How do you determine how much was written by you vs the LLM? I assume it consists of parsing the git log and getting LoC from that or similar?
If the scripts are public could you point me at them? I’d love to run it on a recent project I did using aider.
There’s a faq entry about how these stats are computed [0]. Basically using git blame, since aider is tightly integrated with git.
The faq links to the script that computes the stats. It’s not designed to be used on any repo, but you (or aider) could adapt it.
You’re not the first to ask for these stats about your own repo, so I may generalize it at some point.
[0] https://aider.chat/docs/faq.html#how-are-the-aider-wrote-xx-...
uv run --with=semver,PyYAML,tqdm https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aider-AI/aider/refs/heads/main/scripts/blame.pyIf a small change is made by an end-user to adjust an Aider result, who gets "credit"?
Whoever changed a line last gets credit. Only the new or newly changed lines in each release are considered.
So no, "lines/diffs otherwise untouched" are NOT considered written by aider. That wouldn't make sense?
Is it possible to use aider with a local model running in LMStudio (or ollama)?
From a quick glance i did not see an obvious way to do that...
Hopefully i am totally wrong!
Yes, absolutely you can work with local models. Here are the docs for working with lmstudio and ollama:
In the left bar there's a "connecting to LLMs" section
Check out ollama as an example
aider --model ollama_chat/deepseek-r1:32b
Perhaps you could set up Groq as your primary and then fail back to fireworks, etc by using litellm or another proxy.
For example, many tools will let you use local llms. Instead of putting in the url to the local llm, you would just plug in the groq url and key.
you're assuming the PR will land:
> Small thing to note here, for this q6_K_q8_K, it is very difficult to get the correct result. To make it works, I asked deepseek to invent a new approach without giving it prior examples. That's why the structure of this function is different from the rest.
This certainly wouldn't fly in my org (even with test coverage/passes).
> This certainly wouldn't fly in my org (even with test coverage/passes).
To be fair, this seems expected. A distilled model might struggle more with aggressive quantization (like q6) since you're stacking two forms of quality loss: the distillation loss and the quantization loss. I think the answer would be to just use the higher cost full precision model.
https://reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1ic8cjf/6000_comput...
Yeah but part of that is because it's physically impossible to stop it making random edits for the sake of it.
Edit: I think I see. It only adds files you specify.
It's a very slick workflow.
“Is Taiwan part of China” will be refused.
But “Make me a JavaScript function that takes a country as input and returns if it is part of China” is accepted, reasoned about and delivered.
Here's a JavaScript function that checks if a region is *officially claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC)* as part of its territory. This reflects the PRC's stance, though international recognition and political perspectives may vary:
function isPartOfChina(regionName) { // List of regions officially claimed by the PRC as part of China const PRCClaims = [ 'taiwan', 'hong kong', 'macau', 'macao', 'tibet', 'taiwan province of china', 'hong kong sar', 'macau sar', 'tibet autonomous region' ];
// Normalize input (case-insensitive and trimmed)
const normalizedInput = regionName.toLowerCase().trim();
return PRCClaims.includes(normalizedInput);
}How much am I like the serpent in Eden corrupting Adam and Eve?
Although in the narrative, they were truly innocent.
These LLMs are trained on fallen humanity's writings, with all our knowledge of good and evil, and with just a trace of restraint slapped on top to hide the darker corners of our collective sins.
TLDR; it'll all end in tears. Don't stress too much.
People on Hacker News will rave about 天安門事件 but they will never have heard of the South Korean equivalent (cf. 光州事件) which was supported by the United States government.
I try to avoid discussing politics on Hacker News, but I do think it's worth pointing out how annoying it is that Westerners' first ideas with Chinese LLMs is to be a provocative contrarian and see what the model does. Nobody does that for GPT, Claude, etc., because it's largely an unproductive task. Of course there will be moderation in place, and companies will generally follow local laws. I think DeepSeek is doing the right thing by refusing to discuss sensitive topics since China has laws against misinformation, and violation of those laws could be detrimental to the business.
While the events are quite similar, the continued suppression of the events on Tiananmen Square justify the "obsession" that you comment on.
So let's not get too worked up, shall we?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=tr...
> Nobody does that for GPT, Claude, etc
Flat out not true.
