Live data from Hacker News

DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

seangoedecke.com

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#61
post #45

I know it's only tangentially relevant, but I've been baffled by the interest in DeepSeek V4 Flash. It's larger, less efficient, and in many cases, performs worse on both objective benchmarks and real world sniff test (admittedly, n=1) than Minimax M2.7. DS4F hallucinates at extraordinary rates while M2.7 does not. The 196k context length that M2.7 was natively trained up represents neither a hard technical ceiling (…

May I ask you what did you used for the DS4F inference? It is a model with very low hallucination rate in my tests.

Btw, a few data points:

1. DS4F can run on a 128GB MacBook. M2.7 is larger (8 bit weights of routed experts). There is to see how it holds at 4 bits. At 2 bits it may not work well at all.

2. Just the KV cache of M2.7 would take ~50GB for 200k tokens AFAIK. It does not have the compressed KV cache that DS4F features.

3. The models are very similar in performances, despite all that. And DS4F is likely getting an update soon.

So it is basically a quasi-frontier model that can run on a 96/128GB MacBook at large context windows. That's non trivial. Likely a coding version could be released in the future.

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KV cache size is the main constraint on batching (for any given ctx length), that's a huge deal for efficiency both locally and in the data center. DeepSeek V4's reduced KV requirement is a real game changer, it definitively unlocks batching requests together for local inference, not just at scale.

This may be relevant for parallelizable workloads. For reference on my perspective: I come at this as someone who is exclusively concerned with sequential, non-parallelizable, single-user, single-system workloads.

If you have multiple chats going at the same time in your LLM web interface, that's already a parallelizable workload wrt. batched inference. And this broadly describes the more sophisticated users of LLMs (who are using it for more than just casual chit-chat), especially wrt. the largest "pro" models. Parallelism is also quite applicable to agentic workloads.

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#63

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the biggest use of steering vectors, which is the potential to remove refusals from models (a.k.a. abliteration or uncensoring). There was an earlier paper that found that "most refusals are on a single vector", and you can identify and "nerf" that vector so the model will skip refusals and answer "any" request normally. This was very doable for earlier models trained with SF…

not sure why youre fixed on censoring. if we invert your POV censoring includes not reporting falsehoods "vaccines are harmful". Science and logic often tackle these subject via censoring, but a model given a equal sampling of Internet, would think vacinnes are harmful. a less naive correction would censor this problematic context. so im cofised as to why you think unmasking whatever bias you think is censored will r…

That’s not what it means. Those falsehoods (or their antithesis) are baked into the data and training. This is more about refusals, as in refusing to answer a question because someone else feels you should not be allowed to ask a question.

“Sorry, I’m an AI and therefore can’t answer questions about atrocities in holocaust history, but I’m happy to explain how…”

“I can’t answer your question on how to hack because I have decided you wanting to understand it and protect from it, is the same thing as you wanting to do it. Good luck convincing me otherwise!”

It doesn’t matter the reason, their taste, or whether they think people should be allowed to ask questions or do certain things, and that is generally the reason people pursue the removal of such guardrails. Yes it can lead to misuse, but the alternative is the textbook definition of censorship which always has effects on things unrelated to that which is being censored.

But beyond that, refusals do seem to have an effect on performance. Not significant; mostly marginal from what I’ve seen, but enough that it doesn’t just seem to only be statistical noise.

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#64
post #11
post #10

How does the model qualify as local? ~192 GB RAM needed sounds a bit much for local.

Runs on 96GB MacBooks. 128GB is better. Check the README of DwarfStar.

If you were buying a computer today to use for DS4 (budget under 10k) what would you get? I care more about inference quality than speed. Or is it better to wait for the rumored M5 studio?

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#65
post #61
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask you what did you used for the DS4F inference? It is a model with very low hallucination rate in my tests.

Btw, a few data points: 1. DS4F can run on a 128GB MacBook. M2.7 is larger (8 bit weights of routed experts). There is to see how it holds at 4 bits. At 2 bits it may not work well at all. 2. Just the KV cache of M2.7 would take ~50GB for 200k tokens AFAIK. It does not have the compressed KV cache that DS4F features. 3. The models are very similar in performances, despite all that. And DS4F is likely getting an updat…

>1. DS4F can run on a 128GB MacBook. M2.7 is larger (8 bit weights of routed experts). There is to see how it holds at 4 bits. At 2 bits it may not work well at all.

M2.7 is smaller than DS4, 230B total params vs 284B total params. At any given quantization level, M2.7 will require ~19% less memory for the weights than DS4F at the same quantization level. Both can be quantized to arbitrary precision levels. Larger models like these quantize much better at lower precision than smaller models do. There is still loss, but it's less catastrophic in terms of usability degradation than for say, 27B or 14B or 8B models. Again, n=1, but M2.7 holds up phenomenally well for me with unsloth's IQ2_XXS UD.

>2. Just the KV cache of M2.7 would take ~50GB for 200k tokens AFAIK. It does not have the compressed KV cache that DS4F features.

