As someone who is out of the loop, what’s the verdict on R1? Was anyone able to reproduce the results yet? Is the claim that it only took $5M to train generally accepted? It’s a very bold claim which is really shaking up the markets, so I can’t help but wonder if it was even verified at this point.
Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
201–210 of 346 posts
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#202The size reduction while keeping the model coherent is incredible. But I'm skeptical of how much effectiveness was retained. Flappy bird is well known and the kind of thing a non-reasoning model could het right. A better test would be something off the beaten path that R1 and o1 get right that other models don't.
i’ve gotten full fp8 running on 8xh100, probably going to keep doing that
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel any AI can fix those problems when they can finally act. The problem AIs cannot run or debug code, or even book a hotel for me. When that is solved and an AI can interact with the code like a human does, it can fix its problems like a human does.
Exactly! Why can’t LLMs run their own code?
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I canceled my OpenAI subscription last night, as did many many others. There were some threads in reddit with everyone chiming in they all just canceled too. imo OpenAI is done, and will go through massive cuts and probably acquired by the end of the year for a very tiny fraction of its current value.
In my experience with deepseek and o1, openai's big talk about (and investment into) hallucination avoidance might save their hides here. Deepseek may be smarter, and understand complex problems better, but it also seems to make mistakes more often. (It's as if it's comprehension is better, but it's worse at memorization/recall.) Need an LLM to one-shot some complex network scripting? as of last night, o1 is still wh…
The benchmark comparisons are perhaps, for now, the best way to compare reasoning prowess of R1 vs O1, since it seems pretty certain they both trained for those cases.
I think the real significance of R1 isn't the released model/weights itself, but more the paper detailing (sans training data) how to replicate it, and how effective "distillation" (i.e. generate synthetic reasoning data for SFT) can be to enhance reasoning even without using RL.
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#205Hi small comment, please remember in china many things are sponsored by or subsidized by the government. "We[china] can do it for less.." , "it's cheaper in china.." only means the government gave us a pile of cash and help to get here . I 100% expect some downvotes from the ccp.
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#206site is javascript walled 80%? On 2 H100 only? To get near chatgpt 4? Seriously? The 671B version??
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I canceled my OpenAI subscription last night, as did many many others. There were some threads in reddit with everyone chiming in they all just canceled too. imo OpenAI is done, and will go through massive cuts and probably acquired by the end of the year for a very tiny fraction of its current value.
Why every time there is a new model all the other competitors are declared immediately dead?
O1 vs R1 performance on specific non-benchmark problems is also not that relevant until people have replicated R1 and/or tried fine-tuning it with additional data. What would be interesting to see is whether (given the different usage of RL) there is any difference in how well R1 vs O1 generalize to reasoning capability over domains they were not specifically trained for. I'd expect that neither do that well, but not knowing details of what they were trained on makes it hard to test.
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Btw completely off topic, but your comment triggered the internal classification in my brain, and it looks like AI-generated. Not accusing you anything. Could be that you happen to write in a way similar to LLMs. Could be that we are influenced by LLM writing styles and are writing more and more like LLMs. Could be that the difference between LLM generated content and human-generated content is getting smaller and ha…
+1 my LLM spidy senses were tingling. It’s the exclamation point in the first paragraph, the concise and consistent sentence structure, and the lack of colloquial tone. OP, no worries if you’re real. I often read my own messages or writing and worry that people will think I’m an LLM too.
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#209Wow, an 80% reduction in size for DeepSeek-R1 is just amazing! It's fantastic to see such large models becoming more accessible to those of us who don't have access to top-tier hardware. This kind of optimization opens up so many possibilities for experimenting at home. I'm impressed by the 140 tokens per second speed with the 1.58-bit quantization running on dual H100s. That kind of performance makes the model pract…
Btw completely off topic, but your comment triggered the internal classification in my brain, and it looks like AI-generated. Not accusing you anything. Could be that you happen to write in a way similar to LLMs. Could be that we are influenced by LLM writing styles and are writing more and more like LLMs. Could be that the difference between LLM generated content and human-generated content is getting smaller and ha…
Re: Run DeepSeek R1 Dynamic 1.58-bit
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I'm thinking, inference seems mostly memory bound. With a fast CPU (for example 7950x with 16 cores), and 256GB of RAM (seems to be the max), shouldn't that give you plenty of ability to run the largest models (albeit a bit slowly). It seems that AMD Epyc CPUs support terabytes of ram, some are as cheap as 1000 EUR. why not just run the full R1 model on that - seems that it would be much cheaper than multiple of t…
The bottleneck is mainly memory bandwidth. AMD EPYC hw is appealing for local inference because it has a higher memory bandwidth than desktop gear (because 8-12 memory channels vs 2 on almost everything else), but not as fast as the Apple architectures and nowhere near VRAM speeds. If you want to drastically exceed ~3-5 tokens/s on 70b-q4 models, you usually still need GPUs.