5 ms·
Seriously, why can't huge companies like OpenAI and Google produce documentation that is half this good?? https://api-docs.deepseek.com/guides/thinking_mode ht
by throwa356262 6mo ago
Seriously, why can't huge companies like OpenAI and Google produce documentation that is half this good??
https://api-docs.deepseek.com/guides/thinking_mode https://api-docs.deepseek.com/guides/thinking_mode
No BS, just a concise description of exactly what I need to write my own agent.
- Alifatisk 6mo agoYou might enjoy Z.ais api docs aswell
- u_sama 6mo agoI am very partial to Mistral's API docs https://docs.mistral.ai/api https://docs.mistral.ai/api
- eshack94 6mo agoAgreed, they also have great documentation. There's something to be said for documentation that is so concise, well laid out, and immediately actionable for those looking to get started quickly.
- vitorgrs 6mo agoMeanwhile, they don't actually say which model you are running on Deepseek Chat website.
- lykr0n 6mo agoIt's because they're optimizing for a different problem. Western Models are optimizing to be used as an interchangeable product. Chinese models are being optimizing to be built upon.
- Barbing 6mo ago>Western Models are optimizing to be used as an interchangeable product. But so much investment in their platforms, not just their APIs?
- raincole 6mo ago[flagged]
- peepee1982 6mo agoIf you want other people to know whether you're being genuine or sarcastic, you'll have to put a bit more effort into your comments. Your comment just adds noise.
- kennyloginz 6mo agoWhat da?
- simonjgreen 6mo agoYeah, it’s an interesting one. I think inertia and expectations at this point? I don’t think the big labs anticipated how low the model switching costs would be and how quickly their leads would be eroded (by each other and the upstarts) They are developing their moats with the platform tooling around it right now though. Look at Anthropic with Routines and OpenAI with Agents. Drop that capability in to a business with loose controls and suddenly you have a very sticky product with high switching costs. Meanwhile if you stick with purely the ‘chat’ use cases, even Cowork and scheduled tasks, you maintain portability.
- tick_tock_tick 6mo agoThey are all racing to AGI. They aren't designing them to be interchangeable they just happen to be.
- rglullis 6mo agoNo, they are not. If they were "racing to AGI" they would be working together. OpenAI would still be focused on being a non-profit. Anthropic wouldn't be blocking distillation on their models.
- koe123 6mo agoIf by AGI you mean IPO, sure. I genuinely don't believe Dario nor Sam should be trusted at this point. Elon levels of overpromising and underdelivering.
- kubb 6mo agoWestern orgs have been captured by Silicon Valley style patrimonialism, and aren’t based on merit anymore.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- notTheLastMan 6mo ago[dead]
- alansaber 6mo agoBecause they produce revenue from products which abstract this away
- kccqzy 6mo agoI spent only two minutes reading their documentation and it’s clear no one did any proofreading and it’s full of mistakes made by non-native speakers. Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized. Example: the third page about tokens has some zipped code to “calculate the token usage for your intput/output” and obviously “intput” should be “input” but misspelled. As a company that produces LLMs, they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues, and yet they did not. Maybe I’m just extra sensitive to grammar and spelling issues but this kind of lack of attention to detail is a huge subconscious turnoff. I had to fight my urge to close the tab.
- amluto 6mo agoThe tool calling Python example would have benefitted from actually parsing the tool call. As is, it explains almost nothing.
- jen20 6mo ago> Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized. I constantly see and hear this mistake from actual humans too. It's fairly ironic that your own comment contains run-on sentences, speculative claims and phrasing peculiarities like "could have even" instead of "could even have". Perhaps you are less sensitive to this than you think!
- angry_octet 6mo agoThere is a difference between conversational speech and formal speech like documentation. It isn't rational to criticise use of the first when such speech is complaining about errors in the latter. It's strange that you criticise "could have even" when it is a phrasing clearly being used for emphasis. "Could even have" makes no clearer sense in context. No irony detected.
- aprdm 6mo agoNo one cares about this kind of stuff. 99% of the devs are not English native speakers, what do you expect ? It works and we all can understand it
- madduci 6mo agoFor me, DeepSeek has been the best so far, in terms of coding skills, performance and documentation all together. Too bad this is flagged as 'concerning' when it comes to privacy, while on the other hand Gemini, ChatGPT and Claude are way beyond that, especially their mobile apps requiring a lot of permissions.
- etruong42 6mo agoWhile I work for Google, I don't speak for Google. I might have some observations that might help explain poor documentation. If I had one word, I would say "politics". The less political the technology, the easier it is for the experts to speak freely. The more political the circumstances, the more difficult it is to speak freely, identify real experts, call out mistakes or errors that might make someone lose face, etc. The more political the technology, the more people might put on the line in terms of their career, so the more dangerous it may be to say anything.