upvote
Kinda shows their team is more engineers than marketers.
reply
But with that version number, it's not a "minor" update! It's a patchlevel update! -Engineer
reply
An old-school (pre-LLMs?) engineer would recognize that DeepSeek is in no way doing semver, so your major/minor/patch glossary might not apply here at all :)
reply
deleted
reply
Strictly speaking, it just shows they aren't marketers. Bad copy doesn't tell us anything about their engineering skill.
reply
It's not a bad copy, or at least that's not what the person you responded to is insinuating.

Deepseep-v4.1-Flash-1017 is a minor update. A major update is something like Deepseek-v5-Flash.

reply
> It's not a bad copy, or at least that's not what the person you responded to is insinuating.

FWIW, GP didn't write "a bad copy" but "bad copy", referring to the marketing sentence quoted by OP, rather than the model that was just released (as I presume "a bad copy" sounds, maybe like it's called that because it's [again, presumably] distilled?). "Copy", especially in a marketing context, is a written message.

reply
Strictly speaking, it's the substantial improvements that tell us about their engineering skill.
reply
Strictly speaking, they didn't say anything about their engineering skill
reply
To me this implies they continued the training run for 4.1 and it improved. A 4.2 would imply they changed something about how it’s trained/how inference works, and a 5.0 would be a major update (who knows what would have changed).

This is just my headcanon though.

reply
It's not really contradictory, minor changes can have major effects.
reply
So they meant a "small" update - "conservative", "inexpensive"...

An example when using a less frequent term actually reduces specificity.

reply
Changing TREE(2) to TREE(3) is a small change on the input, but a... lets just call it big... change in the output.
reply
No, they used minor correctly.
reply
Will you also explain, or leave it like that?
reply
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
reply
Hoping it's minor relative to what's coming
reply
Minor updates can provide substantial improvements sometimes, it really depends on the specifics.
reply
Remember when we were dumbfounded why our service is slow despite having implemented quite robust caching mechanism. Turns out simply the flag that enables it was hardcoded to false. So it was minor update (changed flag to true), but provided substantial speed up.
reply
They changed how it works substantially. I think it should be 4.2.
reply
It's a bit refreshing to read updates from an AI lab without bullshit doomerism and overwhelming sense of self-importance from shit like OpenAI and Claude.

Also, DS is an excellent model.

reply
Quiet confidence backed by provenance :).
reply
I'm at 1 trying to get to 10. I move to 2. Minor update. 100% improvement towards goal.

These are not mutually exclusive.

reply
That is how exponential functions work. Improve every aspect of a system with 1% and you may get easily 50% more performance.
reply
It's about playing to two different audiences.

The CCP requires extensive certification for new major releases, to make sure a model doesn't do anything they don't want it to.

To get around this, Chinese labs only bump versions when they have to and usually claim it's a minor update.

Then on the other side, they're obviously trying to market to the tech crowd...

reply
Source?
reply
Everything in China is strictly regulated but loosely enforced. Just take that as a grain of salt
reply
Drum Tower podcast (from the Economist, paywalled) about Chinese AI.

Would highly recommend it, it's IMO the only serious Western reporting about China.

reply
> the only serious Western reporting about China.

as good as Gordon Chang.

reply
I don't know who that is, but from a quick Google he doesn't exactly seem trustworthy?
reply
[dead]
reply