Live data from Hacker News

DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

huggingface.co

411–420 of 485 posts

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#411
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's just one factor though. Another is what hardware you can actually run things on. DeepSeek and Qwen will function on cheap GPUs that other models will simply choke on. What's cheap nowdays? I'm out of the loop. Does anything ever run on integrated AMD that is Ryzen AI that comes in framework motherboards? Is under 1k americans cheap?

Not really in the loop either, but when Deepseek R1 was released, I sumbled upon this YouTube channel [1] that made local AI PC builds in the 1000-2000$ range. But he doesn't always use GPUs, maybe the cheaper builds were CPU plus a lot of RAM, I don't remember. [1] https://youtube.com/@digitalspaceport?si=NrZL7MNu80vvAshx

Digital Spaceport is a really good channel, I second that - the author is not sparing any detail. The cheaper options always use CPU only, or sharding between different cheap GPUs (without SLI/switching) - which is not good for all use cases (he also highlights this). But some his prices are one-off bargains for used stuff. And RAM prices doubled this year, so you won't buy 2x256 GB DDR4 for $336, no matter what: https://digitalspaceport.com/500-deepseek-r1-671b-local-ai-s...

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#412
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about the hardware and infrastructure. If you check OpenRouter, no provider offers a SOTA chinese model matching the speed of Claude, GPT or Gemini. The chinese models may benchmark close on paper, but real-world deployment is different. So you either buy your own hardware in order to run a chinese model at 150-200tps or give up an use one of the Big 3. The US labs aren't just selling models, they're selling…

cerebras AI offers models at 50x the speed of sonnet?

if that's an honest question, the answer is pretty much yes, depending on model.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#413
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed both points - I mentioned you can offload token prefill (the slow part, 9t/s) to DGX Spark. Token generation is at 6t/s which is acceptable.

6 tok/sec might be acceptable for a dense model that doesn't do thinking, but for something like DeepSeek 3.2 that does do reasoning, 6 tok/sec isn't acceptable for anything else but async/batched stuff, sadly. Even for a response with just 100 tokens we're talking a minute for it to just write the response, for anything except the smallest of prompts you'll easily be hitting 1000 tokens (600 seconds!). Maybe my 6000…

Dunno, DeepSeek on MacStudio doesn't feel much slower than when using it directly on deepseek.com; 6t/s is still around 24 characters per second which is faster than many people could read. I also have 6000 Pro but you won't fit any large model there and to be able to run DeepSeek R1/3.1/3.2 671B at Q4 you'd need 5-6 of them depending on the communication overhead. MacStudio is the simplest solution to run it locally.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#414

How will the Google/Anthropic/OpenAI's of the world make money on AI if open models are competitive with their models? What hurt open source in the past was its inability to keep up with the quality and feature depth of closed source competitors, but models seem to be reaching a performance plateau; the top open weight models are generally indistinguishable from the top private models. Infrastructure owners with acce…

It’s convenience - it’s far easier to call an API than deploy a model to a VPC and configure networking, etc.

Given how often new models come out, it’s also easier to update an API call than constantly deploying model upgrades.

But in the long run, I hope open source wins out.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#415
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, a small random percentage of the time, it could add a subtle security vulnerability to any code generation. Now on the HN frontpage: "Google Antigravity just wiped my hard drive" Sure going to be hard to distinguish these Chinese models' "intentionally malicious actions"! And the cherry on top: - Written from my iPhone 16 Pro Max (Made in China)

Where does the software come from? Your iPhone can’t magically intercept communications and send it to China without the embedded software. If Apple can’t verify the integrity of its operating system before it is installed on iPhones. There are some huge issues. Even if China did manage to embed software on the iPhone in Taiwan, it would soon hopefully be wiped since you usually end up updating the OS anyway as soon…

The hardware can always contain undetectable sub-devices that can magically intercept anything with no possibility for the software to detect this.

You should remember that all iPhones had for several years an undetected hardware backdoor, until a couple of years ago, when independent researchers have found it and reported the Apple bugs as CVEs, so Apple was forced to fix the vulnerabilities.