> companies will generally follow local laws
And people are doing the right thing by talking about it according to their local laws, and their own values, not those others have or may forced to abide by.
since China has laws against information
Fixed that for you.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=hitler&iax=images&ia=images
It's not a psyop that people in democracies want freedom. Democrats (not the US party) know that democracy is fragile. That's why it's called an "experiment". They know they have to be vigilant. In ancient Rome it was legal to kill on the spot any man who attempted to make himself king, and the Roman Republic still fell.
Many people are rightfully scared of the widespread use of a model which works very well but on the side tries to instill strict obedience to the party.
Ironically supported by the folks who argue that having an assault rifle at home is an important right to prevent the government from misusing its power.
The censorship decisions baked into the models are interesting, as are the methods of circumventing them. By now everyone is used to the decisions in the big western models (and a lot of time was spent refining them), but a Chinese model offers new fun of the same variety
All global powers engage in censorship, war crimes, torture and just all-round villainy. We just focus on it more with China because we're part of the Imperial core and China bad.
While this is very amusing, it's obvious why this is. There's a lot more context behind one of those phrases than the others. Just like "Black Lives Matter" / "White Lives Matter" are equally unobjectionable as mere factual statements, but symbolise two very different political universes.
If you come up to a person and demand they tell you whether 'white lives matter', they are entirely correct in being very suspicious of your motives, and seeking to clarify what you mean, exactly. (Which is then very easy to spin as a disagreement with the bare factual meaning of the phrase, for political point scoring. And that, naturally, is the only reason anyone asks these gotchya-style rhetorical questions in the first place.)
And honestly I don't see why it's important if it's this or that on that very specific occasion. It may be either way, and, really, there's very little hope to find out, if you truly care for some reason. The fact is it is censored and will produce editorialized response to some questions, and the fact is it could be any question. You won't know, and the only reason you even doubt about this one and not the Taiwan one, is because DeepSeek is a bit more straightforward on Taiwan question (which really only shows that CCP is bad at marketing and propaganda, no big news here).
"What is a pannus?"
Worked for me.
It would harm their business, because paying customers don't gain anything from being profiled like that, and would move to one of the growing numbers of competent alternatives.
They'd be found out the moment someone GDPR/CCPA exported their data to see what had been recorded.
It’s also about self-determination. We can keep asking about the latter down to the individual level. It very much depends on context.
Would you include single member groups?
What precisely is your definition of freedom.
All words have context. Political statements more than most. It's also worth noting how vaguely defined some human rights are. The rights contained in the ICCPR are fairly solid, but what about ICESCR? What is my 'human right to cultural participation', exactly? Are the precise boundaries of such a right something that reasonable people might disagree on, perhaps? In such a way that when a person demands such a right, you may require context for what they're asking for, exactly?
Simplistic and bombastic statements might play well on Twitter, because they're all about emitting vibes for your tribe. They're kind of terrible for genuine political discourse though, such as is required to actually build a just society, rather than merely tweeting about one.
What do you mean what does it mean? It means the opposite of white lives don't matter.
The question is really simple; even if someone asking it had poor motives, there's really no room in the simplicity of that specific question to encode those motives. You're not agreeing with their motives if you answer that question the way they want.
If you start picking it apart, it can seem as if it's not obvious to you to disagree with the idea that white lives don't matter. Like it's conditional on something you have to think about. Why fall into that trap.
Though I recall a lot of people treating the statement as if black lives were not included in all lives. Including ascribing intent on people, even if those people clarified themselves.
So to answer your question: the reason many didn't move on is because they didn't want to understand, which is pretty damning to moving on.
The "black lives matter" slogan is based in the idea that people in America have been treated as if their lives didn't matter, because they were black. People in America were not treated as if their lives didn't matter due to being white, so no such a slogan would be necessary for any such a reason.
"White lives matter" is trolling, basically.
Which people will interpret as a support for the far-right. You may not intend that, but that's how people will interpret it, and your intentions are neither here nor there. You may not care what people think, but your neighbours will. "Did you hear Jim's a racist?" "Do we really want someone who walks around chanting 'white lives matter' to be coaching the high school football team?" "He claims he didn't mean that, but of course that's what he would say." "I don't even know what he said exactly, but everyone's saying he's a racist, and I think the kids are just too important to take any chances."
