VRAM aint cheap, Sam Altman ruined the cost of memory, Nvidia doesnt make enough consumer GPUs letting the market go insane over them, I still have friends on 1070s or 1070 TIs because GPUs have been severely overpriced for too long. I remember when a gaming PC was only $1000.
Even so why would anyone not sleep on a model they cannot run?
Seriously, if a single politician stepped forward and said "i'll bring down ram prices" they could then shoot a puppy and call me a slur and I'd still go out and doorknock for them.
Look at the financials of these companies, they're all making obscene margins and do they plan to increase production? No. Micron is doing a stock buy back to pump the price of their share.
There's sanctions, tarrifs, and a DOJ who doesn't give a shit. Until we can fix that the insanity will continue. Phones will be unaffordable. Laptops will be obscene. Gaming consoles will be thousands of dollars. Desktops will be dead.
If you're waiting for some David Ricardo equation to happen, tough cookies, it's not coming.
The market is legally locked down and we're in hostage pricing mode.
And what's the story? You can't afford electronics because we're using it to build robots to take your job? I mean ...
Micron has 3 brand new fabs currently under construction, 2 Boise, 1 in New York as the first of 4 planned for a campus.
Plus expanding other existing facilities.
These things take ~3-5 years from breaking ground to full production. You'd have had to anticipate the current demand years before it happened in order to be bringing production on-line before 2030 or so.
Samsung and HK Hynix also have fabs under construction and planned.
CXMT started 11 years ago and only now is reaching any real volume. If they decided a year ago to react to the current demand cycle they'd be 6-7 years out.
Not much you can really do to wish for more fabrication to exist on any timeline not measured in fractional decades.
Could they do more and react quicker? Probably, but everything I've read on the subject seems to point to 3 years is absolute bare minimum if you happen to have a shovel ready project with the land bought, local permitting completed, infrastructure extended to the site, and a skilled workforce already in place. They could suspend buy-backs/dividends today and dump it all into building production and there would be no material impact until around 2030.
> The Micron CEO just recently said this is the exact plan
CEO simply stated the demand pressure will not go away through 2027, and supply will not increase until around 2028 when currently under construction fabs start shipping volume. The article does not support your statement.
RAM manufacturers are bidding against NVIDIA and everyone else for the same constrained supply of EUV machines. And it takes years to build more fabs. Micron has multiple fabs coming online in 2027 and 2028.
I don't think RAM vendors have formed a cartel and I think this is knee-jerk anger without any thought. RAM is a commodity product with massive upfront capex costs, and those always have boom-and-bust cycles. At various points in the 2010s and 2020s RAM vendors were getting eaten alive by a supply glut, this would not have happened if they were a cartel.
Is it really so hard to believe that RAM prices are up because demand is simply exceeding supply, especially in a market where additional supply takes years and billions of dollars to come online? There's no need to posit cartel behavior and a fair amount of evidence that there is none.
The AI boom started in 2022. Prices rose THREE years later after 2025 sanction and tariff style legislation to protect the market during a price hike.
I got a 4090 in 2023 for 1600, a 5090 in 2025 for 2000 with 256 DDR5 for about $1,000 ... and then, after some protectionist legislation passed, these prices quickly shot to the moon.
There's no BF16, original full quality weights are quantized already and 510GB.
Then good portion of those weights are n-grams (~200GB) that don't need to be in VRAM.
Then KV cache of that model is super lightweight at ~1GB per 1M tokens. If HBF succeeds, then accelerator with 16GB of VRAM and 1TB HBF/NAND is probably all you need (?).
The article isn't just about running locally though. The author is saying it's super cheap to run the model through Opencode Go (and presumably OpenRouter etc.) Personally I'm always most excited by models I can actually run locally, but even these huge open source models open up the competitive landscape for companies to let you call models via an API or just lease compute. And they don't have to charge you to offset research, training, huge staffs of the best minds in the world, crazy PR etc. I think that's a big win for customers and buts competitive pressure on the frontier labs as well.
I reimplemented most of the features of the Deepseek v4.1 flash paper (apart from quantization aware training which doesn't make sense because my implementation uses float32 precision anyways)
I'm currently learning how to distill reasoning traces (check my other github repositories) but I think that a locally selfhostable deepseek is possible with my mixture of experts sharding mechanism. I decided to optimize everything for CPU parallelization, with the idea that the KV cache and meta model have to run from CPU RAM anyways, so the experts can also be loaded/unloaded at runtime if needbe, to save more RAM.
