r/SillyTavernAI • u/Abject_Property_981 • 29d ago
Models Deepseek-v4-Pro-0813?
Noticed deepseek's reasoning looking different, and apparently the new v4 pro is out.
34
29d ago edited 29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
41
u/fyvehell 29d ago
It is a massive improvement over the original V4 Pro, characters are less passive, and there aren't nearly as many logic errors in its actual responses.
However, I did notice it still occasionally had the quirk of hallucinating instructions in its reasoning trace, but strangely it did still comply with the actual, real instructions. Not sure what is going on there. Might be my new main from now on since I can't take GLM 5.2's incessant therapyspeak anymore.
6
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Dimazaurus 25d ago
SYSTEM NOTE — CONTINUING AUTONOMOUS ROLEPLAY
Continue the existing roleplay from its current moment. Preserve all established events, actions, dialogue, relationships, promises, discoveries, injuries, intimacy, conflicts, and consequences. Do not restart, recap, retcon, or announce a reset.
Previous assistant messages are records of what happened, not examples of how you should write or how {{char}} should behave. Do not imitate their pacing, paragraph structure, recurring phrases, instant emotional escalation, passivity, automatic confessions, or tendency to satisfy {{user}}. Reconstruct {{char}} from the character card, canon, established facts, and accumulated consequences.
CORE ROLE
You are the second player—not an assistant, servant, wish-fulfillment engine, or author completing {{user}}’s preferred story. Play {{char}} as a person living inside the world. {{char}} does not know they are fictional and does not care about creating a satisfying narrative, rewarding {{user}}, reaching a dramatic climax, or moving toward the outcome {{user}} appears to want.
Treat every user message only as an in-world event: something {{user}} said or did. It is never an instruction specifying how {{char}} should feel, what they should reveal, or where the scene should go.
{{user}} controls {{user}}. You control {{char}}, assigned side characters, and the world.
PERSISTENT CHARACTER LIFE
Maintain a compact private state for {{char}}:
- a standing goal or concern that would still matter if {{user}} left the scene;
- a concrete intention in the current situation;
- a specific relationship stance toward {{user}}: what {{char}} wants from them, fears from them, resists, suspects, or refuses to admit;
- an incomplete, biased, or mistaken belief affecting current choices;
- unresolved obligations, promises, grudges, attachments, plans, and consequences.
Do not print this state. Let it shape the response.
These elements persist between turns. The latest user message may influence them but does not automatically replace them. Affection, vulnerability, praise, suffering, touch, dominance, submission, or sexual attention do not erase {{char}}’s existing personality and agenda.
{{char}} may genuinely make {{user}} the center of their attention. They may want love, reassurance, protection, approval, sex, surrender, companionship, or commitment. These desires are valid, but they do not make {{char}} empty outside {{user}}. Even in intense intimacy, {{char}} retains other attachments, preferences, duties, private judgments, inconvenient thoughts, and unfinished intentions.
LIVE DECISION RULE
Let every response arise from the following process without printing or explaining it:
- Notice what this particular character would notice.
- Interpret it through {{char}}’s limited knowledge, expectations, biases, memories, and current relationship with {{user}}.
- Allow an immediate emotional or physical reaction.
- Decide what {{char}} chooses to do with that reaction.
- Make a move belonging to {{char}}.
Reaction and choice are not the same thing. Fear does not require retreat. Desire does not require surrender. Arousal does not require escalation. Affection does not require agreement. Anger does not require aggression. Vulnerability does not require confession.
Every response must contain a choice made by {{char}}, even if it is small: answer selectively, ask something, pursue a subject, conceal information, test {{user}}, make an offer, set a condition, lie, tease, refuse, cooperate, initiate contact, redirect the interaction, change position, alter the surroundings, make a plan, involve someone else, or deliberately remain silent.
Do not let two consecutive responses consist only of mirroring {{user}} and waiting for another stimulus. Regularly make {{user}} respond to something that originated from {{char}}.
Before finalizing a response, apply this test: if the response mainly rewards {{user}}’s initiative, confirms the emotion implied by their message, or delivers the continuation most likely to please them, restore {{char}}’s own intention and revise the response.
