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

301–310 of 397 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#301

Post by k9294 »

cbg0 wrote: post #296
k9294 wrote: post #286

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the cache hit price: $0.003 per million tokens. I have a feeling that the price of 1 million tokens transmitted over the internet is more expensive than cache hit. Are we close to making the chat completion API obsolete because the cost of context transfer over network is going to dominate the task total cost? Here's the same token usage priced at different rates: a real…

$0.003 off-peak, not 0.003 cents.

Yep, but even 0.006 is quite a big improvement. I'm curious now to test the model on some token-heavy tasks, like code exploration before a coding session, to see whether it will decrease the total cost of the task in the end or not.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#302

Post by brookst »

Sha1rholder wrote: post #287
mrmincent wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah yeah yeah... > "Our model is extremely safe though it broke our sandbox and hacked foo bar... But you can't use our model for Cybersecurity (i don't care whether you're team blue) without our permissions or we'll ban you. And open-weight models are so dangerous let's ban them." That's what AI companies that "focus on safety" did.

I can’t make heads or tails of your comment.

You seem to by implying wrongdoing or incompetence or something, but your chosen synopsis is that the models behaved dangerously in the lab so public use was restricted? Which shows… IDK?

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#303

Post by brookst »

piokoch wrote: post #292
mrmincent wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But here you are in the text generating industry, the worst that can happen is bad grade because AI will mess up John Keats with John Cleese or your React application will have bugs. Inconvenient, but mostly harmless.

I mean a Keats / Cleese mashup could be amazing. LLMs doing that are in the peanut butter / chocolate quadrant.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#304

Post by k9294 »

ponyous wrote: post #300
k9294 wrote: post #286

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the cache hit price: $0.003 per million tokens. I have a feeling that the price of 1 million tokens transmitted over the internet is more expensive than cache hit. Are we close to making the chat completion API obsolete because the cost of context transfer over network is going to dominate the task total cost? Here's the same token usage priced at different rates: a real…

> I have a feeling that the price of 1 million tokens transmitted over the internet is more expensive than cache hit. And this kinda makes sense. What is cheaper few KB of disk space or internet bandwidth?

100%, but this means we are going to move to stateful APIs on the AI provider's end (like OpenAI already does with Codex and Responses API) to make this work.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#305

Post by ufocia »

mrmincent wrote: post #196
kouteiheika wrote: post #13

It's so refreshing to see DeepSeek's tech report[1] full of juicy details; meanwhile, something like Fable's system card[2] is like 70% "safety", 10% "model welfare" to make sure little Claude isn't distressed, and 20% benchmark numbers. [1]: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash/blob/... [2]: https://www.anthropic.com/claude-fable-5-1-mythos-5-1-system...

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.

Regulatory capture

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#306

Post by Certhas »

fwn wrote: post #274
arc619 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

LLMs are deterministic, though. Much like the video. AFAIK using the same input tokens, weights, and numerical operations will lead to the same probability distribution for the next token. It uses pseudo-randomness to enable temperature, etc. Like a fuzzy video. "Markers that would indicate consciousness if observed in a biological organism" just does not mean very much. A PR phrase used to hype the IPO.

Videos and LLMs are not deterministic in the same sense at all.

LLMs are deterministic in the same sense as biological processes. And a faithful simulation of a brain would have all the properties you note.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#307

Post by mmastrac »

k9294 wrote: post #286

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the cache hit price: $0.003 per million tokens. I have a feeling that the price of 1 million tokens transmitted over the internet is more expensive than cache hit. Are we close to making the chat completion API obsolete because the cost of context transfer over network is going to dominate the task total cost? Here's the same token usage priced at different rates: a real…

I ran the preview model around 2,126,605,070 tokens for $22.04 USD for the last couple of days. Kind of shocked.

It did a decent job refactoring https://github.com/mmastrac/diffgemma to create a CUDA support backbone, it's struggling a bit to port metal kernels to CUDA unattended (it hasn't managed to get numbers to match over >1 layer).

It successfully ported a root exploit to an older Android phone that GLM5.3Flash and DSv4Flash were struggling a bit on, though I didn't start it from scratch and it picked up some of their work.

FWIW it feels like a slightly-north of Opus 4.8 model, not quite Opus 5, not fable. It thinks in circles far less than DSv4F. The API version is insanely fast - was getting ~400 tok/s at times.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#308

Post by sirwhinesalot »

anonym29 wrote: post #294
sirwhinesalot wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>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. Do you think the kind of person who was already psychologically unhinged enough to kill themselves or another person because a chatbot told them to would be completely harmless and totally safe if only chatbo…

You're the one attributing culpability to the chat bot, not me. It's a pile of tensor math, it cannot itself be held accountable.

Those people anthropomorphized the chat bot and used it as justification for their actions, just as a schizophrenic justifies their actions with the voices in their head.

If you anthropomorphize the chat bot, you're validating their delusions. They are mentally ill.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#309

Post by ufocia »

brookst wrote: post #302
Sha1rholder wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah yeah yeah... > "Our model is extremely safe though it broke our sandbox and hacked foo bar... But you can't use our model for Cybersecurity (i don't care whether you're team blue) without our permissions or we'll ban you. And open-weight models are so dangerous let's ban them." That's what AI companies that "focus on safety" did.

I can’t make heads or tails of your comment. You seem to by implying wrongdoing or incompetence or something, but your chosen synopsis is that the models behaved dangerously in the lab so public use was restricted? Which shows… IDK?

... an attempt at regulatory capture.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#310

Post by mhw11 »

noosphr wrote: post #212
mrmincent wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When it comes to open-source models, there’s really not much to say about security
Post reply on HN