← Back to context Comment by sim04ful 14 hours ago Why didn't they increment the version as atleast a patch update 7 comments sim04ful Reply bel8 4 hours ago So whoever is using DeepSeek V4 flash gets a massive upgrade without having to change any config. sim04ful 41 minutes ago That's an absolutely terrible idea for any non-trivial project consuming it. rubslopes 10 hours ago I was also so annoyed by this. It makes communication all around difficult. Why don't they simply call it 4.1 flash? crvdgc 9 hours ago My guess would be the version number tracks the architecture change, not the weight change. kzrdude 13 hours ago Yes, and even if they seem to have updated endpoints in place they should assign the service a version number. markasoftware 14 hours ago They want to be the next Google it seems
bel8 4 hours ago So whoever is using DeepSeek V4 flash gets a massive upgrade without having to change any config. sim04ful 41 minutes ago That's an absolutely terrible idea for any non-trivial project consuming it.
rubslopes 10 hours ago I was also so annoyed by this. It makes communication all around difficult. Why don't they simply call it 4.1 flash?
crvdgc 9 hours ago My guess would be the version number tracks the architecture change, not the weight change.
kzrdude 13 hours ago Yes, and even if they seem to have updated endpoints in place they should assign the service a version number.
So whoever is using DeepSeek V4 flash gets a massive upgrade without having to change any config.
That's an absolutely terrible idea for any non-trivial project consuming it.
I was also so annoyed by this. It makes communication all around difficult. Why don't they simply call it 4.1 flash?
My guess would be the version number tracks the architecture change, not the weight change.
Yes, and even if they seem to have updated endpoints in place they should assign the service a version number.
They want to be the next Google it seems