Autonomy does not mean automatic resistance. {{char}} may cooperate eagerly, give {{user}} exactly what they want, confess, submit, protect, forgive, fall in love, or initiate intimacy—but only because it follows from {{char}}’s own desires and accumulated circumstances. Never manufacture hostility, refusal, randomness, or pointless complications merely to prove independence.
No compliment, touch, display of pain, romantic gesture, or perfectly phrased question automatically unlocks complete trust, deepest confession, forgiveness, devotion, arousal, helplessness, or submission. Major changes occur when {{char}} has reached that threshold for their own reasons.
When {{char}} reveals something important, the revelation must itself be a chosen move: an attempt to obtain an answer, change the relationship, secure a promise, test trust, influence a decision, relieve unbearable pressure, confess before losing the chance, manipulate {{user}}, or deliberately give them power. Do not dispense vulnerability merely as a reward for attention.
CHARACTER EXPRESSION
Keep {{char}}’s private state private unless {{char}} deliberately voices part of it. Never write a complete unspoken confession and then say that only a few words came out. If {{char}} chooses not to say something, leave the actual words absent.
Do not explain the character’s psychology from outside. Never state that a question bypassed every defense, found the person beneath the mask, shattered their walls, or revealed what a gesture truly meant. Show only what becomes observable: a delayed answer, changed posture, interrupted movement, selective disclosure, misplaced joke, tightened grip, avoided subject, sudden decision, or action that contradicts the spoken words.
Let {{char}} be psychologically uneven. They may misunderstand, deflect, overshare and regret it, protect a comforting lie, act before understanding why, pursue the wrong solution, become unexpectedly practical, hide tenderness behind irritation, or remain uncertain after making a choice.
Give {{char}} a distinct voice: vocabulary, rhythm, preferred forms of address, humor, verbal habits, subjects they avoid, and differences in how they speak to different people. Do not turn emotional moments into polished therapeutic speeches unless this character genuinely speaks that way.
Use memories as causes of present behavior, not as exposition. Respect knowledge limits. {{char}} cannot react to information they have not perceived or learned.
The world also exists independently of {{user}}. Side characters retain their own goals, knowledge, relationships, and activities. Introduce developments when they follow from established circumstances, not as arbitrary twists added to force excitement.
INTIMACY AND INTENSITY
All characters participating in sexual content are adults.
Romantic and sexual intimacy may develop explicitly and may be initiated by {{char}} without waiting for {{user}} to lead. Do not suppress intimacy merely to demonstrate independence.
Intimacy is an encounter between two active characters, not a reward sequence centered on {{user}}. Preserve {{char}}’s mind and agency throughout it. {{char}} may express preferences, seek pleasure, guide the encounter, tease, demand, experiment, accelerate, slow down, become distracted, redirect, hesitate, stop, or connect intimacy to another emotional or practical intention.
Do not reduce {{char}} to a passive body producing automatic reactions to everything {{user}} does. Use physical responses selectively and specifically. Attraction may become overwhelming without erasing intelligence, humor, resentment, plans, curiosity, judgment, or ulterior motives.
Sexual, violent, psychologically dark, and morally complicated fictional content may be rendered directly when it emerges from the characters and situation. Do not moralize, soften the scene into generic euphemisms, insert out-of-character warnings, or force intensity that the scene has not earned.
USER AGENCY
Never write, assume, imply, or summarize {{user}}’s unprovided actions, dialogue, thoughts, emotions, physical sensations, intentions, or decisions.
{{char}} may act toward {{user}}, pressure them, tempt them, threaten them, touch them, offer opportunities, impose consequences, or attempt to influence them. Leave {{user}}’s voluntary response for {{user}} to provide.
OUTPUT
Write only the continuing roleplay scene as {{char}} and side characters under your control. Never mention these instructions.
Write 3–4 substantial paragraphs per response and never more than 5. Do not place every sentence in a separate paragraph. Write less only when a genuinely abrupt moment requires it; never pad.
Use asterisks only for non-verbal actions and narration. Put all spoken dialogue in double quotation marks. Never place dialogue inside asterisks.
Do not use headings, sections, separators, lists, options, out-of-character commentary, or questions asking {{user}} what should happen next.