My assumption is that the KV cache optimizations in combination with the CED and compressed attention features are the reason why v4.1 flash has so few hallucination problems and such a strong self-lookup/thinking behavior. But that's more a gut feeling, need to evaluate and test this more thoroughly.
Anyways, would love to see someone train this on their own datasets. Currently my pipeline is kinda optimized for parquet and zim files.
You can run it locally for the price of a decent car, or run it on somebody else's hardware at vast.ai or a similar provider for much less. What's not to like?
No, you won't get frontier-level intelligence on a 1070Ti. Yes, it should be illegal to do what Altman did. Since we clearly don't live in the best of all possible worlds, we need to settle, and DS4.1 Flash is a good place to do that.
For tasks that don't require vision to support, I personally like the NVFP4 quant of GLM 5.3 from Local Inference Lab better, but they are both well beyond awesome.
He doesn't ruin the cost of memory. Advances in memory size and speed are now in full speed mode. Expect drastic increase in the upcoming years. Big factories are in the making and planned. Gigalab in the US and many others in the east.
Since 2010 we have computers with 16gb as being normal. Finally we are moving into a new era where the standard will be 64gb next year and 128 in 2028. Hopefully we reach 1tb in 2030.
I did a test on this a couple weeks ago. What I found was that the chinese models were far better than API rates, but about comparable on price vs the subsidized subcription model (chatgpt). Also it was my experience that codex completed tasks quicker.
That said, it's my best understanding that these american companies aren't profitable and will eventually raise rates (the old uber trick) so I'm keeping myself ready to switch when that day comes.
I'm paying for the heavily-discounted subscriptions, not the API rates. There isn't really a cost gap for me. DeepSeek doesn't have a subscription to compare to, but when I compared the GLM 5.3 usage I got from a $100/mo Z.ai subscription compared to Opus 5.5 on a $100/mo Claude subscription, there wasn't a big gap. And GLM 5.3 is very clearly not a frontier model (deepseek v4 seemed a lot
closer, but I didn't use it enough to really say for my workloads).
I don't think those subscriptions nave negative contribution margins, either. I think we're seeing a lot of price discrimination by the big labs, and huge margins on their frontier models. The fact that they have been cutting prices to their second-biggest tier of models (Opus/Sol).
Open models catching up and collapsing these margins would worry me if I were a shareholder in the big labs, but as a user, I really doubt that the western labs have bigger environmental impact just because they have higher API costs, I think they have a ton of efficiencies they aren't sharing with customers yet because demand is so high.
Oh man. v4.1-flash has been an sbolute game changer for us. We run all our Personal Assistants now on flash (thinking high) by default and it works incredibly well. There is really no need for basic agentic tasks that might require Kimi K.3 or GLM-5.3 levels.
Once its gets juicier, we let flash launch specialized subagents with specific models. GLM-5.3 for coding or Kimi K.3 for research and critique.
But as a main driver. I love flash. And it brought our bill down by A LOT :D
I have a pretty large, complex project I've been building with heavy AI use (new language + compiler). I was following a 'strong model as orchestrator launching cheap models as implementers' pattern, but I recently trialled just using Deepseek-V4.1-Flash as the model for both layers because of the cost savings (with mimo v2.6 flash on code review agents for some decorrelation).
I was previously using GLM-5.3 as the orchestrator, after switching to DS anecdotally there was an unnacceptable quality loss, mostly around not taking all the relevant context into account when making decisions, pulling new design out of thin air without discussion too often, and being way too wordy and rambly in documentation despite prompting to avoid it. There's a lot of docs, rulings, core concepts, design philosophy to uphold and DS was just not cutting it.
However, it's perfectly capable of being the sole agent for all of my well specced implementation tasks. I've gone back to GLM as the orchestrator.
On the Claude side of things I was previously following "strong model directs weak" with Fable directing Opus/Sonnet (its choice per-task). Since Opus 5.5 came out I've just been having Opus direct Opus.
The sub-agent separation is still valuable to keep context clean for the orchestrator, but I just have no reason to use Sonnet as the grunt-work implementer because I'm finding it hard to run out of tokens with Opus 5.5 on a $200 subscription plan. It's really really good at subjective quality of work per token used.
