Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DeepSeek v4

api-docs.deepseek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: DeepSeek v4

#491

Post by niek_pas »

casey2 wrote: post #468
elefanten wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not remotely hypothetical you’d have to be living under a rock to believe that. And the fusion with a one-party state government that doesn’t tolerate huge swathes of thoughtspace being freely discussed is completely streamlined, not mediated by any guardrails or accountability. This “no harm to me” meme about a foreign totalitarian government (with plenty of incentive to run influence ops on foreigners) hooveri…

Thousands of years with no invasions, hundreds of years with thousands of invasions. China is a nation built for peace, while western nations are built for war.

Hong Kong? Taiwan? Uyghurs? Tiananmen Square? Tibet?

Re: DeepSeek v4

#492

Post by vinhnx »

The king is back! I remember vividly being very amazed and having a deep appreciation reading DeepSeek's reasoning on Chat.DeepSeek.com, even before the DeepSeek moment in January later that year. I can't quite remember the date, but it's the most profound moment I have ever had. After OpenAI O1, no other model has “reasoning” capability yet. And DeepSeek opens the full trace for us. Seeing DeepSeek's “wait, aha…” moments is something hard to describe. I learned strategy and reasoning skills for myself also. I am always rooting for them.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#493

Post by mft_ »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #332
chvid wrote: post #322

The incredible arrogance and hybris of the American initiated tech war - it is just a beautiful thing to see it slowly fall apart. The US-China contest aside - it is in the application layer llms will show their value. There the field, with llm commoditization and no clear monopolies, is wide open. There was a point in time where it looked like llms would the domain of a single well guarded monopoly - that would have…

Still not sure how I feel about China of all places to control the only alternative AI stack, but I guess it's better than leaving everything to the US alone. If China ever feels emboldened enough to go for Taiwan and the US descends into complete chaos, the rest of the world running on AI will be at the mercy of authoritarian regimes. At the very least you can be sure noone is in this for the good of the people anym…

You’re right… but that’s on the rest of the world not getting their shit together.

It’s this sort of example (and not properly supporting Ukraine, and not agreeing how to collectively deal with migrants, and not agreeing how to coordinate defence, and myriad other examples) that highlights what a pointless mess the EU is. It’s not a unified block - it’s 27 self-interested entities squabbling and playing petty power games, while totally failing to plan for the future with vision.

The EU could/should have ensured that a European equivalent to OpenAI or Anthropic could thrive, and had competitive frontier models already; instead, they’re years and countless billions behind.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#494

Post by frankdenbow »

jari_mustonen wrote: post #239

Open Source as it gets in this space, top notch developer documentation, and prices insanely low, while delivering frontier model capabilities. So basically, this is from hackers to hackers. Loving it! Also, note that there's zero CUDA dependency. It runs entirely on Huawei chips. In other words, Chinese ecosystem has delivered a complete AI stack. Like it or not, that's a big news. But what's there not to like when…

Jensen was saying this in that interview last week and the interviewer dismissed it.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#495

Post by tw1984 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #374
ifwinterco wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit I'm here for it to be honest, I'm tired of America with everything that's going on. China is not perfect but a bit of competition is healthy and needed

As a different Brit I do not accept such moral relativism. China’s governments actions are on a completely different level - for example: “”” Since 2014, the government of the People's Republic of China has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities in Xinjiang which has often been characterized as persecution or as genocide. “”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

It is just shocking to hear such stuff from someone in the UK.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#496

Post by buenolot »

vinhnx wrote: post #492

The king is back! I remember vividly being very amazed and having a deep appreciation reading DeepSeek's reasoning on Chat.DeepSeek.com, even before the DeepSeek moment in January later that year. I can't quite remember the date, but it's the most profound moment I have ever had. After OpenAI O1, no other model has “reasoning” capability yet. And DeepSeek opens the full trace for us. Seeing DeepSeek's “wait, aha…” mo…

Instead of King DeepSeek we got DeepShit Clown

Re: DeepSeek v4

#497

Post by Flavius »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #160

> pricing "Pro" $3.48 / 1M output tokens vs $4.40 I’d like somebody to explain to me how the endless comments of "bleeding edge labs are subsidizing the inference at an insane rate" make sense in light of a humongous model like v4 pro being $4 per 1M. I’d bet even the subscriptions are profitable, much less the API prices. edit: $1.74/M input $3.48/M output on OpenRouter

It's because investors in OpenAI/Anthropic want to get their money back in 10 months, not in 10 years.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#498

Post by JumpCrisscross »

necovek wrote: post #163
b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't it get tiring after a while? using the same (perceived) gotcha, over and over again, for three years now? no one is ever going to release their training data because it contains every copyrighted work in existence. everyone, even the hecking-wholesome safety-first Anthropic, is using copyrighted data without permission to train their models. there you go.

There is an easy fix already in widespread use: "open weights". It is very much a valuable thing already, no need to taint it with wrong promise. Though I disagree about being used if it was indeed open source: I might not do it inside my home lab today, but at least Qwen and DeepSeek would use and build on what eg. Facebook was doing with Llama, and they might be pushing the open weights model frontier forward faste…

> There is an easy fix already in widespread use: "open weights"

They're both correct given how the terms are actually used. We just have to deduce what's meant from context.

There was a moment, around when Llama was first being released, when the semantics hadn't yet set. The nutter wing of the FOSS community, to my memory, put forward a hard-line and unworkable definition of open source and seemed to reject open weights, too. So the definition got punted to the closest thing at hand, which was open weights with limited (unfortunately, not no) use restrictions. At this point, it's a personal preference that's at most polite to respect if you know your audience has one.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#499

Post by SquareWheel »

khalic wrote: post #473
jari_mustonen wrote: post #239

Open Source as it gets in this space, top notch developer documentation, and prices insanely low, while delivering frontier model capabilities. So basically, this is from hackers to hackers. Loving it! Also, note that there's zero CUDA dependency. It runs entirely on Huawei chips. In other words, Chinese ecosystem has delivered a complete AI stack. Like it or not, that's a big news. But what's there not to like when…

Open weight and open source are not the same

This is a pretty banal comment at this point. Open source is the term used in the LLM community. It's common and understood. Nobody is going to release petabytes of copyrighted training data, so the distinction between open source vs weights is a rather pointless one.

Re: DeepSeek v4

#500

Post by lifty »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #461
lifty wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wondering how gpt 5.5 is doing in your test. Happy to hear that DeepSeek has good performance in your test, because my experience seems to correlate with yours, for the coding problems I am working on. Claude doesn't seem to be so good if you stray away from writing http handlers (the modern web app stack in its various incarnations).

Very cool to hear there is agreement with (probably quite challenging?) coding problems as well. Just ran a couple of them through GPT 5.5, but this is a single attempt, so take any of this with a grain of salt. I'm on the Plus tier with memory off so each chat should have no memory of any other attempt (same goes for other models too). It seems to be getting more of the impressive insights that Gemini got and doing…

My work is on a p2p database with quite weird constraints and complex and emergent interactions between peers. So it's more a system design problem than coding. Chatgpt 5.x has been helping me close the loop slowly while opus did help me initially a lot but later was missing many of the important details, leading to going in circles to some degree. Still remains to be seen if this whole endeavour will be successful with the current class of models.
Post reply on HN