empirical research about all sorts of capabilities that we typically associate with consciousness [2], like identity [3] and metacognition [4]. The METR report shows agents sac…

I want to add a good conversation about this subject from Cameron Berg and Sam Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRbZyuY8EN8

As someone who would at one point listen to this, Sam Harris is unfortunately someone incapable of even attempting to not let his ideological biases compromise his thinking.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#269

Post by kmike84 »

tarruda wrote: post #133
johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This one is 552B so almost twice that, so the huge gains in benchmark scores make sense - it's not really flash anymore, imo. It uses fewer active parameters, though. (8B or 14B instead of always 13B) So ... flash indeed.

200B of those 552B is PLE, which works more like a database that is read for each token, thus can be offloaded to a fast SSD.

Unfortunately no, it's 200B + 552B. It's not as bad as it sounds though, because most of 552B is in 4bit natively.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#270

Post by tpm »

lukan wrote: post #256
tpm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

"Animals obviously kill people." But they cannot "kill humanity". In no possible way. A strong AI hooked up to everything online? "> Or make all autonomous cars crash. That is again a question of car security, not a capability of some mysterious thing." Yeah it is, but most cars are remote control by default, so the AI just needs to get access on one point. Also have you read about the hugginface attack? The live evi…

> A strong AI hooked up to everything online?

would have to be created by humans

> most cars are remote control by default

no

> have you read about the hugginface attack?

I did and think OpenAI should be prosecuted, but the direction things are going anything will be done to absolve the corporations and CEO of any responsibility for their criminal actions. Hence the misdirection to "conscious AIs", so agency can be attributed to that thing.

> but evidence of what they do and this matters

yeah so (non-self-driving) cars kill people. Are we going to have a discussion about some hypotethical car consciousness irrelevant to the actual issues or are we going to have a discussion about people driving the cars?

Post reply on HN