Overview
- Founded Date August 26, 1986
- Sectors Medicine / Health / Therapy
- Posted Jobs 0
- Viewed 5
Company Description
I Tested DeepSeek’s R1 and V3 Coding Skills – and we’re not All Doomed (Yet).
DeepSeek blew up into the world’s awareness this previous weekend. It stands out for 3 powerful reasons:
1. It’s an AI chatbot from China, instead of the US
2. It’s open source.
3. It utilizes vastly less infrastructure than the big AI tools we have actually been looking at.
Also: Apple scientists expose the secret sauce behind DeepSeek AI
Given the US government’s concerns over TikTok and possible Chinese government participation because code, a new AI emerging from China is bound to generate attention. ZDNET’s Radhika Rajkumar did a deep dive into those problems in her post Why China’s DeepSeek might break our AI bubble.
In this post, we’re avoiding politics. Instead, I’m putting both DeepSeek V3 and DeekSeek R1 through the same set of AI coding tests I have actually thrown at 10 other large language designs. According to DeepSeek itself:
Choose V3 for jobs requiring depth and precision (e.g., solving innovative math issues, generating complex code).
Choose R1 for latency-sensitive, high-volume applications (e.g., consumer assistance automation, standard text processing).
You can pick in between R1 and V3 by clicking the little button in the chat user interface. If the button is blue, you’re using R1.
The short answer is this: outstanding, but plainly not perfect. Let’s dig in.
Test 1: Writing a WordPress plugin
This test was in fact my first test of ChatGPT’s shows expertise, method back in the day. My wife needed a plugin for WordPress that would help her run a participation gadget for her online group.
Also: The best AI for coding in 2025 (and what not to use)
Her requirements were relatively easy. It required to take in a list of names, one name per line. It then had to sort the names, and if there were duplicate names, separate them so they weren’t listed side-by-side.
I didn’t actually have time to code it for her, so I chose to give the AI the difficulty on a whim. To my huge surprise, it worked.
Ever since, it’s been my very first test for AIs when evaluating their programming abilities. It needs the AI to understand how to establish code for the WordPress structure and follow triggers clearly sufficient to produce both the interface and program logic.
Only about half of the AIs I’ve tested can fully pass this test. Now, nevertheless, we can include another to the winner’s circle.
DeepSeek V3 developed both the interface and program reasoning exactly as specified. When It Comes To DeepSeek R1, well that’s an intriguing case. The “reasoning” element of R1 triggered the AI to spit out 4502 words of analysis before sharing the code.
The UI looked various, with much wider input areas. However, both the UI and reasoning worked, so R1 likewise passes this test.
So far, DeepSeek V3 and R1 both passed among four tests.
Test 2: Rewriting a string function
A user complained that he was not able to go into dollars and cents into a contribution entry field. As composed, my code only enabled dollars. So, the test includes providing the AI the routine that I wrote and asking it to rewrite it to permit both dollars and cents
Also: My preferred ChatGPT feature simply got way more powerful
Usually, this results in the AI producing some regular expression validation code. DeepSeek did create code that works, although there is space for enhancement. The code that DeepSeek V2 composed was needlessly long and repetitive while the thinking before producing the code in R1 was also long.
My biggest concern is that both models of the DeepSeek validation guarantees validation approximately 2 decimal locations, however if a large number is gotten in (like 0.30000000000000004), making use of parseFloat doesn’t have explicit rounding understanding. The R1 model also used JavaScript’s Number conversion without looking for edge case inputs. If bad information comes back from an earlier part of the regular expression or a non-string makes it into that conversion, the code would crash.
It’s odd, due to the fact that R1 did present an extremely good list of tests to verify against:
So here, we have a split decision. I’m offering the point to DeepSeek V3 because neither of these issues its code produced would trigger the program to break when run by a user and would create the anticipated outcomes. On the other hand, I have to give a fail to R1 due to the fact that if something that’s not a string in some way enters into the Number function, a crash will take place.
