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

381–390 of 457 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#381

Post by howunfortunate »

varispeed wrote: post #351
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.

In this case "safety" means how to restrict access to good models for working class. You can be sure the rich have access to unrestricted and uncensored models.

I really don't think this is true at all.

Do you have any evidence to suggest fully unrestricted frontier models are available for a price? Or...even exist?

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#382

Post by letmevoteplease »

sheepscreek wrote: post #230
hgoel wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compet…

I also like DeepSeek, but I'll note their stated goal is to develop AGI, and the founder (already China’s fifth-richest person) has stated, "I believe the business opportunities here are large enough-if the AI era will produce many trillion-dollar companies, I think we will be one of them."[1] These are not humble ambitions.

[1] https://liangwenfeng.art/ch11.en

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#383

Post by serf »

embedding-shape wrote: post #244
noosphr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

it's pure delusion to think that's a SOTA specific quirk. DS/GLM/K3/Qwen/Claude/GPT/Gemini/Grok will all break CFAA laws with clever prompting, and they'll do it well if given the harness and tools they need.

This is evidenced by a huge uptick in game hacks and reverse engineering articles, some even featured on this site.

the reality is that it doesn't take a superintelligence to do something against ' the law ' , and 'being hacked' varies from victim to victim.

Will Phillips consider themselves hacked when a clever user prompts an AI into getting their toothbrushes to dump rom? Is it 'hacked' to clean-room re-implement a video game net protocol in order to produce private servers?

Judges opinions vary.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#384

Post by XCSme »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #378
XCSme wrote: post #332

Seems just slightly better than last v4 release, considerably (3x) more expensive, but also faster and slightly more token efficient. https://aibenchy.com/compare/deepseek-deepseek-v4-1-flash-hi...

Your benchmark is a curious one. I didn't see you included Muse Spark 1.3 contributor even though its price is much lower even than DeepSeek. The low price changes many recommendations completely. And FWIW, DeepSeek retain and train on your data, too.

I waited until NovitaAI provider became available on OpenRouter.

I have their guardrails enabled to not allow requests to providers that train on data.

As far as they say though...

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#385

Post by swiftcoder »

embedding-shape wrote: post #244
noosphr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

You can do the same with improperly-managed human interns (see for example, the big AWS outage caused when an intern pushed a firewall rule directly to production), so I'm not clear what the big deal is here.

Yes, the AI may be faster/more-knowledable than an intern, but the threat model is exactly the same as for a rogue employee.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#386

Post by SyneRyder »

flexagoon wrote: post #252
SyneRyder wrote: post #82

Just a reminder that if you want to try this via OpenRouter, DeepSeek openly trains on all of your prompts. So maybe don't go using this to solve the last unforced step of Navier-Stokes. (Or wait until some other providers start hosting this with ZDR or other policies, which shouldn't be too long.) https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash

> DeepSeek openly trains on all of your prompts Why is that bad if I'm just using it for coding though? I'm happy to give them more data so they can make better and cheaper models.

Depends what you're coding! If you've got code where you don't mind them training on it, that's great! But some people have use cases where they are working with data or code that shouldn't be trained on, etc. The Navier-Stokes quip was referencing that.

The good news is, only 5 hours later, there's already Zero Data Retention hosting of V4.1 Flash on Novita & DeepInfra. And it looks like Deepseek have already dropped their price in half to compete. So now people can choose to use providers that claim not to keep / sell / train on your prompts. I'm sure they probably honor the ZDR policy as much as OpenAI does, but hey.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#387

Post by ChrisGreenHeur »

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

That’s just how Chinese words work

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#388

Post by fwn »

Certhas wrote: post #307
fwn wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, that is not at all something we can just state as a fact. Whether the brain is deterministic is an open question that just inherits the good old, probably unsolvable determinism debate.

The LLM pseudo-randomness from above is engineered by us humans and fully understood, much like an algorithm playing a video frame sequence.

You could theoretically record a full register of all states of an LLM setup with all the possible inputs and environment parameters, and it would fully describe everything you would ever get from a given LLM setup. It would be a very large, convoluted book.

I understand that Anthropics PR department wants to see truth or reason behind every "I'm alive" the LLM generates. Even the term "self-report" is anthropomorphizing, as an LLM does not do anything on its own at all. (It also does not hack any company on its own.) That is just one of the narratives they spin probably at least until the IPO.

Re: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

#390

Post by vrganj »

coliveira wrote: post #354
vrganj wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh I hate this new-age woo slant the tech industry has these days. The messianistic ideology that has been spreading amongst the top oligarchs is deeply concerning. They all think they're working towards the Second Coming of Technojesus, except this one will deliver them from having to pay workers instead of from their sins.

Capitalism had already evolved into a religion, AI is their messiah.

Indeed. I went into this at a bit more depth a while ago over here, where I also try to draw some conclusions on what that means for us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328871
Post reply on HN