New Deepseek models are like Christmas for me. Really big fan of low cost API models, noone does it better than DS. Until VRAM price is low enough to run models locally, this is the way to go.
The subsidized subscription model won't last, API pricing "feels" closer to a true sustainable business model.
I would bet that Deepseek API pricing is still more cost effective per token than the subscriptions. With the increase in quality Deepseek Flash just got (in my personal testing so far, it seems to have improved a lot at following instructions, and has become more proactive), there really isn’t anything that can match it in terms of cost effectiveness.
I’ve been using v4 flash for an app I’m building [1] and it’s amazing how cost effective and good it is coming from having always used gpt, opus and sonnet models.
It’s so cost effective I can offer a generous free tier since my goal isn’t to make money with it.
I get where you're coming from, and the intent to make it easier for people to find examples and verses, but there's a fine line with LLMs giving you answers, is that it's interpreting it in some form. Doesn't that run counter to prevailing ideology, that you're meant to either struggle with the materials / seek understanding yourself, or have your religious leaders interpret/receive those insights?
Maybe I'm reading that incorrectly, but it seems to me the cost is on the X-axis.
First, your direct comparison, Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 (max effort) $0.03 (rounded up) per task @ index 50.
OpenAI Luna:
* high effort $0.03 (rounded down) @ index 46
* xhigh effort $0.04 @ index 49
* max effort $0.07 @ index 51
So I would say a fair statement would be "OpenAI Luna between 2x and 3x the price of Deepseek Flash, what you get is 2 to 5 times faster inference"
The cheapest OpenAI model that beats it is OpenAI Luna (max effort) $0.07 @ index 51 (if you take the rounding out it summarizes to triple the price for similar performance), but still close to 3x faster.
And can SOMEONE please tell artificialanalysis that using dark blue for both Deepseek AND OpenAI is an especially unfortunate choice of colors, especially today?
For anything substantial, you'd want a bigger model anyway.
For simple tasks, they're already saturated, and you'd prefer the faster model, so that you can have a realtime/interactive-ish experience.
Or to put it bluntly, it's cheaper if you don't value your time. That goes for smaller models in general -- need more handholding, more correcting -- but the Chinese ones are slower on top of that.
As for speed, Sol on Low is faster than Luna on most settings.
I hope they somewhat fixed the hallucination and forgetting plagued V4 previews and that it wasn't just benchmaxxed but the numbers hold in reality. Then it would be my choice for 2x DGX Spark or 2x RTX Pro 6000.
> DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Reasoning, Max Effort) is amongst the leading models in intelligence and well priced when comparing to other models of similar price.
Similar price? Doesn't make sense. Maybe they meant power, capability or speed?
Is the "Output Tokens per Intelligence Index Task" data actually correct or am I reading it wrong? It says there that "Kimi K3 (Max)" would think/reason less than than deepseek-v4-flash, and a whole bunch of other models, like less than hy3 and even gpt-oss-120b, but in my experience, K3 is probably the model that thinks/reasons the longest of all of these.
Am I just using it on tasks that makes it go on forever vs these benchmarks that are short&sweet, or something like that? I've been throwing bunch of identical prompts at different models at the same time, and when comparing hy3 and K3 I've never once had K3 reason less than hy3, as just one anecdotal data point.
I was writing a benchmark for my own harness, and DS4 flash answers as well as Fable 5 on any query.
The specific agent is focused on getting precise and on point answers about a codebase.
The starting point was nowhere near. E.g. asked why was X implemented in a certain way it would give bogus answers when the real answer was that there was no reason at all.
The benchmark included more than 50 questions or different difficulty.
But when the agent was improved in its prompt and rooting it was impossible to have it perform worse than closed source sota.
Just to say that the quality of the harness is as important as agents intelligence.
Daily reminder that none of these numbers are valid in a world where no one publishes the sampling settings used.
Daily reminder that improving your samplers from the garbage default top_p/top_k to min_p or subsequent methods dramatically improves the performance of these models, and makes most quantities like measured "verbosity" and subsequent calculations of "intelligence per token" meaningless
Daily reminder that no one, including within academic AI research, AI engineers, normies, etc takes LLM sampling seriously enough.
For example: no government contract to any company who uses even one vendor in it's entire chain of dependencies, who uses such open models.
They can extend this further by laying more conditions, such as: any company dealing in this-this field can only use models "officially" approved as "safe". Rest you can guess how easy it would be to get that "safe" rating for such open models.
Because reddit unironically has better decorum around usage of their upvote/downvote system than HN does.
People on HN downvote objectively correct information because they don't like it 24/7. There's a reason the creator of Zig left and gave the computer version of a middle finger on the way out to HN!
I claim the CCP will wise up within 2 years, possibly much much sooner, and ban their own companies from open sourcing to prevent the Americans from acquiring the capabilities.
Despite all the nonsense claims of China distilling US models, the reality is that the Americans absolutely do distill these free Chinese models, and distillation when full logprobs are available (i.e. you have access to the weights of the model) is an order of magnitude better than when you don't.
Yes, Chinese open weight models in the short term harm US closed source model providers bottom line. In the slightly longer term, "showing your hand" and publishing both the architecture innovations and the models weights will be too dangerous for the CCP to allow. This is triply true if they can release a model that beats the Americans on most benchmarks.
I've already warned investors that this is probably the closest open weight models will ever get to closed access.
Who cares if it is programming correctly I would be more worried about it not doing things like find security bugs because US or Chinese government does not want to. Which LLM is more likely to do that?
It’s open weight, you can (or you can wait for someone else to) uncensor it. We shouldn’t be upset at the researchers making this for the mandates their government puts on them.