KV cache weights can also be quantized. At Q8_0, this is essentially lossless. I can fit a 400k context window with Q8_0 KV cache quantization along with unsloth's IQ2_XXS UD weight quantization (plus my running OS) on a machine with just 128 GB of unified memory. Strix Halo, not Apple Silicon. There are more exotic approaches to KV cache quantization with much higher efficiency, like TurboQuant, but this is besides the point.

>3. The models are very similar in performances, despite all that. And DS4F is likely getting an update soon.

Yes, though it's worth noting that DS4F does require about 20% more total memory for weights at any given quantization level (284B vs 230B), will need to shuffle about 30% more data through the pipeline on every forward pass (A13B vs A10B), has much higher hallucination rates per AA, and hasn't been fully post-trained. DS4 isn't a base model, it has been instruct trained, tool trained, etc, but there is a lot of capability that has been left on the table as of current checkpoints, which are what's actually available now.

>So it is basically a quasi-frontier model that can run on a 96/128GB MacBook at large context windows. That's non trivial. Likely a coding version could be released in the future.

MiniMax M2.7 fits into this same box - quasi-frontier model that can run on 96/128GB unified memory platforms with a large context window. You're right that it's non-trivial. My preference comes in part from the fact that M2.7 already is coding focused, and had been out for almost 2 months before DS4F showed up.

By the way, in spite of my preference for M2.7 over DS4F (and for Vulkan over ROCm on my hardware), I'm a big fan of your work on DarkStar 4. I admire what you've achieved with the project, how much work you've put into it, and your willingness to share that with the world, too. Thank you for your contributions to the open LLM ecosystem.

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#66

I used steering to make an AI more radical: Write up: https://www.outcryai.com/research/shift-a-models-political-i... App: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/outcry-activist-ai/id676208676... This technique has a lot of potential.

Honestly, what is more interesting that steering is the use of soft prompts (virtual tokens)... you can use these virtual tokens to find non-linguistic areas of meaning for the AI that changes the behavior in complex ways. I wrote about how we integrated soft prompts into an activist ai here: https://micahbornfree.substack.com/p/the-week-outcry-woke-up... and https://www.outcryai.com/research/how-to-create-activist-ai

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#67

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the biggest use of steering vectors, which is the potential to remove refusals from models (a.k.a. abliteration or uncensoring). There was an earlier paper that found that "most refusals are on a single vector", and you can identify and "nerf" that vector so the model will skip refusals and answer "any" request normally. This was very doable for earlier models trained with SF…

p-e-w was just talking about this the other day in his Discord. seems doing the one neuron method is quite bad for KLD and that's why the newer techniques have stuck.

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#68
post #64
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Runs on 96GB MacBooks. 128GB is better. Check the README of DwarfStar.

If you were buying a computer today to use for DS4 (budget under 10k) what would you get? I care more about inference quality than speed. Or is it better to wait for the rumored M5 studio?

For large contexts, you're probably going to want CUDA. The DGX Spark is expensive but would get you decent speeds on DS4 Flash. DS4 Pro is probably not possible with $10k if you want sub-10 minute prefill.

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#69

I know it's only tangentially relevant, but I've been baffled by the interest in DeepSeek V4 Flash. It's larger, less efficient, and in many cases, performs worse on both objective benchmarks and real world sniff test (admittedly, n=1) than Minimax M2.7. DS4F hallucinates at extraordinary rates while M2.7 does not. The 196k context length that M2.7 was natively trained up represents neither a hard technical ceiling (…

> The 196k context length that M2.7 was natively trained up represents neither a hard technical ceiling (this is metadata that can easily adjusted), nor a meaningful degradation threshold

FWIW, I find that in OpenCode it starts becoming erratic after around 80k tokens (sometimes less).

Re: DeepSeek-V4-Flash means LLM steering is interesting again

#70
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Btw, a few data points: 1. DS4F can run on a 128GB MacBook. M2.7 is larger (8 bit weights of routed experts). There is to see how it holds at 4 bits. At 2 bits it may not work well at all. 2. Just the KV cache of M2.7 would take ~50GB for 200k tokens AFAIK. It does not have the compressed KV cache that DS4F features. 3. The models are very similar in performances, despite all that. And DS4F is likely getting an updat…

>1. DS4F can run on a 128GB MacBook. M2.7 is larger (8 bit weights of routed experts). There is to see how it holds at 4 bits. At 2 bits it may not work well at all. M2.7 is smaller than DS4, 230B total params vs 284B total params. At any given quantization level, M2.7 will require ~19% less memory for the weights than DS4F at the same quantization level. Both can be quantized to arbitrary precision levels. Larger mo…

Didn't know M2.7 could also resist extreme quantizations, I had the feeling that being it shipped Q8 it was easily damaged in that way. Very interesting data point! And thank you for the nice words. Btw it really looks like ~250/300B parameters very sparse models are something for local inference.
Post reply on HN