I would probably go that route if I could use other harnesses with claude models, but I don't want to be locked in to claude code, and their API pricing (which you need to use it with other harnesses) is so much higher than subscription.
I had the same experience using ds 4.1 last couple of weeks. It’s insanely good for the price. I’m doing mostly web dev it excels at everything I throw at it. The pricing is ridiculous. I canceled my gpt subscription and haven’t looked back hope the pricing stays like that. I almost never need a better model. I still keep my Claude 20$ sub for now but I feel like one more iteration and I won’t need even that anymore I hardly use it
If DS4.1 impresses you I would be really interested to see your comparison to GLM 5.3. I switched from the one to the other and even if GLM 5.3 is a bit slower I don't think I'll be going back.
I built mjolnir in large part so I could have Opus manage DeepSeek Flash subagents. It's phenomenal and extremely light on the Claude tokens. https://github.com/BrokkAi/mjolnir/
And yes, Opus is enough smarter than DSF that it's worth the extra steps. This ranking is from live tickets, no contamination: https://slopcop.com/power-ranking
I think because we're all just using it thinking we have found the "model for me" and never mentioning it to anyone because what would we say? It's good. It's a bit like the Logitech MX Master, as more and more people assumed they had found the ideal mouse for their purposes, it quietly became the professional standard through sheer adoption.
I think the interesting provider to cross-check this assumption with here is Meta, who is clearly freaking out, and is currently providing Muse 1.3 even cheaper so long as you are willing to share data with them
Technically yes, but has been reported to be quite benchmaxxed. In practice Deepseek Flash 4.1 and GLM 5.3 might therefore still outperform Mimo 2.6 pro.
While using DeepSeek v4.1 Flash I was architecting a system and I made a mistake of drawing the RPC boundaries at a wrong place that did cost me in so many ways.
I realized that mistake and guided DeepSeek where it should be.
Next I fired Fabble 5.5 set to high to check if the hype is real about Fabble. It exhausted 89% of quota and came up with NOTHING that DeepSeek hadn't flagged itself already in its notes.
Do you mean Fable 5.1? Or Opus 5.5? I'm not sure what you're working on but for me DS 4.1 flash isn't nearly at their level. For the price it's obvious very impressive, though Luna 6.0 is excellent too.
The problem with benchmarks and proprietary models is that one day a model is best at doing X, another day that's not so sure. And anyway, we are throwing the same X.
I've found supposedly smaller and, less performant models do better on certain tasks. I end up using several models, sticking to what my unconscious statistical observations tell me to use for the kind of task at end.
The question seems rhetorical but I think there are two reasons in some combination. First is it there is some awareness lag here. That lag can be on the producer and consumer side. Software enterprises are pretty slow to adopt new things and slow to try new things so they might only be aware of openai and Claude as options. Plus there are some scariness because deep seek is a Chinese model and therefore export restricted - never mind that there are American in European providers.
The other reason is more interesting. Maybe the frontier providers think that price performance is irrelevant in light of very powerful frontier models that can start the RSI loop and or a huge displacement of work and a winner take all economic situation. After all if frontier providers earn everyone's money then you won't have any money to spend on any model 100x cheaper or not.
I think it also has a bit to do with the AI sector of tech still moving at lightning speed.
Theres already models that outdo DS 4.1 flash in cost/performance. Luna 6 on max effort for example. Luna also doesn't care what time of the day it is for cost calculation.
And I'm sure by the time people ask why Luna 6 is being slept on there will be another cost/performance king
Yeah. $100 for Claude just about gives me all the usage I want, as a more or less full-time hobbyist having it work in the background most of the day. I was trying to economize by having a local LLM, then Deepseek, then Cursor/Grok, and then I got a taste of Opus 5.5 and I simply cannot go back to having to carefully spec things out and double-check work. I just let it decide, Opus or Sonnet for the next task, and I get almost perfect results. Probably similar with OpenAI's models.
The token-equivalent monthly spend is probably $5K+. If Deepseek's token cost is 20x cheaper, that's $250/mo, and I'd be spending a lot more of my brainpower babysitting it and getting worse results.
