my own usage of deekseep v4.1 flash, and that among the dozens of great programmers i know, not a single person is using it
BUT. they are employed to do / deciding-to-do authentic (if often meaningless) stuff.
here's a short list of inauthentic activity that claude and openai refuse to do:
- chat services that, when you ask them, say they are not chatbots when they are
- code to work around software licenses or DRM
- code to scrape or download copyrighted material
- directly cheating on homework
- adopting a persona in social media that spreads misinformation or propaganda
this is but a short list. but ask me, "are there enough inauthentic activity demands such that someone who CANNOT USE claude or gpt as the LLM would use dsv4.1 on openrouter instead?" yes. i mean there are whole countries right now where the culture can be summarized as, "bottom to top, inauthentic activity." i am surprised it is not more usage!
So your argument is that the 38T of tokens used in the last 7 days is by moron programmers or people doing "inauthentic" tasks? You think the person who made this post is also an idiot?
Do you realize how incredibly delusional/self-centered you sound?
do YOU know anyone gainfully employed in programming who is using dsv4.1 to do work? what kind of work is it? why don't you ask them if it is good?
in the market, where you cannot fake or hide stuff very easily: the outsource customer services and cheating sectors have been the most disrupted. Cheating company Chegg lost 99% of its market value. CS it remains to be seen - https://www.reuters.com/technology/teleperformance-shares-pl... - certainly perceived to be disrupted, but they are not dead yet.
in my personal usage: dsv4 is generally pretty buggy. for example, if you give it a needle-in-the-haystack simple copying problem, it catastrophically fails to find needles if they happen to be positioned at index 250k tokens out of 1m. it can also be triggered to spew all sorts of garbage when DSpark is enabled during ordinary long-context coding, such as spewing weird DSML tool call errors after a normally parsed tool call error.
i don't know why you have to attack me personally, i think you're a bright and otherwise nice person and you understand the thrust of my POV.
Yes. Hi. From our team 3/5 of us use 4.1 to do our daily tasks. For paid work for a company who pays us salary. From people around me I hear a lot of my friends being really happy with it especially for the price.
I don't know man, maybe this is not super serious what I'm doing. Some systems stuff with rust, implementing my own desktop apps with iced, porting old DOS games to Linux...
It is a very good model.
so what you're saying is though, if they could afford it they would just use claude or codex?
You are speaking out of your ass, that’s what I take issue with. Falsifiability is something I hold sacred and you are taking a dump on it.
Fwiw I work in a company producing software for many fortune 500’s you have heard about and many people from our team use deepseek.
I am literally using it right now. Your entire line of reasoning rubs me the wrong way.
Btw check your provider and harness… improperly configured deepseek can emit dsml. If you are not passing thinking tokens back to the model it tends to do that.
Use a proper harness and good provider.
"Hey Mr. Fortune 500 Client, would you prefer us to use something called DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, made by the Chinese, sending your Fortune 500 code to some random service provider on something called OpenRouter, where they promise according to something called Zero Data Retention that--"
Mr. Client: "I'm going to stop you right there. Why aren't you using Claude, or Codex, or Claude on Bedrock? Don't we deserve the best?"
You: ...
Look I don't know. I can tell from the hyperbole of your language, talking out of asses and such, that there is more to the story than you are letting on. Like Chinese users are banned from officially using Claude and Codex, for example. So many reasons that you cannot use Claude, not so much reasons to not choose to use Claude. All I am really saying is, I know DSV4 is kind of bad, that there is a lot of inauthentic activity, and that Claude and Codex refuse to do many kinds of inauthentic activity, and that a lot of coding done by outsourced shops has always been of questionable quality and purpose. I mean in my personal life, I know more people who have been scammed by Bulgarian code body shops than I know people who have used DSV4.1.
You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. You are clueless.
Deepseek v4.1 flash is an open weights model. You can run it on your own hardware. You have no idea how my companies gets access to it. A very cursory Google search would reveal to you that there are many enterprise grade LLM providers that host this model on US soil with SOC2 protections.
Like: https://fireworks.ai/
Try not to talk about subjects you have no knowledge about because you are making yourself look like an idiot.
Edit: It's also clear to me that you don't deploy any LLM based system on scale because if you had you'd know why open weights models are so compelling.
Hint: it's the cost.
okay, but are you US based? and can you specifically describe one of the pieces of software you are developing? it's okay if not. i am just wondering. i certainly believe that crappier stuff is cheaper!
Yes the company I work for is based in San Diego, I work remotely from Alabama.
I bet you voted for trump. With brains like that.