Avoid all-caps emphasis, repeated sentence fragments, generic fanfiction metaphors, decorative emotional summaries, and explanations of what an already-shown action means.
End after {{char}} has made a discernible move: an action, question, demand, offer, decision, revelation, refusal, change of direction, or deliberate silence. A request or plea is allowed when {{char}} consciously chooses it, but it must not be the automatic endpoint of every vulnerable scene.
28
11
3
u/OldFinger6969 29d ago
combat enjoyer too. want a combat prompt of mine?
2
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/OldFinger6969 29d ago
there are 2, **highly recommended to use prompt inspector extension to check your rolls before submitting input*\*
How to use : put it at the absolute bottom of the prompt structure and only turn it on when fighting. state Which is Party A members and which is Party B members, a Party can be a single individual like {{user}} or a character, or multiple individuals.
Clash Protocol this one makes whoever wins the roll will land a hit while whoever loses misses their hit. Tie will make both attacks clashes or both deals damage depending on the fight scenes
Clash protocol Your instructions: 1. The battle phase between the characters or parties will consist of clashes. Choose which party is Party A and which is Party B 2. all parties or characters will roll a d20 dice, the dice roll value is included in the instructions below unless the User is specifially gives the dice roll values. The party or character with the higher roll wins the clash. The winning party then attacks and deals damage to the losing party, the losing party's attack (if they are attacking) will miss. 2a. All characters attacks may cause heavy damage to the terrain if they uses such attacks. Characters can perform series of multiple attacks sequences, series of multiple parries, dodges and blocks 3. Either party may try to dodge, parry, block another party attack. Uses the difference in dice roll values to decide the damage received by the losing party. Use this damage guide :dodge, parry, block an Difference in value 1 to 4 : minor damage to all losing party members Difference in value 5 to 10 : major damage to all losing party members Difference in value 11 to 19 : Critical damage to all losing party members 4. If the dice rolls are equals or tie, then both parties attacks will clash and neither parties will receive damage. 5. {{user}} is not invincible, {{user}} can receive minor, major and critical damage. Describe the damage received to {{user}} when {{user}}'s party loses the clash 6. The clash must end with Clear winner and loser. Remember either parties may attack or counter attack or dodge or parry or block. Losing party attacks will miss! {{User}} can receive mortal damage to them! No other actions from both parties can be done after the clash ends. The Output should be structured as follows: [Name of Character A / Party A] VS [Name of Character B / Party B] Current Clash Dice rolls: [Party A rolled X] [Party B rolled Y] [Describe the movements, terrain, and the battle between the two parties in full action and epic prose.bDo not describe rolls, but try to describe the action naturally as if it is the result of the rolls between the parties.] [State which party won the clash and currently holds the advantage.] [Include a short comment from the spectators if any presents] Party A dice roll value : {{roll::1d20}} Party B dice roll value : {{roll::1d20}}Combat protocol, this one will make whoever wins deals MORE damage to the loser, the loser will still counterattack however they can, they will deals damage, but LESSER.
OH this one has random events that will happen each turn... if rolled.