For business/team accounts that pay per-token, maybe I can see the "freaking out" being warranted on the part of the fronter labs. But as long as they're willing to subsidize their end-user subscriptions, I'm not going to move off of them until the alternatives are truly at their level.
Don't you run into it sometimes outputting a few Chinese characters, or Cyrillic, for no apparent reason? I fear it writing some nonsense in the code or the terminal. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash doesn't seem to do that.
DeepSeek 4.1 Flash 0910 is perfect for M5 Ultra 256GiB. Running it fully resident in RAM, prefill at ~2500 tok/s and decode at ~40 tok/s. Probably tons of room to improve from there.
Opencode Go gives only 6300 requests for glm and 23 000 for deepseek. And, if I wanted to, I would be able to do all my work on $10 plan with deepseek. It’s very cheap.
That is opposite to my experience so far, can you describe your coding tasks? Mine are systems level code, utilities, operating system code, networking and real time control stuff.
I also prefer GLM-5.3-flash to DS-4.1-flash, but it's close. Since Z.ai has been offering essentially free GLM-5.3-flash tokens on their coding plan between 8am-6pm pdt I've been using it a lot... though that ends on Oct 10 IIRC.
People have been raving since forever about Deepseek, but if one looks at the CoT, it's evident that it's way way stupider than frontier models (there's a reason why it's cheap). It's laughable to compare Deepseek 4.1 with Opus 5.5.
I've benchmarked, rigorously, deepseek-v4-flash for programming and personal use, and it is definitely less smart than Qwen3.8-flash-next (which in turn, is not terribly smart).
Local models are also really slow, unless one spends insane amounts of money.
Having said that, Qwen3.8-flash-next is an impressive evolution; it reaches the small versions of the frontier models (like Sonnet) - but again, it's massively slower and not 100% reliable (including: stability).
The argument that most people are making isn't that dsv4.1f is better than frontier, but that it's good enough for most tasks, faster, and way cheaper.
> if one looks at the CoT, it's evident that it's way way stupider than frontier models
People tend to conflate the question "is AI a useful technology?" with "are the AI companies going to do well?" but they're surprisingly separated in practice, with either one able to be true while the other is false. There is a lot of money tied up in a lot of hardware with a lot of loans made against that hardware as collateral all based on the assumption that AIs are going to need more and more and more and more hardware and whoever has the hardware wins. If a much better model comes out that requires vastly less hardware, or even more accurately, merely charges vastly less than the current AI companies, then to a first approximation (barring Jevon's paradox, and bearing in mind there's no timeline guarantee on that) all that hardware becomes much less valuable for being grotesquely oversupplied relative to what is necessary, and even though that would generally make AI objectively more useful than it was before, it would cause mass financial chaos in the markets.
The markets need a very particular rate of progress. It isn't entirely clear to me that it's even a possible rate of progress, it may be overconstrained, but they certainly don't have plans for the AI models to get commoditized on the timeframes of these vast, vast array of loans being made against hardware as collateral. Spend a metric shit ton of money to kill all your competition then charge monopoly rent on the one thing absolutely everyone needs doesn't work if you can't economically "kill all your competition" because the economics favor them in the spending spree.
And then, based on the fact that this is not even remotely complicated logic, there are plenty of people who are fully aware that they have a lot of money tied up in not running around telling everyone how wonderful the cheap models have become.
It's also unclear whether those who approved those loans understand GPUs depreciation. In any case, progress in software but also hardware could bring chaos and ruin their house of cards.
> It's also unclear whether those who approved those loans understand GPUs depreciation.
This also assumes heavy utilization, though. If there's heavy utilization, it might mean they're doing well. If they're all spinning, it's time to raise prices.
they should be freaking out because every time the chinese labs or non "frontier" labs release a model that is only a few months behind and much cheaper than the openai/anthropic models it shows that they don't deserve their valuations
You might also choose to pay money for a service that provides real value instead of actively choosing to support the Chinese deliberate effort to undermine this country.
I'm no expert, but it think that it's the pricing on GPT-6 Luna. I'm also guessing that it's been underpriced just for this reason. I also don't think it's all that great, but it's definitely very cheap.
If it's underpriced, it's a loss leader to sell the other models, so it actually can't be too good.
