One post calls a linked DeepSeek post ‘crazy pareto mogging’; another quips, ‘*when removing the models that beat them.’
A post reacts to a linked DeepSeek post with ‘Crazy pareto mogging.’ Another quotes that reaction and adds, ‘*when removing the models that beat them,’ casting doubt on the implied comparison.
4.3K
3 Sources, first seen ago
Zachary Nado wrote on Oct. 17: “*when removing the models that beat them.” His quote-post pointed to @nrehiew_'s reaction, “Crazy pareto mogging,” which quoted a DeepSeek announcement.
We gave DeepSeek’s updated V4.1-Flash-1017 the same 100 pull requests with known vulnerabilities and an hour per PR to find them in the @BugBunny_ai VulnPR-100 benchmark. It found 54 for just $7.53, making it the best-performing open-weight model on our leaderboard. That…
DeepSeek's V4.1-Flash-1017 announcement claimed stronger benchmark performance, faster task completion and shorter outputs than the previous version, calling it “a Pareto improvement in performance and cost.” Nado's post did not name the models he meant.
Not enough discussion yet.
No sentiment analysis available yet.
#4
#4
Not enough discussion yet.
No sentiment analysis available yet.
A poster says they're certain the UK could build an AI lab at that level, though they acknowledge it wouldn't be easy.
A post says the team has many openings and links to a technical write-up described as covering sandbox infrastructure for large-scale agent training.
