[mark_l_watson]

re:

> Right now unless you're paying by the token, there's no cost based reason to use the open weight models for daily coding work because the monthly coding plans from Anthropic and OpenAI are a better deal.

Maybe. I am on a $20/month Anthropic subscription this month but I also use Claude Code frequently with Deepseek v4 flash and pro, GML5.2. For simple work Deepseek v4 flash is so nice because it is fast.

What you say is true however, the US hyper-scalers are still (desperately?) subsidizing subscriptions for market share to boost there valuations.

I really want to see AI inference costs approach zero, and I think I just need to wait a few years to see that.

[cmrdporcupine]

DeepSeek is a whole other story. It and a few others are quite economical. But they're also not nearly at the same level.

I can get by working on code strictly in GLM. I can't with DeepSeek. It makes some pretty careless mistakes and isn't a very deep thinker.

It is very useful as a general purpose model for non-coding purposes though.

[humanfromearth9]

For maths, it's also wrong most of the time. Generated stuff looks right, then let Opus audit and see the disaster.

DS4 is usable iff you have a way to test the generated stuff, and to convince yourself that its production is right. With successive review-fix rounds, it's obviously way more reliable too, but that can't compensate for it's lack of rigor when reasoning. It's very smart but neither rigorous nor careful. And that is a direct result of its architecture.