I really put these things through their paces because I use them to review and work with new abstract game rules and models, so they're always flying blind. Luna misses the obvious (and more importantly, the clearly explained) consistently. My second prompt is listing all of the points in its first response, and saying "No, it doesn't work like that." The third prompt is picking out the two or three suggestions it made after correcting itself on all of the original points and saying "That's how it already works." The fourth prompt is "Now that we're done going over the rules, can we start?"
In my experience it just takes so much longer to arrive at "done" state for me. It thinks for soooooo long. I guess if you're running 12 sessions at once you don't really notice.
if you have a legitimate coding application, it isn't very good. if you have some kind of inauthentic activity, which could be what it is trained for for all sorts of reasons...
VRAM & Memory Requirements by Precision
• FP16 (Full Precision): Requires ~1,664 GB of VRAM (e.g., an 8x B300 288GB cluster).
• INT8 Quantization: Requires ~832 GB of VRAM (e.g., 8x H200 141GB).
• INT4 Quantization: Requires ~416 GB of VRAM (e.g., 8x A100 80GB)
VRAM aint cheap, Sam Altman ruined the cost of memory, Nvidia doesnt make enough consumer GPUs letting the market go insane over them, I still have friends on 1070s or 1070 TIs because GPUs have been severely overpriced for too long. I remember when a gaming PC was only $1000.
Even so why would anyone not sleep on a model they cannot run?
Memory companies have price fixed multiple times. They've paid hundreds of millions in fines. wikipedia even has a page on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing.
Look at the financials of these companies, they're all making obscene margins and do they plan to increase production? No. Micron is doing a stock buy back to pump the price of their share.
The Micron CEO just recently said this is the exact plan https://www.theregister.com/systems/2026/10/01/ram-supply-se...
There's sanctions, tarrifs, and a DOJ who doesn't give a shit. Until we can fix that the insanity will continue. Phones will be unaffordable. Laptops will be obscene. Gaming consoles will be thousands of dollars. Desktops will be dead.
If you're waiting for some David Ricardo equation to happen, tough cookies, it's not coming.
The market is legally locked down and we're in hostage pricing mode.
And what's the story? You can't afford electronics because we're using it to build robots to take your job? I mean ...
Nobody is coming to save us. That's our job.
Micron has 3 brand new fabs currently under construction, 2 Boise, 1 in New York as the first of 4 planned for a campus.
Plus expanding other existing facilities.
These things take ~3-5 years from breaking ground to full production. You'd have had to anticipate the current demand years before it happened in order to be bringing production on-line before 2030 or so.
Samsung and HK Hynix also have fabs under construction and planned.
CXMT started 11 years ago and only now is reaching any real volume. If they decided a year ago to react to the current demand cycle they'd be 6-7 years out.
Not much you can really do to wish for more fabrication to exist on any timeline not measured in fractional decades.
Could they do more and react quicker? Probably, but everything I've read on the subject seems to point to 3 years is absolute bare minimum if you happen to have a shovel ready project with the land bought, local permitting completed, infrastructure extended to the site, and a skilled workforce already in place. They could suspend buy-backs/dividends today and dump it all into building production and there would be no material impact until around 2030.
> The Micron CEO just recently said this is the exact plan
CEO simply stated the demand pressure will not go away through 2027, and supply will not increase until around 2028 when currently under construction fabs start shipping volume. The article does not support your statement.
Costs did go nuts, but there are signs of easing in the market of late. CXMT is starting to have an impact and priced will probably fall in 2027.
wonder what voting would be like?
gamer vote ++
datacenter hater vote --
datacenter lobby ++
micron lobby --
(Disclosure: I work in MarTech and have access to non-public data; I wouldn't actually do this.)
Is it really so hard to believe that RAM prices are up because demand is simply exceeding supply, especially in a market where additional supply takes years and billions of dollars to come online? There's no need to posit cartel behavior and a fair amount of evidence that there is none.
I got a 4090 in 2023 for 1600, a 5090 in 2025 for 2000 with 256 DDR5 for about $1,000 ... and then, after some protectionist legislation passed, these prices quickly shot to the moon.
Connect the dots.
Then good portion of those weights are n-grams (~200GB) that don't need to be in VRAM.
Then KV cache of that model is super lightweight at ~1GB per 1M tokens. If HBF succeeds, then accelerator with 16GB of VRAM and 1TB HBF/NAND is probably all you need (?).