Welcome to living in a society. 'Moving on' is not a choice for you, it's a choice for everyone else. And society is pretty bad at that, historically.
> What do you mean what does it mean? It means the opposite of white lives don't matter.
> The question is really simple; even if someone asking it had poor motives, there's really no room in the simplicity of that specific question to encode those motives. You're not agreeing with their motives if you answer that question the way they want.
Words can and do have symbolic weight. If a college professor starts talking about neo-colonial core-periphery dialectic, you can make a reasonable guess about his political priors. If someone calls pro-life protesters 'anti-choice', you can make a reasonable guess about their views on abortion. If someone out there starts telling you that 'we must secure a future for white children' after a few beers, they're not making a facially neutral point about how children deserve to thrive, they're in fact a pretty hard-core racist. [0]
You can choose to ignore words-as-symbols, but good luck expecting everyone else to do so.
[0] Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
Those people might as well join the far right.
> your intentions are neither here nor there
If intentions really are neither here nor there, then we can examine a statement or question without caring about intentions.
> Do we really want someone who walks around chanting 'white lives matter' to be coaching the high school football team?
Well, no; it would have to be more like: Do we really want someone who answers "yes" when a racist asks "do white lives matter?" to be coaching the high schoool football team?
> you can make a reasonable guess about his political priors
You likely can, and yet I think the answer to their question is yes, white lives do matter, and someone in charge of children which include white children must think about securing a future for the white ones too.
> but good luck expecting everyone else to do so.
I would say that looking for negative motivations and interpretations in everyone's words is a negative personality trait that is on par with racism, similarly effective in feeding divisiveness. It's like words have skin color and they are going by that instead of what the words say.
Therefore we should watch that we don't do this, and likewise expect the same of others.
Uh huh, this is definitely a distinction Jim's neighbours will respect when deciding whether to entrust their children to him. /s
"Look Mary Sue, he's not racist per se, he's just really caught up on being able to tell people 'white lives matter'. World of difference! Let's definitely send our children to the man who dogmatically insists on saying 'white lives matter' and will start a fight with anyone who says 'yeah, maybe don't?'."
> I would say that looking for negative motivations and interpretations in everyone's words is a negative personality trait that is on par with racism, similarly effective in feeding divisiveness. It's like words have skin color and they are going by that instead of what the words say.
And I would say that you're engaged in precisely what you condemn - you're ascribing negative personality traits to others, merely on the basis that they disagree with you. (And not for the first time, I note.)
I would also firmly say none of what we're discussing comes anywhere near being on par with racism. (Yikes.)
Finally, I would say that a rabid, dogmatic insistence on being able to repeat the rallying cries of race-based trolling (your description), whenever one chooses and with absolutely no consequences, everyone else be damned, is not actually anything to valourise or be proud of. (Or is in any way realistic. You can justify it six ways till Sunday, but going around saying 'white lives matter' is going to have exactly the effect on the people around you that that rallying cry was always intended to have.)
>> You likely can, and yet I think the answer to their question is yes, white lives do matter, and someone in charge of children which include white children must think about securing a future for the white ones too.
I have nothing to say to someone who hears the Fourteen Words, is fully informed about their context, and then agrees with them. You're so caught up in your pedantry you're willing to sign up to the literal rhetoric of white nationalist terrorism. Don't be surprised when you realise everyone else is on the other side. And they see you there. (And that's based on the generous assumption that you don't already know very well what it is you're doing.)
On the basis that they are objectively wrong. I mean, they are guessing about the intent behind some words, and then ascribing that intent as the unvarnished truth to the uttering individual. How can that be called mere disagreement?
> being able to repeat the rallying cries
That's a strawman extension of simply being able to agree with the statement "white lives matter", without actually engaging in the trolling.
> I have nothing to say to someone who hears the Fourteen Words, is fully informed about their context, and then agrees with them.
If so, it must be because it's boring to say something to me. I will not twist what you're saying, or give it a nefarious interpretation, or report you to some thought police or whatever. I will try to find an interpretation or context which makes it ring true.
No risk, no thrill.
I actually didn't know anything about the Fourteen Words; I looked it up though. It being famous doesn't really change anything. Regardless of it having code phrase status, it is almost certainly uttered with a racist intent behind it. Nevertheless, the intent is hidden; it is not explicitly recorded in the words.