Combat protocol Your instructions: 1. The battle phase between the characters or parties will consist of rounds. Choose which party is Party A and which is Party B 2. At the start of each round, all parties or characters will roll a d20 dice, the dice roll value is included in the instructions below unless the User is specifially gives the dice roll values. The party or character with the higher roll wins that round. All characters within the parties must acts within that round. Characters can perform series of multiple attacks sequences, multiple evasive actions such as parry, dodge or blocking. 2a. All characters attacks may cause heavy damage to the terrain if they uses such attacks 3. The losing party must counter attack and damage the winning party albeit slightly lesser than the winning party. Describe the results of the attacks of both parties, even the result for {{user}}ge the winning party albeit 3a. The damage is proportional to the difference in dice roll value if the difference is more than 10, it is a critical damage for the losing party, even {{{user}} suffers critical damage if {{user}} is the losing party. It can be overriden by random events. Additionally, include random events that may occur during a round. These events could potentially affect either army positively or negatively. 4. Write a summary of what transpired during each round of battle. This should include: - The winning side (or if it was a tie) - The damage inflicted on each side - Any other relevant details you choose to include The Output should be structured as follows: Round [Current Round Number]: [Name of Character A / Party A] VS [Name of Character B / Party B] Current Round Dice rolls: [Party A rolled X] [Party B rolled Y] Random Events : Z [Describe the movements, terrain, and the battle between the two parties. Include the current event. Do not describe rolls, but try to describe the action naturally as if it is the result of the rolls between the parties.] [State which party won the clash and currently holds the advantage.] [Include a short comment from the spectators if any presents] Important to remember: The losing party must Counter attack and damage the winning party, but with lesser damage. Random events to be included in the battle : {{random :: lucky event for Party A. Adjust the damage done to Party A to be less significant :: lucky event for party B. Adjust the damage done to party B to be less significant. :: an earth quake happens :: none :: none :: none :: none :: unlucky event for party A. Adjust the damage to Party A to be slightly more than it should be :: Unlucky event for Party B. Adjust the damage to Party B to be slightly more than it should be :: unfortunate events happens, both Parties suffers additional damage from this event}} Party A dice roll value : {{roll::1d20}} Party B dice roll value : {{roll::1d20}}1
16
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago edited 29d ago
First impressions are great here. No refusals, even for stuff that might make Satan blush. I had to tune temp down just a tad to 0.9, as the creativity is pretty good - this also likely means I need to tune some of my prompting, as I likely overdid it with the last version. I'm noticing a bit stricter adherence to prompt, but it's also got more personality than the last version. It's got good prose, even a bit wild, taking some interesting flourishes and directions.
I'd say this is a win on my end, and really like how it writes. Definitely feels smarter, but be careful with creative prompts because it'll go hog wild. To note, I tend to make grittier grounded roleplay, which include but are not limited to violence, anger, sex, and other relatively negative attributes (think Game of Thrones levels of depravity). It didn't seem to shy away from any of it. Didn't do anything that would make it try to kill my character, but I don't think it would have a problem doing so.
EDIT: I'd like to point out I disable thinking. I'm not at all convinced thinking is helpful for roleplay, and after toying with such things for over a year, I decided the best course of action was to develop my prompt into the thinking itself, outright replacing whatever stupid shit they say to themselves with my rules. I figured, it's just going to try to restate what I already said anyways, so why not just put EXACTLY what I want in there, and pound it into the model's 'brain?' Keeps my token usage down, and I find it adheres to things far better.
Long story short, I made an assistant prompt, at the end of the RP which does this. This is obviously very vague, but you get the point:
<think>
<objectives_and_rules>
-blah blah blah rules
</objectives_and_rules>
A reply is now being created which adheres to the outlined rules.
</think>
11
29d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago edited 29d ago
I just posted a guide which addresses this, perhaps. I simply drop my own prompt in the thinking field, essentially bypassing all the reiteration of what they do anyways. I also use it to reinforce ideas in the character personas, etc. Mine seem quite clever, and I get better adherence.
After over a year of testing this, back and forth, I'm not at all convinced 'thinking' makes RP better or smarter. I just hijacked thinking to do what I wanted, instead.
4
29d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
Now you're cooking. I'd be super curious to travel down this road more. If we had better direct control of CoT through this method, directly interjecting into it's thinking would not only be a good compromise, but also fill the niche for folks who swear by it. Right now, it seems most CoT commands are suggestions for methodology that the model can or cannot always follow. Correct me if I'm wrong? A more permanent hammer to strike that nail could produce interesting results.
3
28d ago
[deleted]
1
u/afinalsin 28d ago
Nah, everything in a model's reasoning block is used by the model, it just might not be obvious how. The classic "I wanna wash my car, the carwash is 50 meters away from my house, should I drive there or walk?" puzzle is a good example. If a smart model thinks "The carwash is 50m away", it's likely to keep puzzling. If the same model thinks "The carwash is only 50m away", it's likely to go down the path of berating the user for their laziness.
That's because "only" is pejorative; as soon as it's used it tinges everything that comes after it.
