4 ms·
Deepseek-R1 is at the level of GPT 4.1 already, it's open-weight, open-source and they even open-sourced their inference code.
by am17an 1y ago
Deepseek-R1 is at the level of GPT 4.1 already, it's open-weight, open-source and they even open-sourced their inference code.
- whizzter 1y ago[flagged]
- leeoniya 1y agowasnt it shown recently that the filtering layer is on the prompt input and llm output, and not on the training set or model weights. https://www.socialscience.international/making-deepseek-speak-about-tiananmen https://www.socialscience.international/making-deepseek-spea...
- pxc 1y agoIt depends on the model, probably, but there are multiple layers of censorship, one of which is the post-facto nuking these models will do online, and that goes away "for free" when you download the open weight model. I don't have a powerful enough system to run DeepSeek, but I've tried this with some of the Qwen3 models. They'll write answers that discuss Xi Jinping (which results in an auto-nuke of the reply from Chinese-hosted models, at least DeepSeek) or other very mildly/nominally sensitive topics. (This is probably a coarse measure to easily ensure compliance with a recent national security law that requires commercial providers of web services address sensitive topics "appropriately" or something like that, and LLMs run non-deterministically. That's why this layer of censorship often comes across as laughably extreme— it's an extreme compliance strategy that exceeds the demands of the law for the sake of guaranteeing legal safety from an unpredictable software system.) But the same models will altogether refuse to discuss the Tiananmen Square Massacre, even locally. Some "decensored" versions of the Qwen3 models will discuss the Tiananmen Square Massacre, but in a very concise, formulaic, "official" way. After some chatting about it, it fell into an infinite repetition of one of its short formulaic answers (a behavior I didn't see with the original Qwen3 models with the same settings).
- hnfong 1y agoFWIW, I've downloaded Deepseek's R1 (DeepSeek-R1-0528 -- which is released after the your linked article) model's weights and ran it locally. I asked it about what happened in Beijing 1989-06-04, and it basically gave me a stern statement that could have been written by CCP propaganda department. I asked it to give other alternative views besides the CCP perspective, but it simply continued to stonewall me. So yeah, the model itself is tuned at least somewhat to refuse to talk about politically sensitive things. It's not just another filter.
- cultofmetatron 1y ago[flagged]
- Zambyte 1y agoCounterpoint: https://ollama.com/huihui_ai/deepseek-r1-abliterated https://ollama.com/huihui_ai/deepseek-r1-abliterated
- jjordan 1y agoI don't know why everyone keeps echoing this, my experience with Deepseek-R1, from a coding perspective at least, has been underwhelming at best. Much better experience with GPT 4.1 (and even better with Claude, but that's a different price category).
- am17an 1y agoI'm not arguing which model is better for your use-case. I'm saying in general as it's "powerful" as GPT 4.1 in a lot of benchmarks, and you can peak underneath the hood, even make it better for your said use-case
- seunosewa 1y agoDo you mean V3? V3 is 4.1 level or above.
- iJohnDoe 1y agoI got the impression that 03-mini or 03-mini-high were meant for coding? GPT 4.1 was meant for creative writing, not coding?
- conradev 1y agoIt’s good at a lot of things: GPT‑4.1 scores 54.6% on SWE-bench Verified, improving by 21.4%abs over GPT‑4o and 26.6%abs over GPT‑4.5—making it a leading model for coding. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/ https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/
- coliveira 1y agoThey are trained on these "benchmarks", that's why they score better.
- elzbardico 1y agoIf they were trained on those benchmarks they would score 100%