Which provides DeepSeek V3 2 triumphes of 4, but DeepSeek R1 only one win out of 4 up until now.
Test 3: Finding an annoying bug
This is a test developed when I had a really annoying bug that I had problem locating. Once again, I chose to see if ChatGPT might handle it, which it did.
The obstacle is that the response isn’t apparent. Actually, the difficulty is that there is an obvious answer, based on the mistake message. But the apparent answer is the incorrect answer. This not just captured me, but it frequently catches a few of the AIs.
Also: Are ChatGPT Plus or Pro worth it? Here’s how they compare to the free variation
Solving this bug requires comprehending how particular API calls within WordPress work, having the ability to see beyond the error message to the code itself, and after that knowing where to find the bug.
Both DeepSeek V3 and R1 passed this one with nearly identical responses, bringing us to 3 out of 4 wins for V3 and 2 out of four wins for R1. That already puts DeepSeek ahead of Gemini, Copilot, Claude, and Meta.
Will DeepSeek score a home run for V3? Let’s find out.
Test 4: Writing a script
And another one bites the dust. This is a challenging test since it needs the AI to the interplay between 3 environments: AppleScript, the Chrome item model, and a Mac scripting tool called Keyboard Maestro.
I would have called this an unreasonable test due to the fact that Keyboard Maestro is not a mainstream programming tool. But ChatGPT managed the test quickly, comprehending precisely what part of the problem is managed by each tool.
Also: How ChatGPT scanned 170k lines of code in seconds, conserving me hours of work
Unfortunately, neither DeepSeek V3 or R1 had this level of understanding. Neither model knew that it required to split the task between instructions to Keyboard Maestro and Chrome. It also had relatively weak understanding of AppleScript, composing custom regimens for AppleScript that are belonging to the language.
Weirdly, the R1 design stopped working also because it made a bunch of incorrect assumptions. It presumed that a front window always exists, which is certainly not the case. It also made the assumption that the presently front running program would constantly be Chrome, instead of explicitly checking to see if Chrome was running.
This leaves DeepSeek V3 with 3 proper tests and one fail and DeepSeek R1 with 2 appropriate tests and two stops working.
Final ideas
I discovered that DeepSeek’s persistence on utilizing a public cloud e-mail address like gmail.com (rather than my regular email address with my corporate domain) was bothersome. It likewise had a number of responsiveness fails that made doing these tests take longer than I would have liked.
Also: How to utilize ChatGPT to write code: What it succeeds and what it doesn’t
I wasn’t sure I ‘d be able to write this post since, for most of the day, I got this mistake when attempting to sign up:
DeepSeek’s online services have actually recently faced large-scale malicious attacks. To ensure continued service, registration is momentarily limited to +86 telephone number. Existing users can visit as normal. Thanks for your understanding and assistance.
Then, I got in and had the ability to run the tests.
DeepSeek seems to be excessively chatty in terms of the code it generates. The AppleScript code in Test 4 was both wrong and excessively long. The routine expression code in Test 2 was right in V3, however it might have been composed in a method that made it far more maintainable. It stopped working in R1.
Also: If ChatGPT produces AI-generated code for your app, who does it truly belong to?
I’m definitely satisfied that DeepSeek V3 vanquished Gemini, Copilot, and Meta. But it appears to be at the old GPT-3.5 level, which implies there’s definitely space for enhancement. I was dissatisfied with the results for the R1 design. Given the choice, I ‘d still pick ChatGPT as my programming code helper.
That said, for a brand-new tool operating on much lower facilities than the other tools, this might be an AI to see.
What do you think? Have you attempted DeepSeek? Are you utilizing any AIs for shows assistance? Let us know in the comments below.
You can follow my day-to-day job updates on social networks. Be sure to subscribe to my weekly upgrade newsletter, and follow me on Twitter/X at @DavidGewirtz, on Facebook at Facebook.com/ DavidGewirtz, on Instagram at Instagram.com/ DavidGewirtz, on Bluesky at @DavidGewirtz. com, and on YouTube at YouTube.com/ DavidGewirtzTV.