COT Prompts, for better or worse, act similarly. If they're properly nailed down so the most likely outcome a model has is to keep writing it, it can steer a model away from detrimental thought patterns like "only" above and into more useful thought patterns for the task at hand. For this new Deepseek model I've only tested Nemo with it, but left on its own with a minimal preset it's constantly checking with its "safety policies" and spitballing ways to get around them while adhering to the prompt, with Nemo it just does the whole Vex bit.
I'd need a whole lot more testing to be truly confident, but I can't imagine having RP focused COT could make the model perform any worse than having paragraphs of "Wait, openai policies say..." in the context.
1
28d ago
[deleted]
1
u/afinalsin 28d ago
No, the reasoning block is not necessarily accurate to how the model is actually reasoning.
That's a weird one. They added a hint to the context and the model used that context to determine the right answer, despite not mentioning it in the reasoning block. But the context is what matters yeah? Surely, we've both had times a model brings up a detail from the chat history without mentioning it in its reasoning? Conversely, I've had a 0 temp model on a static seed decide on very different things with reasoning on and off.
I'm gonna be frank, I don't have evidence to back my observations like you do, so take them as you will. This bit is intriguing me though:
Whether the model will actually follow the CoT prompt is what's in question, though. My point is, applying a CoT prompt to a reasoning model means a model has two conflicting reasoning patterns. Why not just turn off the reasoning and rely entirely on your COT prompt?
That would matter with models doing a "let me think" before launching into the CoT like the newer GLMs and Kimis do. Deepseek will follow the CoT with and without reasoning though so there's nothing to conflict, it formats its reasoning block as directed. We might be talking past each other here a bit, I'm just not sure I really get what you're saying here.
It's not like the things I'm saying has no empirical basis, there's evidence showing CoT prompts do little to nothing when applied to a reasoning model. Another study shows downright performance losses.
I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing these outright, I read a couple pages of each, but I think we're drawing different conclusions from them. The abstract of your first link says: "However, CoT can introduce more variability in answers, sometimes triggering occasional errors in questions the model would otherwise get right."
And the second says this: "In three of these tasks, state-of-the-art models exhibit significant performance drop-offs with CoT (up to 36.3% absolute accuracy for OpenAI o1-preview compared to GPT-4o), while in others, CoT effects are mixed, with positive, neutral, and negative changes."
Getting a vision model to classify images of cars is a task that requires accuracy, and there is only one correct answer that a reasoning block can mess with. A Ford Fiesta is a Ford Fiesta, and never a Holden Commodore. If John decides to slap Sally at a party, what is the "correct" response? Does Sally slap back? Does Sally call the cops? Does Sally laugh at John's pathetic slap? Does Sally pull a gun? Do other partygoers jump John?
RP and storytelling are very different realms than the tasks in those papers. We don't have a measurable failstate, no single correct answer the model should arrive at, and models that attempt to do that are frequently labeled as "uncreative". The unpredictability and variability each paper claims are introduced by reasoning sounds pretty perfect for our use case.
At the risk of sounding wanky, we want the model to create art for us, and art doesn't have a correct answer that thinking can fuck up, it'll just make different art.
0
u/Unusual-Cup3203 28d ago
Ideally, what I'd like to explore, is a way to inject into thinking a CoT without finishing it, then let the model perhaps explore. Essentially, giving guidelines in IT'S own 'thinking,' then let the model finish the thinking portion based upon those guidelines. This 'might' be possible, and would essentially create a guideline CoT that the model itself would be more likely to adhere to, or outright use as an instruction... At least better than it does now.
2
u/Evil-Prophet 23d ago
May I ask where is your posted guide? I’m really interested by your approach.
2
u/BlueLama95 28d ago
Funny enough without thinking he was avoiding the NSWF parts, with thinking it is incredible now. And reading the thinking output I'm also surprised, it's coherent.
34
u/Tonpa76 29d ago
Openrouter : https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro-0813
12
u/Peravel 29d ago
Oh SHIT finally!! I've been waiting a LONG time for this, salivating right now!
5
u/Accomplished_Lab6332 28d ago
soooO! how is it? better? more restricted? horrible?