Because it's an open model so providers compete on price.
It has a set of n-gram tables which you can stream from system RAM or even NVMe
That said it’s still quite big! I can’t fit it on my DGX Spark, though I believe you can if you have two?
I reimplemented most of the features of the Deepseek v4.1 flash paper (apart from quantization aware training which doesn't make sense because my implementation uses float32 precision anyways)
I'm currently learning how to distill reasoning traces (check my other github repositories) but I think that a locally selfhostable deepseek is possible with my mixture of experts sharding mechanism. I decided to optimize everything for CPU parallelization, with the idea that the KV cache and meta model have to run from CPU RAM anyways, so the experts can also be loaded/unloaded at runtime if needbe, to save more RAM.
My assumption is that the KV cache optimizations in combination with the CED and compressed attention features are the reason why v4.1 flash has so few hallucination problems and such a strong self-lookup/thinking behavior. But that's more a gut feeling, need to evaluate and test this more thoroughly.
Anyways, would love to see someone train this on their own datasets. Currently my pipeline is kinda optimized for parquet and zim files.
[1] https://github.com/cookiengineer/gonano
No, you won't get frontier-level intelligence on a 1070Ti. Yes, it should be illegal to do what Altman did. Since we clearly don't live in the best of all possible worlds, we need to settle, and DS4.1 Flash is a good place to do that.
For tasks that don't require vision to support, I personally like the NVFP4 quant of GLM 5.3 from Local Inference Lab better, but they are both well beyond awesome.
1660 ti, 4790k, 16gb ddr3
That said, it's my best understanding that these american companies aren't profitable and will eventually raise rates (the old uber trick) so I'm keeping myself ready to switch when that day comes.
I don't think those subscriptions nave negative contribution margins, either. I think we're seeing a lot of price discrimination by the big labs, and huge margins on their frontier models. The fact that they have been cutting prices to their second-biggest tier of models (Opus/Sol).
Open models catching up and collapsing these margins would worry me if I were a shareholder in the big labs, but as a user, I really doubt that the western labs have bigger environmental impact just because they have higher API costs, I think they have a ton of efficiencies they aren't sharing with customers yet because demand is so high.
Once its gets juicier, we let flash launch specialized subagents with specific models. GLM-5.3 for coding or Kimi K.3 for research and critique.
But as a main driver. I love flash. And it brought our bill down by A LOT :D
are you worried about sending all your data to third parties, especially if they're in different countries?
but DS 4.1 Flash is good enough for most tasks
I was previously using GLM-5.3 as the orchestrator, after switching to DS anecdotally there was an unnacceptable quality loss, mostly around not taking all the relevant context into account when making decisions, pulling new design out of thin air without discussion too often, and being way too wordy and rambly in documentation despite prompting to avoid it. There's a lot of docs, rulings, core concepts, design philosophy to uphold and DS was just not cutting it.
However, it's perfectly capable of being the sole agent for all of my well specced implementation tasks. I've gone back to GLM as the orchestrator.
The sub-agent separation is still valuable to keep context clean for the orchestrator, but I just have no reason to use Sonnet as the grunt-work implementer because I'm finding it hard to run out of tokens with Opus 5.5 on a $200 subscription plan. It's really really good at subjective quality of work per token used.
On that note I’ve been subbing in MiMo-2.6-pro when cost is an issue, which is super cheap and also performing really well.
And yes, Opus is enough smarter than DSF that it's worth the extra steps. This ranking is from live tickets, no contamination: https://slopcop.com/power-ranking
I’m convinced that I’ll have good enough inference on my laptop at reasonable speeds within the next year.
see https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/releases/comparisons?co...
I realized that mistake and guided DeepSeek where it should be.
Next I fired Fabble 5.5 set to high to check if the hype is real about Fabble. It exhausted 89% of quota and came up with NOTHING that DeepSeek hadn't flagged itself already in its notes.
I've found supposedly smaller and, less performant models do better on certain tasks. I end up using several models, sticking to what my unconscious statistical observations tell me to use for the kind of task at end.
The other reason is more interesting. Maybe the frontier providers think that price performance is irrelevant in light of very powerful frontier models that can start the RSI loop and or a huge displacement of work and a winner take all economic situation. After all if frontier providers earn everyone's money then you won't have any money to spend on any model 100x cheaper or not.
