DeepSeek search and fetch – $0.75 per 1000 successful requests(api-docs.deepseek.com) |
DeepSeek search and fetch – $0.75 per 1000 successful requests(api-docs.deepseek.com) |
Looks like they've built (or are building) their own index and return cached results. What you do with that information is up to you. If you want to visit the live page, you'd need to find a way around bot detection.
One reason (not the only one!) people use Anubis is to prevent the endless flood of requests from AI companies. If Deepseek scrapes once every few hours, that helps the website owner with the traffic problem while allowing access.
If they don't want to allow access, my guess is that deepseek's search crawler respects robots.txt but I don't know.
Most US services like Claude and ChatGPT send a specific user agent that makes it easy to block them and specifically does not try to get around any sort of bot protections
Meanwhile other services could use a variety of tactics such as simply setting a browser user agent and/or using random data center IPs or residential IPs, etc etc and then the blocking would just come down to whatever the individual page has configured which can actually be pretty hit or miss
It'd be one thing if they required the user to consciously say "yes, I want you to bypass the block" (still unethical), but the fact that it's just default behavior really says something about the service design alignment.
Google has done various versions of this as well, Grok too.
It could be these bots were in some custom harness or something, but they literally sent requests in very weird ways, that humans won't be doing.
I have ended up putting my sites behind vpns or anubis and similar. This is beyond painful.
The last part is extremely dubious with some recent reveals.
I am curious if my large website is in their search results. My company charges $1 per page crawled of our website, and the only traffic that worms through our firewall is using hacked residential ISPs. I really need to know who to send the (large!) bill to.
In short, you can try to charge people (or bots) per page but it's not like you'll ever see that money, as it breaks a fundamental paradigm of the internet.
I understand if you pay is a different story.
I mean ... "how does this work?"
the moment there is a model which can code whole app, we can fairly say software engineering is done.
Competitor uruky is more relaxed about api and is cheaper. Creator is active on hn
>We calculate search rates based on the timestamps of the last searches of a user (just the timestamps, not the queries or anything else!). We keep those timestamps for 12 hours, then discard them. We currently limit searches to 5 per 5 seconds, 15 per minute, and 120 per hour.
Source: https://uruky.com/faq
I wouldn’t be able to use that API in any app with any significant number of concurrent users.
Or am I reading it wrong?
The existing search machines that offer free APIs for local harnesses are super bad with low quality.
This is worth the invest as LLMs can be guided closer to existing information/code to adapt it.
RAM prices will also probably stay very high as long as AI companis act in such a parasitic manner.
Not everyone wants Anthropic to succeed.
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.
I'm just overflowing with joy that you're comfortable wasting my time and money.
Incentives are crazy powerful.
Please stop. The last thing we need in the world is more greed and selfishness.
Only strong regulation can help.
There are plenty of use cases for the ability to quickly through together and refine an application without reviewing the code though.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.