[HN Gopher] DeepSeek R1 Is Now Available on Azure AI Foundry and...
___________________________________________________________________
DeepSeek R1 Is Now Available on Azure AI Foundry and GitHub
Author : toddanglin
Score : 66 points
Date : 2025-01-29 20:30 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (azure.microsoft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (azure.microsoft.com)
| jgilias wrote:
| That was quick
| deadbabe wrote:
| Why wouldn't it be?
| erdaniels wrote:
| Love that Microsoft is getting behind this actually good model
| discordance wrote:
| They're selling shovels
| bko wrote:
| This is exciting.
|
| Is there a free version of DeepSeek R1 that's completely US
| based, so we're not sending data to China? I guess you can use
| this to deploy it, but I'm asking for an application that would
| be safer to use if you're concerned about Chinese influence.
| breadwinner wrote:
| You can run it yourself: https://workos.com/blog/how-to-run-
| deepseek-r1-locally
| TuxSH wrote:
| Distilled R1 models != R1
| roblabla wrote:
| You can run the full R1 (671B variant) locally as well so
| long as you have the hardware for it.
|
| `ollama run deepseek-r1:671b`
|
| will do that
| TuxSH wrote:
| Yeah I mean, most users won't. Sorry if I got on the
| defensive, saw a bit too many posts on social media
| claiming you could run the model on your consumer-grade
| GPU.
| mlboss wrote:
| https://www.together.ai/pricing
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| How's the pricing as compared to official API or openrouter
| providers?
| xnx wrote:
| This is bizarre to see the entire AI hype cycle speedrun all over
| on just DeepSeek.
|
| I'm trying to square the excitement over DeepSeek with its good
| -but not dominant- performance in evals.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Previously choosing a top tier AI model tied you to what that
| provider wanted to do with hosting the model long term and the
| pricing they wanted to charge for it. Now you can get the same
| model anywhere with GPU, hosted or not, for minimal cost
| overhead to what it takes to run the model itself. You're also
| free to tune, retrain, or otherwise mess with the model as you
| see fit without needing approval.
|
| The excitement is probably a bit much but it's not just about
| the eval results themselves but the baggaged attached with
| them.
| samvher wrote:
| For me the excitement is that around the o3 announcement I had
| a feeling like we were heading to an OpenAI / Sam Altman
| controlled dystopia. This resets that - you can run the model
| yourself, you can modify it yourself, it's essentially on par
| with the best public models, and it gives hope that the smaller
| players have a fighting chance going forward. They also
| published their innovations bringing back some of the feeling
| of open science that used to be in ML research but which mostly
| went away.
| xnx wrote:
| Google models are already in the lead in many areas in
| capability and cost, so I never felt like OpenAI was
| dominant. OpenAI was first to make a splash, but ChatGPT is
| in a ~5 way tie in terms of what it can do.
| maxglute wrote:
| IMO more anti hype for openAI who might be dominant, but are
| they $3500 per task (O3 high) dominant, or $200 per month
| dominant.
| xnx wrote:
| Right, but Google already had models that were as good at
| much lower cost.
| maxglute wrote:
| Which models at what cost? IMO Deepseek websearch potential
| to challenge Google search moat also makes Google
| particularly vunerable, because it dramatically evaporates
| advantages of 100s of billions of hardware. Not to imply
| Google does not maintain advantages, but it gap just went
| from insurmountable to many actors can potentially build AI
| search to rival Google on shoe string budget. Certainly on
| sovereign budget.
| TuxSH wrote:
| AFAIK o1 is hidden behind an expensive subscription (iirc
| $20/mo and still rate-limited), it might as well just not exist
| for most users (since R1 is free, provided service
| availability).
|
| Also R1 (and its distilled models) expose their CoT & web
| interface has a websearch option too.
|
| With the 14b distilled models, I found multiple math-related
| prompts where it gives the right answers almost immediately but
| then wastes 10 minutes making self-verification mistakes (e.g.
| "Write Python3 code that computes the modular inverse of a mod
| 2^32")
| arnado wrote:
| I don't understand the hype because I'm out of the loop. Is the
| only advantage the lower hardware requirements, thus cost? Is
| there something I'm missing?
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Yeah it's a lot more efficient, it's also a very advanced model
| that answers questions in a multi-step way, like OpenAI-O1, it
| performs extremely well.
| bl4kers wrote:
| It's also open source
| tmasdev wrote:
| OpenAI o1 and Deepseek r1 have similar performance (o1 is a bit
| better at reasoning though you can see r1's though process
| which you could argue trumps the competition). OpenAI o1 api
| cost: $60/million output tokens. Deepseek r1 api cost:
| $2.19/million output tokens.
| tmasdev wrote:
| https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing
| baq wrote:
| So basically I can get a ~lifetime supply of r1 tokens for...
| $20?
| yaj54 wrote:
| ~lifespan = 2.27 billion seconds
|
| r1 api can spit out 63 tokens per second
|
| ~143 billion lifetime tokens.
|
| ~$313 million for a lifetime supply of tokens.
| barbegal wrote:
| $313 thousand not million which seems reasonable enough.
| ofou wrote:
| competition is beneficial for all of us, this is great
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-29 23:01 UTC)