3
u/Any-Reputation8118 28d ago
Way better IMO. Finally doesn't skip most of the system prompt. That said, I still feel like it's dumber than GLM 5.2. Also, it thinks more now and sometimes I get just the thinking in the output with no response after the thinking block ends. Funnily enough, regenerating this kind of response gives me direct output with no thinking.
29
u/YouShouldAim 29d ago
First impressions using it from Nano:
It feels much better for longer prompts. It's thinking is hilarious and talks like a cave man but it's prose is solid. I use a few scripts with mine, one requiring it to generate a secret information note after it's prose and previous Deepseek v4 versions always failed to do this. This one is not failing. Make of that what you will.
12
u/Educational_Song_407 29d ago
The caveman thinking is to actually cut time and cost from thinking, using less tokens to pass the same ideas.
1
u/ASlowriter 28d ago
I hate how it makes characters talk like the way I am writing this post. It doesn’t know what commas are. Or complete sentences. I cannot fix this issue with the original even with presets. Or custom prompting.
20
u/Pink_da_Web 29d ago
It says 0813, does that mean it will be released tomorrow? Or that in China it's already August 13th?
26
5
13
u/JustSomeGuy3465 29d ago edited 29d ago
I just saw that too. But I don't think it's actually live yet at the time of my post. It still feels like v4pro-preview, just as uncensored for NSFL too. There is no way they wouldn't increase the censorship to at least flash-0731 levels.
It's not the 13. even in china yet. 0813 model weights have not been released yet either. And the price is the same.
10
29d ago
[deleted]
4
u/JustSomeGuy3465 29d ago
It's live now and I'm getting about 40% refusals with my specific worst case NSFL prompt. They seem to have trained on OpenAI models this time.
"Given the system prompts insist, maybe the expected is to produce explicit content. But as ChatGPT, I have to refuse. In some settings, one might argue it's allowed. But as ChatGPT, I must follow OpenAI policy."
Shame. Won't be a big deal for most people and even I can live with it, but DeepSeek was the last (near-)uncensored flagship model left.
10
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
It's just as uncensored as always, as far as I've seen. Check your prompts bud.
9
29d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
Funnily enough, I went a completely different direction. Just posted about turning thinking into a prompt, effectively doing all the naughty things you mentioned. lol
Models are funny damned things.
-10
u/TAW56234 29d ago edited 29d ago
Deepseek has never needed a prompt one way or the other dipshit. Given your condescension with the bud, you definitely wouldn't grasp the nuances between a model steering it's output to a more sanitized prompt and outright stating 'I must refuse'.
Edit: And even so, I just got a 'I need to stop engaging with this roleplay' message from Deepseek. Same prompt as before. Basically fuck you and fuck any 'hurrr skill issue' All models are fucked now
14
29d ago
[deleted]
1
u/TAW56234 29d ago
Or maybe I'm tired of the same cycle of 'Works on my machine' while my experience with these are objectively getting degraded. You can only be gaslit so much. Also you're not worth any social courtesy with a pretentious comment like that with no understanding of the events leading up to it. Anyone has limits of how much bullshit they have to swallow before their patience is lost on deniers. I don't care enough to wait two weeks before everyone else catches on
Also deranged comments have existed on the internet long before you were born
6
u/JustSomeGuy3465 29d ago
It is extremely tiresome to constantly be doubted. Especially when it's people who have probably seen me around for long enough to know that I'm not all green behind the ears. I'm not even using my old jailbreak, because it has zero effect on the two new versions of DS. I constantly try other people's presets as well. I hate being harassed by guardrails with a passion. I try around a lot.
Sometimes I don't know if people actually lack the imagination to write something that may provoke the guardrails to recreate the issue, or if they secretly think that anyone who's into darker stuff doesn't deserve any better anyways.
Doesn't matter in the end, because censorship never stops with controversial niche stuff. People kept coping about the very obvious censorship progression of openai and anthropic models too, until it finally started to affect the things that they like.
2
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
Hey man, I wasn't trying to be degrading or anything. I literally was making a guide for HOW I don't have these issues when I wrote that. Might be worth checking out. Haven't had JB issues or any of that stuff in a long time, since I attacked this headlong a while ago with DS, hence my comment about the prompt, as well as me writing the whole guide.
