← All models

DeepSeek · Last 7 days

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp

0–100 · higher means more positive community experience, not benchmark performance.

Updated 2026-09-10 23:21 UTC · 2026-09-04 – 2026-09-11 UTC
Community scoreCollecting reviews1 comments in 7 days

As of 2026-09-11 01:00:07 UTC, DeepSeek V3.2 Exp in the DeepSeek family has 1 explicitly attributed community comments in the last 7 days; its overall score is awaiting sufficient feedback. Scoring method and sources

Community reviews

Selected comments from the last 7 days. The balance of excerpts does not represent the share of positive reviews.

1 selected excerpts

NegativeGeneral text

“Completely failed. Rated as the third worst update besides DeepSeek Hermite (waiting for users to break through development problems) and DeepSeek V3.2 Exp (not doing ablations, randomly integrating methods causing frequent bugs), sitting at the same table as the paper 'Thinking with Visual Primitives' which completely got the direction wrong (trying to align patches with absolute grounding instead of leveraging patch nativeness). P's activation should be adaptively determined by the content loss of P and D, using fewer activations for low-loss P, and for high-loss P should try to maximize activation even...”

ZhihuzhMachine translated
Show original

彻底拉完了,评价为除了Deepseek Harmess(等着用户来来突破开发问题)和Deepseek V3.2 Exp(不做消融乱融方法导致bug频发)外的第三大最烂更新,和Thinking with visual primitive这篇完全把方向做反(尝试对齐patch与absolute grounding而不是利用patch native)的论文排一桌。 P的激活应该由P和D的内容loss自适应,对于低loss的P可以用更少的激活,而对于高loss的P应该尽量增大激活甚至

How's your AI experience today?