24 ms·

Can you tell me more about deepseek? I paid $2 for deepseek api, put the key in void editor and made a crypto tool in html. It turned out to be around 67kb. I

Can you tell me more about deepseek? I paid $2 for deepseek api, put the key in void editor and made a crypto tool in html. It turned out to be around 67kb. I used sample files in CSV that were a few hundred lines. It spent around $1.8 in the hour or two or light coding and follow up bugs. Is it really really this much? I can't imagine spending a month using it for a day job, it would cost more than the salary so what gives? I understand the local ai and all that but do cloud providers cost this much? Earlier I thought "billion tokens" but now not sure

aduwah 2mo ago
A local AI is not about cost. In fact you will likely pay more for it than with most providers. Just look up the advantages of having access to a technology like this that can be self hosted
5701652400 2mo ago
so Deepseek 4 Pro cannot go on own sessions for too long. I delegate small-medium tasks: refactors, summaries, research, writing tests + have very good codebase already + extensive history / architecture / docs / linters. so it picks up and does decent small-medium scope work. it is fast, accurate, cheap. does exactly what I want directly and does not waste time nor tokens. definitely not "implement me complex greenfield project".
k__ 2mo ago
My 2 weeks with DeepSeek V4: Pro is ~50% more expensive than Flash. Both need babysitting. Plan, split in small tasks, give it docs, types, tests, linter, best practice examples, etc. Always start a new session when starting a task. Do regular manual sanity checks, and tell it to find issues in the codebase. I pay like $1,50 per day for Pro.
- 5701652400 2mo ago
  very simlar experience. I would also add that I run it this way ~12hour a day non-stop. 300M / tokens per day (99.7% cache hit).
- h2aichat 2mo ago
  I had a similar experience
- p1necone 2mo ago
  I use GLM-5.2 as an orchestrator model which delegates to Deepseek subagents (v4 flash or pro depending on complexity) and it works pretty well for a quite complex compiler codebase when I do deep enough up front planning for features/fixes. If you believe the benchmarks Deepseek v4 is pretty shitty at long running work in large codebases, but really really good at self contained algorithmic/math reasoning - which is basically ideal for a compiler for a language with a relatively complex type system. And with its cache pricing it's very cheap. GLM-5.2 is too expensive at api pricing for my taste though even when it's not producing the bulk of the output tokens - I pay for the mid-tier subscription and switch the orchestrator over to other models via open router when I run out - Minimax M3 feels okay but definitely a step down from GLM-5.2.

aduwah 2mo ago

A local AI is not about cost. In fact you will likely pay more for it than with most providers. Just look up the advantages of having access to a technology like this that can be self hosted

5701652400 2mo ago

so Deepseek 4 Pro cannot go on own sessions for too long. I delegate small-medium tasks: refactors, summaries, research, writing tests + have very good codebase already + extensive history / architecture / docs / linters. so it picks up and does decent small-medium scope work. it is fast, accurate, cheap. does exactly what I want directly and does not waste time nor tokens. definitely not "implement me complex greenfield project".

k__ 2mo ago

My 2 weeks with DeepSeek V4: Pro is ~50% more expensive than Flash. Both need babysitting. Plan, split in small tasks, give it docs, types, tests, linter, best practice examples, etc. Always start a new session when starting a task. Do regular manual sanity checks, and tell it to find issues in the codebase. I pay like $1,50 per day for Pro.

5701652400 2mo ago
very simlar experience. I would also add that I run it this way ~12hour a day non-stop. 300M / tokens per day (99.7% cache hit).
h2aichat 2mo ago
I had a similar experience
p1necone 2mo ago
I use GLM-5.2 as an orchestrator model which delegates to Deepseek subagents (v4 flash or pro depending on complexity) and it works pretty well for a quite complex compiler codebase when I do deep enough up front planning for features/fixes. If you believe the benchmarks Deepseek v4 is pretty shitty at long running work in large codebases, but really really good at self contained algorithmic/math reasoning - which is basically ideal for a compiler for a language with a relatively complex type system. And with its cache pricing it's very cheap. GLM-5.2 is too expensive at api pricing for my taste though even when it's not producing the bulk of the output tokens - I pay for the mid-tier subscription and switch the orchestrator over to other models via open router when I run out - Minimax M3 feels okay but definitely a step down from GLM-5.2.