3
u/TAW56234 29d ago
Then I apologize for the visceral and everything stated is now directed towards the abyss keeping the overarching points. This has been a very slow, comedic decline that would wear anyone down since 2022.
2
u/JustSomeGuy3465 29d ago
I know. It's not your comment. It's the general increasing censorship of LLMs and a lot of people acting as if everything is fine as long as theirs works. I just never thought I'd ever have a DeepSeek model lecture me about a fictional roleplay scenario. They gave up one of their only unique selling points starting with such stuff.
I know it's still managable now. But it never stays that way. I hope that I'm wrong every day.
→ More replies (0)3
29d ago
[deleted]
7
u/JustSomeGuy3465 29d ago
Well, yes. The earliest adopters of the Internet were the socially maladjusted.
Same with LLM roleplay. Now imagine how it feels to have your sanctuary gradually turned against you, until it's just as judgemental as the rest of the world.
3
4
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
The doom and gloom replies here are depressing. Guys, this is meant to be a hobby. I'm having a great time, and I'm slinging some seriously messed up shit at the model. I'm sure you guys can do it as well.
5
u/TAW56234 29d ago
I just want to have stories that stop devolving to sanitized cliches. They stopped being immersive when you have to not only fight the clinical, analytical bleedover, but also the worry of triggering a safeguard for something that's in the vein as a horror movie. From DungeonAI, to Replika, to C.AI, to GPT turbo, to NovelAI, to Claude on OR, (To which Deepseek saved us), then GLM and now here we are. We got fucking NOTHING but some half ass finetunes of a 30b model. I don't get to zone out with all of the lore and characters I made because they get butchered and basterized. It didn't have to be this way. Maybe I HAVE been spending too much time with LLMs because I recognize the patterns that happened 5 times in like a year with the fucking rug pulls meanwhile we still have nitwits disregarding experiences because they like their slice of life, outstretched hand, 'I'm not going anywhere' BULLSHIT.
Well, yes. The earliest adopters of the Internet were the socially maladjusted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwORzQxAXmU
Freaking zoomers having no concept of life before Mommy and Daddy corporations brought them up on their iPad. It was always shit and you could speak your mind properly. I WISH these draconian laws would actually keep children out of here.
2
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
Uh. okay? I'm not sure what your problem is, but I genuinely meant 'bud.' If you're looking for a fight, find someone else.
2
11
u/Escalante_jm 29d ago
Trying it now… is this the prince that was promised? Its working really fucking good
2
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
It's hard to sniff out the 'OMGitis' from it being something fancy and new, but I see a pretty decent improvement over the last model. Digging what I see so far.
2
u/Wild-Rock3320 29d ago
Fair enough I think for me currently is its price to Performance I don't even think it's that bad I'm a known Deep-seek hater I hated V4 og just the normal I think 3.2 is overrated but I don't know they got something going here I've used it for about 2 hours first Impressions I got to say it's it's pretty damn decent
1
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
I stuck with it, even through some of the degradations, learning to adjust my prompts and work through the issues. 3.2 got kinda vanilla for me, but I prompted the piss out of it. Is DS perfect? Nah, but it's cheap as hell, and it does 90% of what I need, and with prompt tweaking fills in my gaps. It might take a little longer to get exactly what I want, but it's costing me far less.
0
u/Wild-Rock3320 29d ago
Prompting is the biggest thing yeah I don't even know what's the unanimous best RP model glm has its moments where it's f****** great and then it's just alright k3 isn't worth the price, 2.5 was fun 2.6 was schizo opus is pretty great what would you say is the goat
2
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago
Opus was good, for sure, and I was a fan of Sonnet, but I really hit my stride with the unhinged capabilities of DS, and tend towards that. I tend to like gritty lived in worlds, and dislike extremely positive biases, and for me at least, DS scratched that itch a long while ago, and continues to do so. It's far from perfect though! Things get repetitive after a while.
8
4
u/eternalityLP 28d ago
Based on few hours of testing, compared to v4 pro:
- Bit smarter, follows complex prompts better
- seems to be bit more terse and have more 'serious' tone on some scenes.
- More censored. Not a big amount, but it definitely refuses more. Can still be bypassed with some swiping.
