
Jb Steuerberg
Add a review FollowOverview
-
Founded Date July 10, 1981
-
Sectors Receptionist
-
Posted Jobs 0
-
Viewed 6
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 consciousness this previous weekend. It sticks out for three powerful reasons:
1. It’s an AI chatbot from China, instead of the US
2. It’s open source.
3. It uses vastly less infrastructure than the big AI tools we’ve been taking a look at.
Also: Apple researchers expose the secret sauce behind DeepSeek AI
Given the US federal government’s issues over TikTok and possible Chinese government participation because code, a brand-new AI emerging from China is bound to generate attention. ZDNET’s Radhika Rajkumar did a deep dive into those issues in her short article Why China’s DeepSeek could burst our AI bubble.
In this short article, we’re preventing politics. Instead, I’m putting both DeepSeek V3 and DeekSeek R1 through the exact same set of AI coding tests I’ve thrown at 10 other big language models. According to DeepSeek itself:
Choose V3 for tasks requiring depth and accuracy (e.g., resolving advanced mathematics issues, generating complex code).
Choose R1 for latency-sensitive, high-volume applications (e.g., client assistance automation, basic text processing).
You can pick between R1 and V3 by clicking the little button in the chat interface. If the button is blue, you’re using R1.
The short answer is this: excellent, however clearly not ideal. Let’s dig in.
Test 1: a WordPress plugin
This test was really my first test of ChatGPT’s shows prowess, method back in the day. My partner required a plugin for WordPress that would assist her run an involvement device for her online group.
Also: The very best AI for coding in 2025 (and what not to utilize)
Her needs were fairly basic. It needed to take in a list of names, one name per line. It then had to sort the names, and if there were replicate names, different them so they weren’t noted side-by-side.
I didn’t truly have time to code it for her, so I chose to give the AI the challenge on an impulse. To my substantial surprise, it worked.
Ever since, it’s been my first test for AIs when assessing their programs abilities. It requires the AI to know how to establish code for the WordPress structure and follow triggers plainly adequate to develop both the interface and program logic.
Only about half of the AIs I have actually checked can completely pass this test. Now, nevertheless, we can include another to the winner’s circle.
DeepSeek V3 developed both the interface and program logic exactly as specified. As for DeepSeek R1, well that’s an intriguing case. The “reasoning” aspect of R1 triggered the AI to spit out 4502 words of analysis before sharing the code.
The UI looked different, with much broader input areas. However, both the UI and reasoning worked, so R1 likewise passes this test.
Up until now, DeepSeek V3 and R1 both passed among 4 tests.
Test 2: Rewriting a string function
A user grumbled that he was unable to go into dollars and cents into a contribution entry field. As written, my code only permitted dollars. So, the test includes offering the AI the routine that I wrote and asking it to rewrite it to permit for both dollars and cents
Also: My favorite ChatGPT feature simply got method more effective
Usually, this leads to the AI producing some regular expression recognition code. DeepSeek did generate code that works, although there is room for improvement. The code that DeepSeek V2 composed was unnecessarily long and repetitious while the reasoning before producing the code in R1 was also long.
My greatest issue is that both designs of the DeepSeek validation guarantees validation approximately 2 decimal locations, but if a very big number is entered (like 0.30000000000000004), using parseFloat does not have explicit rounding knowledge. The R1 design 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 a very great list of tests to confirm versus:
So here, we have a split decision. I’m offering the indicate DeepSeek V3 due to the fact that neither of these issues its code produced would cause the program to break when run by a user and would create the expected results. On the other hand, I have to offer a fail to R1 because if something that’s not a string in some way enters into the Number function, a crash will occur.
Which offers DeepSeek V3 2 triumphes of 4, however DeepSeek R1 just one triumph of four up until now.
Test 3: Finding a frustrating bug
This is a test developed when I had a very frustrating bug that I had trouble finding. Once again, I decided to see if ChatGPT might manage it, which it did.
The obstacle is that the response isn’t apparent. Actually, the obstacle is that there is an apparent response, based on the mistake message. But the apparent response is the wrong answer. This not just captured me, but it routinely catches a few of the AIs.
Also: Are ChatGPT Plus or Pro worth it? Here’s how they compare to the free version
Solving this bug requires comprehending how particular API calls within WordPress work, being able to see beyond the error message to the code itself, and then understanding where to discover the bug.
Both DeepSeek V3 and R1 passed this one with nearly similar answers, bringing us to 3 out of four wins for V3 and 2 out of 4 wins for R1. That currently puts DeepSeek ahead of Gemini, Copilot, Claude, and Meta.
Will DeepSeek score a home run for V3? Let’s discover.
Test 4: Writing a script
And another one bites the dust. This is a tough test due to the fact that it requires the AI to understand the interplay in between three environments: AppleScript, the Chrome things model, and a Mac scripting tool called Keyboard Maestro.
I would have called this an unfair test due to the fact that Keyboard Maestro is not a mainstream programs tool. But ChatGPT managed the test quickly, comprehending exactly 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 understood that it required to split the task in between guidelines to Keyboard Maestro and Chrome. It also had fairly weak understanding of AppleScript, writing custom-made routines for AppleScript that are belonging to the language.
Weirdly, the R1 model stopped working as well since it made a lot of inaccurate presumptions. It assumed that a front window constantly exists, which is absolutely not the case. It likewise made the assumption that the presently front running program would always be Chrome, instead of clearly checking to see if Chrome was running.
This leaves DeepSeek V3 with three right tests and one stop working and DeepSeek R1 with 2 appropriate tests and 2 stops working.
Final thoughts
I discovered that DeepSeek’s insistence on utilizing a public cloud email address like gmail.com (instead of my typical email address with my corporate domain) was annoying. It also had a variety of responsiveness stops working that made doing these tests take longer than I would have liked.
Also: How to use ChatGPT to compose code: What it does well and what it doesn’t
I wasn’t sure I ‘d be able to write this article due to the fact that, for the majority of the day, I got this mistake when attempting to sign up:
DeepSeek’s online services have actually just recently dealt with massive destructive attacks. To make sure continued service, registration is temporarily restricted to +86 phone numbers. Existing users can log in as usual. Thanks for your understanding and support.
Then, I got in and was able to run the tests.
DeepSeek appears to be excessively loquacious in regards to the code it generates. The AppleScript code in Test 4 was both incorrect and exceedingly long. The regular expression code in Test 2 was proper in V3, however it might have been composed in a manner in which made it a lot more maintainable. It failed in R1.
Also: If ChatGPT produces AI-generated code for your app, who does it truly belong to?
I’m absolutely satisfied that DeepSeek V3 vanquished Gemini, Copilot, and Meta. But it appears to be at the old GPT-3.5 level, which means there’s definitely space for enhancement. I was dissatisfied with the results for the R1 model. Given the option, I ‘d still select ChatGPT as my programming code helper.
That said, for a new tool working on much lower facilities than the other tools, this might be an AI to watch.
What do you think? Have you attempted DeepSeek? Are you utilizing any AIs for shows support? Let us understand in the remarks below.
You can follow my day-to-day job updates on social networks. Make certain to sign up for my weekly update 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.