| ▲ | dsco 4 hours ago |
| DeepSeek Flash really came at a bad time before the Anthropic IPO. I use this thing daily and it’s neck and neck with SOTA models. The search is one of the things setting it apart. |
|
| ▲ | rjh29 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's absolutely not SOTA for vibe coding a whole app, but for guided work it is great. |
| |
| ▲ | platinumrad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is anyone actually oneshotting a whole app or even vibecoding one in multiple steps without it being "guided work"? I really wish announcements (like DeepSeek's recent one) would stop focusing on the ability of the model to spit out Minecraft clones on demand. | | |
| ▲ | MrScruff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | OP didn’t mention one-shotting. There are plenty of use cases for the ability to quickly through together and refine an application without reviewing the code though. | |
| ▲ | antoniojtorres 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Some people are trying to one shot entire companies | | |
| ▲ | bahmboo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And failing. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Someone at work vibe coded a replacement for a entire third party SaaS that we were using in a week. Their version is better. It wasn't one-shotted of course but I don't think there's much difference in the outcome between one-shot and like 100-shot over a week. That company is still doomed. Think of something like Trello. Who is going to pay for that when you can easily vibe code something superior (yes you really can now). |
|
| |
| ▲ | gcanyon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have one-shotted the two most recent relatively complex apps I've tried: 1. a puzzle game with complex interplay, pieces to place, design vs. play mode, storing multiple solutions with the puzzle, and more. I've since iterated something like 200 times as I worked out the design etc., but the first iteration was 99% correct and what I asked for 2. a learn-to-read application with built-in stories (that the LLM wrote) the ability to import epub, text, and HTML, that uses the built-in speech libraries as a default, but also supports an open-source TTS library that I gave in the first prompt, tracks progress and problem workds, has multiple games to reinforce learning, and has a parental mode for tracking progress and configuring the tool overall. Frankly I was stunned that Claude one-shotted that second app, there was a lot in the prompt, and it did it all. I fully expected to have to iterate on the first draft multiple times. But it worked out of the box. | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With Opus 5.5 you can vibe code a whole app without reading the code at all. Obviously you still have to tell it what to make. With earlier models that doesn't really work. You really have to read the code and watch it like a hawk or it will make a big mess. To put it another way, with lesser models you have to guide them at a code level. With Opus 5.5 you only have to guide it at an architectural / feature level. | | |
| ▲ | microtonal 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | People said the same for 5.0, 4.8, 4.7, and... I am not disputing that the models are getting better for vibe coding. But I think people have very different standards of what a 'big mess' or 'maintainable software' is. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throwaw12 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | which model is SOTA for vibe coding a whole app? I always use models+agents in guided setup the moment there is a model which can code whole app, we can fairly say software engineering is done. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Opus 5.5 + Claude Code (or probably any agent harness; I don't think they make that much difference). I wouldn't say software engineering is done quite yet but yeah it's definitely never going to be the same. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | redox99 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's really not neck and neck with Opus 5.5. |
| |
| ▲ | lejalv 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Cost-adjusted,it might be ahead. It's key to name the boundary conditions. Unlimited cost is a very HN assumption. | | | |
| ▲ | eru 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Really depends on your use case. You are right that there's plenty of use cases where Opus 5.5 is better. | | |
| ▲ | gvfsa 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If it depends on your use case then it’s not neck and neck… |
|
|
|
| ▲ | vrganj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or at a really good time, depending on who you ask. Not everyone wants Anthropic to succeed. |
| |
| ▲ | jimbob45 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If Anthropic or OpenAI fails, the other wins the US market, no? I’m oversimplifying but…that’s a pretty realistic possibility in the face of people thinking sinking one US AI company would hurt the greater US venture into AI. | | |
| ▲ | cheema33 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If Anthropic or OpenAI fails, the other wins the US market, no? I am of the opinion that they both either succeed or they both fail. They are both losing money hand over fist and their model quality is pretty close to each other. There is not a whole lot that sets them apart. | | |
| ▲ | nkmnz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree on the analysis, but not on the conclusion. What makes you think that the conditions you describe are stable grounds for a duopoly where both could be successful at the same time? | |
| ▲ | tannertech 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If one fails the bubble pops so you're right. |
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if both fail? | | |
| ▲ | tourmalinetaco 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they did then Google would take over, and others would form from their competent engineers. Also, they don’t need to be profitable to succeed, they merely need to hype investors enough to ensure that their losses matter less than their growth projections. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What if all of them fail because the capitalist model of centralization followed by rent-seeking gets foiled by an open alternative? That is explicitly the Chinese strategy. Now, what if the largest capitalist economy went all-in on an AI that might no longer be sufficiently monetizable? | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > explicitly the Chinese strategy Oh come on, this post sounds like one of those twitter bots. No one seriously expected them to just give away billions in R&D for free, and they arent. The chinese model companies are actively moving away from the open source setup. Even state export controls. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Let me quote the big guy himself: > First, we should adhere to the principle of openness and win-win and boost innovation-driven development. As a new engine of world economic growth and an accelerator for the shift of growth drivers, AI is moving from the digital world into the physical world. We should seize this rare, historic opportunity to encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing. We should facilitate technological innovation, industrial development and scenario-based application of AI. We should make coordinated advances in the transformation and upgrade of traditional industries, the cultivation and growth of emerging industries and forward-looking planning for future industries, so that all sectors and businesses can benefit from AI -- Keynote speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping at opening ceremony of 2026 World AI Conference http://english.scio.gov.cn/topnews/2026-07/18/content_118605... As a socialist myself, the above comment looks like a prime example of what Mark Fisher would call capitalist realism, the ideological belief that there is no alternative. The fact that somebody would think past quarterly earnings appears unthinkable to the committed ideologue. They wouldn't give away R&D for free, they would give it away to destroy the capitalist mode of production, as outlined above. If that isn't a worthy goal from China's perspective, then I don't know what would be. China isn't the US. They don't share the same ideology, strategy or conclusions. As for the export controls, they explicitly exempt already-open models and set up an automated streamlined process for future ones. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Hamuko 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No? Why would either of one of those have to win? Even if you limit yourself to US companies only, Google and Meta still exist. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sudo_cowsay 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i thought open models weren't SOTA. therefore not neck and neck... in your experience, do you think it depends on your type of work? |
| |
| ▲ | ra 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They're about half a gen behind. Very impressive to get this kind of utility from a flash series model... the impact of RL seems to be behind much of the coding and agentic improvements lately. | |
| ▲ | blntechie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my experience, for coding, they are pretty much SOTA. Maybe not for other sciences and problem solving. |
|
|
| ▲ | meerita 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Models are comming every 4-6 months. Anthropic, OpenAI, all of them know this. |
| |
|
| ▲ | dudisubekti 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > bad time Regardless of the performance metrics... why bad time? Deepseek is more like a pet project with huge state backing, and they don't seem to compete with Anthropic in terms of profitability. |
| |
| ▲ | throwa356262 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Deepseek is profitable. Anthropic is most likely not. Despite bilions of state funding and contracts. |
|
|
| ▲ | altmanaltman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It literally is not though... even DeepSeek doesn't claim that. It's just super cost-effective |