Western models censor just as much shit as the Chinese models do, big guy, it’s just different material. While we should be pushing for universal fully uncensored models, this comment is lazy and trite at this point.
This is a straightforward false equivalency. “Western” models do not censor in the same way, nor for the same reasons, that the Chinese models do. “Just as much” is not remotely plausible, yet it’s doing all the heavy lifting.
I find that ChatGPT isn't censoring, but it is being pretty weaselly. If you ask it "is there genocide in gaza". It will say no but also say that a lot of organizations classify it as such. It will then say "it's highly disputed".
If you poke it just a few times, however, you get to the point where it will eventually say (paraphrasing) that basically only Israel, the US state department, and the ICJ say it's not a genocide.
That is to say that it's framing it as some sort of tricky complex question when it's not. And when interrogated, it basically admits that the only people who dispute it are Israel and it's supporters.
The subsidized subscription model won't last, API pricing "feels" closer to a true sustainable business model.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/deepseek-v4-flash
It’s so cost effective I can offer a generous free tier since my goal isn’t to make money with it.
[1] https://trysojourn.app
One feature of the app is that all scripture is verified and what’s show to the user doesn’t come from the LLM at all and instead a trusted source.
I think exploring scripture this way does not alleviate you from struggling to learn and apply it. It hasn’t for me.
What's difficult and doesn't have to be with philosophy/ spirituality is to find relevant bits off situation, theme etc.
This app does that very well, LLMs are good at entity recognition.
Deepseek v4 Pro prices with Opus 5 perf would be freaking unbelievable!!
This is probably a dream.
It’s also so inefficient, when they release the full performance numbers it’s not going to be good.
One example, it takes about 3.6x more tokens to finish the same work as Gemini Flash 3.6.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/deepseek-v4-flash?intel...
First, your direct comparison, Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 (max effort) $0.03 (rounded up) per task @ index 50.
OpenAI Luna:
* high effort $0.03 (rounded down) @ index 46
* xhigh effort $0.04 @ index 49
* max effort $0.07 @ index 51
So I would say a fair statement would be "OpenAI Luna between 2x and 3x the price of Deepseek Flash, what you get is 2 to 5 times faster inference"
The cheapest OpenAI model that beats it is OpenAI Luna (max effort) $0.07 @ index 51 (if you take the rounding out it summarizes to triple the price for similar performance), but still close to 3x faster.
And can SOMEONE please tell artificialanalysis that using dark blue for both Deepseek AND OpenAI is an especially unfortunate choice of colors, especially today?
For simple tasks, they're already saturated, and you'd prefer the faster model, so that you can have a realtime/interactive-ish experience.
Or to put it bluntly, it's cheaper if you don't value your time. That goes for smaller models in general -- need more handholding, more correcting -- but the Chinese ones are slower on top of that.
As for speed, Sol on Low is faster than Luna on most settings.
Similar price? Doesn't make sense. Maybe they meant power, capability or speed?
Am I just using it on tasks that makes it go on forever vs these benchmarks that are short&sweet, or something like that? I've been throwing bunch of identical prompts at different models at the same time, and when comparing hy3 and K3 I've never once had K3 reason less than hy3, as just one anecdotal data point.
Or a benchmark to benchmark benchmarks?
The specific agent is focused on getting precise and on point answers about a codebase.
The starting point was nowhere near. E.g. asked why was X implemented in a certain way it would give bogus answers when the real answer was that there was no reason at all.
The benchmark included more than 50 questions or different difficulty.
But when the agent was improved in its prompt and rooting it was impossible to have it perform worse than closed source sota.
Just to say that the quality of the harness is as important as agents intelligence.
Daily reminder that improving your samplers from the garbage default top_p/top_k to min_p or subsequent methods dramatically improves the performance of these models, and makes most quantities like measured "verbosity" and subsequent calculations of "intelligence per token" meaningless
Daily reminder that no one, including within academic AI research, AI engineers, normies, etc takes LLM sampling seriously enough.
The ban on these open models is coming within weeks, if not days. As usual, the excuse will be "national security".
For example: no government contract to any company who uses even one vendor in it's entire chain of dependencies, who uses such open models.
They can extend this further by laying more conditions, such as: any company dealing in this-this field can only use models "officially" approved as "safe". Rest you can guess how easy it would be to get that "safe" rating for such open models.
I'm not sure the outcome would be beneficial for the US as a whole here. But perhaps that is not their priority.
People on HN downvote objectively correct information because they don't like it 24/7. There's a reason the creator of Zig left and gave the computer version of a middle finger on the way out to HN!
commenting about voting is also something the HN guidelines warns against:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I claim the CCP will wise up within 2 years, possibly much much sooner, and ban their own companies from open sourcing to prevent the Americans from acquiring the capabilities.
Despite all the nonsense claims of China distilling US models, the reality is that the Americans absolutely do distill these free Chinese models, and distillation when full logprobs are available (i.e. you have access to the weights of the model) is an order of magnitude better than when you don't.
Yes, Chinese open weight models in the short term harm US closed source model providers bottom line. In the slightly longer term, "showing your hand" and publishing both the architecture innovations and the models weights will be too dangerous for the CCP to allow. This is triply true if they can release a model that beats the Americans on most benchmarks.
I've already warned investors that this is probably the closest open weight models will ever get to closed access.
https://www.businessinsider.com/xi-jinping-open-source-ai-us...
But you already know that.
If you poke it just a few times, however, you get to the point where it will eventually say (paraphrasing) that basically only Israel, the US state department, and the ICJ say it's not a genocide.
That is to say that it's framing it as some sort of tricky complex question when it's not. And when interrogated, it basically admits that the only people who dispute it are Israel and it's supporters.