Theres already models that outdo DS 4.1 flash in cost/performance. Luna 6 on max effort for example. Luna also doesn't care what time of the day it is for cost calculation.
And I'm sure by the time people ask why Luna 6 is being slept on there will be another cost/performance king
The token-equivalent monthly spend is probably $5K+. If Deepseek's token cost is 20x cheaper, that's $250/mo, and I'd be spending a lot more of my brainpower babysitting it and getting worse results.
For business/team accounts that pay per-token, maybe I can see the "freaking out" being warranted on the part of the fronter labs. But as long as they're willing to subsidize their end-user subscriptions, I'm not going to move off of them until the alternatives are truly at their level.
Would be cool if they added it.
There are some quirks if your harness use unsupported features of course.
I've benchmarked, rigorously, deepseek-v4-flash for programming and personal use, and it is definitely less smart than Qwen3.8-flash-next (which in turn, is not terribly smart).
Local models are also really slow, unless one spends insane amounts of money.
Having said that, Qwen3.8-flash-next is an impressive evolution; it reaches the small versions of the frontier models (like Sonnet) - but again, it's massively slower and not 100% reliable (including: stability).
> if one looks at the CoT, it's evident that it's way way stupider than frontier models
Frontier models don't show the full CoT
Is OpenAI coming in $20B under a sign of "freaking out"?
People tend to conflate the question "is AI a useful technology?" with "are the AI companies going to do well?" but they're surprisingly separated in practice, with either one able to be true while the other is false. There is a lot of money tied up in a lot of hardware with a lot of loans made against that hardware as collateral all based on the assumption that AIs are going to need more and more and more and more hardware and whoever has the hardware wins. If a much better model comes out that requires vastly less hardware, or even more accurately, merely charges vastly less than the current AI companies, then to a first approximation (barring Jevon's paradox, and bearing in mind there's no timeline guarantee on that) all that hardware becomes much less valuable for being grotesquely oversupplied relative to what is necessary, and even though that would generally make AI objectively more useful than it was before, it would cause mass financial chaos in the markets.
The markets need a very particular rate of progress. It isn't entirely clear to me that it's even a possible rate of progress, it may be overconstrained, but they certainly don't have plans for the AI models to get commoditized on the timeframes of these vast, vast array of loans being made against hardware as collateral. Spend a metric shit ton of money to kill all your competition then charge monopoly rent on the one thing absolutely everyone needs doesn't work if you can't economically "kill all your competition" because the economics favor them in the spending spree.
And then, based on the fact that this is not even remotely complicated logic, there are plenty of people who are fully aware that they have a lot of money tied up in not running around telling everyone how wonderful the cheap models have become.
This also assumes heavy utilization, though. If there's heavy utilization, it might mean they're doing well. If they're all spinning, it's time to raise prices.
Can't you just say "shrank to 1/437th the size"? It's not that hard.
It’s disgustingly good value. I find it capable of doing anything I want.
Obviously can’t use it at work, but for home projects it’s awesome.
I do wonder how long it'll be before a us-hosted offering is available via bedrock, copilot, etc.
If it's underpriced, it's a loss leader to sell the other models, so it actually can't be too good.
I really put these things through their paces because I use them to review and work with new abstract game rules and models, so they're always flying blind. Luna misses the obvious (and more importantly, the clearly explained) consistently. My second prompt is listing all of the points in its first response, and saying "No, it doesn't work like that." The third prompt is picking out the two or three suggestions it made after correcting itself on all of the original points and saying "That's how it already works." The fourth prompt is "Now that we're done going over the rules, can we start?"
I actually feel like 5.6 Luna seemed better.
And as long as I pay as little for claude opus 5.5 i do right now, i'm using it.
But yes i'm glad that we have alternatives.
if you have a legitimate coding application, it isn't very good. if you have some kind of inauthentic activity, which could be what it is trained for for all sorts of reasons...
Opus 5.5: TIME 9.3m COST / $1.99 / SCORE 99/100 https://jonclegg.github.io/pacman-bakeoff/#claude-opus-5-5
Deepseek 4.1 Flash: TIME 2.8m / COST $1.89 / SCORE 72/100 https://jonclegg.github.io/pacman-bakeoff/dev/#deepseek-v4.1...