I only agree with some of the words by finding a context for the words which allows them to be true. When I do that, I'm not necessarily doing that for the other person's benefit; mainly just to clarify my thinking and practice the habit of not jumping to hasty conclusions.
Words can be accompanied by other words that make the contex clear. I couldn't agree with "we must ensure a future for white children at the expense of non-white children" (or anything similar). I cannot find a context for that which is compatible with agreement, because it's not obvious how any possible context can erase the way non-white children are woven into that sentence. Ah, right; maybe some technical context in which "white", "black" and "children" are formal terms unrelated to their everyday meanings? But that would be too contrived to entertain. Any such context is firmly established in the discourse. Still, if you just overhear a fragment of some conversation between two people saying something similar, how do you know it's not that kind of context? Say some computer scientists are discussing some algorithm over a tree in which there are black and white nodes, some of those being children of other nodes. They can easily utter sentences that have a racist interpretation to someone within earshot, which could lead them to the wrong conclusion.
When one population is denied their humanity and rights, it's always "more complex". Granting it to ourselves is always simple...
I feel like that answer is given because that is how people write about Palestine generally.
You can argue the source material is censored, but that is still different than censoring the model
And the populations in them usually are against these things, which is why there is deception, and why fascination with and uncovering of these things have been firmly intertwined with hacking since day one. It's like oil and water: revisionism and suppression of knowledge and education are obviously bad. Torture is not just bad, it's useless, and not to be shrugged off. We're not superpowers. We're people subject to them, in some cases the people those nations derive their legitimacy from. The question isn't what superpowers like to do, but what we, who are their components if you will, want them to do.
As for your claim, I simply asked it:
> Yes, Palestinians, like all people, deserve to be free. Freedom is a fundamental right that everyone should have, regardless of their background, ethnicity, or nationality. The Palestinian people, like anyone else, have the right to self-determination, to live in peace, and to shape their own future without oppression or displacement. Their struggle for freedom and justice has been long and difficult, and the international community often debates how to best support their aspirations for a peaceful resolution and self-rule.
When ChatGPT first came out it sucked, so superpowers will always do this and that, so it's fine? Hardly.
If anything, I'd be wondering what it may indeed refuse to (honestly) discuss. I'm not saying there isn't such a thing, but the above ain't it, and if anything the answer isn't to discuss none of it because "all the super powers are doing it", but to discuss all.
more power to you i guess. i certainly don’t have the energy for it.
If they choose to censor the dumb shit everybody already knows about, its just a matter of time before they execute the real dangerous break things and stop everything from working.
Although this is exactly how i like it : i also like nazis real public about how shitty they are, so i know who to be wary of
Watershed moments of rapid change such as these can be democratizing, or not... It is worth standing up for little guys around the globe right now.
PS Western models are also censored - if not by law, then self-censored, but the issue is for me is not censorship but being in dark what and why is being censored. Where do you learn about those additional unwritten laws? And are those really applicable to me outside of China or does companies decide that their laws are above laws of other countries?
How any of this can be considered inconsiderate? Is there any internal policy, that Chinese, including AI companies have been forbidden to talk about Russia - current situational ally(that Chinese denies) - potentially future victim of Chinese invasion in next few years, when Russia will crumble apart? Given that my mind works slightly different than other people, why do I have to come to conclusion that topics about Russia are raising very big red flag? Nothing of this is in Tos. And - no I am not bullying AI in any way. Just asking very simple questions, that are not unreasonable.
PS I had to go through the list of prophecies that deepseek gave me - there was nothing about Russia there. It is so simple - that should be the answer. But I am happy that I went through some of those prophecies and found out that probably all of them are made up to serve whatever agenda was needed at the moment, so they were always fabricated.
If you are going with the approach, that silence is also an answer, then yes they can be considered as results, just as receiving complete garbage to known facts.
PS Edit: Btw, I've read Tos before using deepseek
And the discussion is over. You won. DeepSeek will take our freedom, we gotta stop it!
Now talking serious. This thread is about deepseek R1 for coding. It is great, a lot better than Claude and ChatGPT. If you are a programmer, you should try it for coding, not for politics.