The hardware backdoor consisted in the fact that writing some magic values to some supposedly unused addresses allowed the bypassing of all memory protections. The backdoor is likely to have consisted in some memory test registers, which are used during manufacturing, but which should be disabled before shipping the phone to customers, which Apple had not done.

This hardware backdoor, coupled with some bugs in a few Apple system libraries, allowed the knowledgeable attackers to send remotely an invisible message to the iPhone, which was able to take complete control over the iPhone, allowing the attacker to read any file and to record from cameras and microphones. A reboot of the iPhone removed the remote control, but then the attacker would immediately send another invisible message, regaining control.

There was no way to detect that the iPhone was remotely controlled. The backdoor was discovered only externally in the firewalls of a company, because the iPhones generated a suspiciously high amount of Internet traffic, without apparent causes.

This has been widely reported at the time and discussed on HN, but some people continue to be not aware about how little you can trust even major companies like Apple to deliver the right hardware.

The identity of the attackers who exploited this Apple hardware backdoor has not been revealed, but it is likely that they had needed the cooperation of Apple insiders, at least for access to secret Apple documentation, if not for intentionally ensuring that the hardware backdoor remained open.

Thus the fact that Apple publishes only incomplete technical documentation has helped only the attackers, allowing them to remain undiscovered for many years, against the interests of the Apple customers. Had the specifications of the test registers been public, someone would have quickly discovered that they had remained unprotected after production.

Therefore, for many years the iPhones of certain valuable targets had magically intercepted all their communications and they have sent them to an unknown country (due to the nature of some of the identified targets and the amount of resources required to carry the attacks, it has been speculated that the country could have been Israel, but no public evidence exists; a US TLA is the main plausible alternative, as some targets were Russians).

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#416

How will the Google/Anthropic/OpenAI's of the world make money on AI if open models are competitive with their models? What hurt open source in the past was its inability to keep up with the quality and feature depth of closed source competitors, but models seem to be reaching a performance plateau; the top open weight models are generally indistinguishable from the top private models. Infrastructure owners with acce…

Yes but how do you find the best open model? You check google.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this name is illogical as karl marx did not commit this fallacy

Yes, he did, and it was fundamental to his entire economic philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...

I'm not seeing anywhere in that page anything about an assumed static basket of human wants and needs. Maybe I missed it -- can you point out where you saw that?

Interesting, though, that per the very same article someone like Adam Smith concurred empirically with Marx's observation on the titular tendency of rates of profit to fall. This suggests to me it likely had some meat to it.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#418
post #51

Disclaimer: I did not test this yet. I don't want to make big generalizations. But one thing I noticed with chinese models, especially Kimi, is that it does very well on benchmarks, but fails on vibe testing. It feels a little bit over-fitting to the benchmark and less to the use cases. I hope it's not the same here.

This was a bad problem with earlier Chinese (Qwen and Kimi K1 in particular) models, but the original DeepSeek delivered and GLM4.6 delivers. They don't diversify training as much as American labs so you'll find more edge cases and the interaction experience isn't quite as smooth, but the models put in work.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#419
I used DeepSeek-v3.2 to solve two coding problems by pasting code and directions as one large prompt into a chat interface and it performed very well. VERY WELL!

I am still happy to pay Google because of their ecosystem or Gemini app, NotebookLM, Colab, gemini-cli, etc. Google’s moat for me is all the tooling and engineering around the models.

That said, my one year Google AI subscription ends in four months and I might try an alternative, or at least evaluate options. Alibaba Cloud looks like an interesting low cost alternative to AWS for building systems. I am now a retired ‘gentleman scientist’ now and my personal research is inexpensive no matter who I pay for inference compute, but it is fun to spend a small amount of time evaluating alternatives even though mostly using Google is time efficient.

Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of 3rd party and big cloud options to run these models by the hour or token. Big models really only work in that context, and that’s ok. Or you can get yourself an H100 rack and go nuts, but there is little downside to using a cloud provider on a per-token basis.

> There are plenty of 3rd party and big cloud options to run these models by the hour or token. Which ones? I wanted to try a large base model for automated literature (fine-tuned models are a lot worse at it) but I couldn't find a provider which makes this easy.

Fireworks supports this model serverless for $1.20 per million tokens.

https://fireworks.ai/models/fireworks/deepseek-v3p2

Post reply on HN