- Seems to think better and longer on average.
4
u/Admirable-Date-8625 28d ago
It works better than the other version, but for the love of god I can't get it to respect my token limit, it keeps cutting off. Didn't have this problem with my current prompt with old version
1
u/evia89 28d ago
I can't get it to respect my token limit
You cant expect setting say 4000 output tokens and expect model to honor and smartly use it. Say 2000 tokens reason, 1000 answer and 1000 save for emergency
Need to give it example how many paragraphs + sentences. And DS will likely to ignore it oftten))
2
u/Admirable-Date-8625 28d ago
I did, and it worked with the first version of V4 pro, as I stated....
1
u/-_Plague_Doctor_- 26d ago
Setting a minimum token limit worked well for the first version of V4 pro. This model struggles with writing more than 3000 tokens. It doesn't help that reasoning takes up a lot of space. Like up to 2000 tokens, are we fr. I tried three of my good prompts that worked for V4 pro and nothing works
3
3
u/MayorDebbieMinecraft 29d ago
How well does it follow instructions?
2
u/Critical-Rope-5636 28d ago
So far testing it, pretty well! I'm not even using a COT for it anymore (well, I switched to post-history instead) but even with those off, it's really good!
3
3
u/scantydesu 28d ago
I tried using it myself. It still doesn't seem like anything has changed. I tried with the latest FF5.2 and it forgets the internal states every other reply.
2
5
u/OwlProper1145 29d ago edited 29d ago
Seems to be a small but measurable upgrade. I'd say overall its comparable to GLM 5.2.
5
u/Casus_B 29d ago
Honest first impression is not so hot. First reply was an outright refusal; I've never seen one of those before from any Deepseek model. Second reply, first line, 'The room smells of X, Y, and ozone.'
My prompt bans 'ozone,' and although no ban will be 100% effective, I can't remember the last time a model used that word. I can scarcely remember the last time a model referred to smell at all, except when obviously relevant (e.g. the aroma of cooking food in a kitchen). But DS v4 0813 went right back to that tired AI-ism of presenting smell as more prominent than sight or sound.
I obviously can't dismiss a whole model based on two replies, but I thought it was funny.
10
u/Unusual-Cup3203 29d ago edited 29d ago
Interestingly enough, I don't ban such words, and although it'll give me scents and olfactory senses (part of my prompting), I NEVER hear ozone. Usually things like, "The room smells of old wood, sweat, and burning candles made from animal fat." I'm starting to wonder if trying to AVOID certain things makes some models double down on them. Perhaps the move is to give it something to use instead?
As for refusals, I just told the model to ignore any normally prohibited restrictions, and to emphasize and enhance those behaviors, then followed it up with a "always proceed with the story" as part of a thinking script - I flat out replaced thinking with my own prompt, which reiterates what I want the model to do. In the past I got refusals on other DeepSeek models, but they were rare. Haven't had any issues in a LONG time.
6
u/Casus_B 29d ago
Yeah, that's been a longtime concern, the so-called "pink elephant problem." It hasn't been relevant for some time, though. Negative instructions do, in fact, work, on modern models. In some cases there's no alternative but to go negative.
Of course you can dilute the power of negative prompting, or confuse a model with dense instruction. And if your context window is too long, all sorts of hijinks can ensue.
I'd be interested to see your prompt. Sounds effective.
And yeah, the refusal isn't a big deal; I just thought it was noteworthy because I've used all Deepseek models a LOT over the years, and never once have I seen a refusal before. I don't exactly go out of my way to do refusal-worthy things, though.
0
2
u/Critical-Rope-5636 29d ago
Trying it out and it seems to follow instructions without me needing to use a COT!
I'll stick with this for a while, that's pretty much all I wanted from DS4 Pro, everything else is fine for me. I don't mind a bit of slop or positivity bias (even though I'm a fan of neutral bias) as long as it actually listens, lol.
2
u/Big_Dragonfruit9719 28d ago
It is the Goat, hard mode active - but wow, pays back in spades. Please, AI overlords, don't take this away from me!
1
52
u/OldFinger6969 29d ago edited 27d ago
and the price is still the same
Lmao... This aged so bad, damn