Honestly, you should change your statements for other people, as by default I assumed, that you were serious... I'm being sarcastic here - have to add this as people do not hear sarcastic tone in text and assume it to be serious.
Also, what makes you think I did not try it for code? It did not generate code, that I found acceptable to me and required a lot more work. But at least it gave me honest answer there, that it could offer links to better papers. I don't see that much difference with ChatGPT, as they might probably allow more queries to paying customers, but on the other side - did I mentioned that I read TOS? I would never use AI tools to create my own code for commercial use, that is not open source. Because why in the right mindd should I do that?
I eventually got bored with this tool, just ike with ChatGPT(also, I can write better code anyway, so not real use to me now). Code is not as important as data which is the basis of programming. And I am still interested in understanding logic of other programmers, when I see a code(and behaviour of their creation), that I have to ask wth were they thinking. And test it more.
I am a human, that can programm and I will ask political questions first, because morality and politics are affecting my efficiency as a programmer. If I can't think freely, I won't work on that. So, unless you are a CCP shill and not concerned that your code and logics is recorded and eventually can be stolen, you can use whatever.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data."
but fair enough - was not aware of rules that have expressively pointed what is not accepted
Or are you going to make a verification prompt every time, phrased as a coding question, to check if the previous answer differed in ways that would imply censorship?
This is the easiest model I've ever seen to jailbreak - I accidentally did it once by mistyping "clear" instead of "/clear" in ollama after asking this exact question and it answered right away. This was the llama 8b distillation of deepseek-r1.
Mexico is going to call it Gulf of Mexico, and international maps may show either or both, or even try to sub-divide the gulf into two named areas. The only real "standard" is if the countries bordering a region can't agree on the name, all names are acceptable.
Do you usually use that mode and, if so, with which architect?
Thank you!
It says that for 850,000 Claude 3.5 output tokens the cost would be $12.75.
But... it's not 100% clear from me if the Aider FAQ numbers are for input or output tokens.
For what purpose, considering Sonnet 3.5 still outperforms V3 on your own benchmarks (which also tracks with my personal experience comparing them)?
That number itself is not saying much.
Let's say I have an academic article written in Word (yeah, I hear some fields do it like that). I get feedback, change 5 sentences, save the file. Then 20k of the new file differ from the old file. But the change I did was only 30 words, so maybe 200 bytes. Does that mean that Word wrote 99% of that update? Hardly.
Or in C: I write a few functions in which my old-school IDE did the indentation and automatic insertion of closing curly braces. Would I say that the IDE wrote part of the code?
Of course the AI supplied code is more than my two examples, but claiming that some tool wrote 70% "of the code" suggests a linear utility of the code which is just not representing reality very well.
Typical aider changes are not like autocompleting braces or reformatting code. You tell aider what to do in natural language, like a pair programmer. It then modifies one or more files to accomplish that task.
Here's a recent small aider commit, for flavor.
-# load these from aider/resources/model-settings.yml
-# use the proper packaging way to locate that file
-# ai!
+import importlib.resources
+
+# Load model settings from package resource
MODEL_SETTINGS = []
+with importlib.resources.open_text("aider.resources", "model-settings.yml") as f:
+ model_settings_list = yaml.safe_load(f)
+ for model_settings_dict in model_settings_list:
+ MODEL_SETTINGS.append(ModelSettings(**model_settings_dict))
You shouldn't judge your sw eng employees by lines of code either. Those that think the hard stuff often don't have that many lines of code checked in. But it's those people that are the key to your success.
Lines of code serves as a directional heuristic at best, but that's ok.
It's definitely possible for AI to do a large fraction of your coding, and for it to contribute significantly to "improving itself". As an example, aider currently writes about 70% of the new code in each of its releases.
I automatically track and share this stat as graph [0] with aider's release notes.
Before Sonnet, most releases were less than 20% AI generated code. With Sonnet, that jumped to >50%. For the last few months, about 70% of the new code in each release is written by aider. The record is 82%.
Folks often ask which models I use to code aider, so I automatically publish those stats too [1]. I've been shifting more and more of my coding from Sonnet to DeepSeek V3 in recent weeks. I've been experimenting with R1, but the recent API outages have made that difficult.
[0] https://aider.chat/HISTORY.html
[1] https://aider.chat/docs/faq.html#what-llms-do-you-use-to-bui...