DeepSeek R1 family
First-generation reasoning release with full R1/R1-Zero and smaller Qwen/Llama distills; distill base licenses differ and should be checked individually.
Score calculation
(2 + 3 + 8 + 1 + 7) ÷ 5 = 4.2
5 of six dimensions rated. Unrated dimensions are excluded from the average.
Full scoring method ↗Setup details
DeepSeek-R1 and R1-Zero released reasoning checkpoints, plus official distills where lineage is stated; base model is DeepSeek-V3-Base, not V4.
What fits your needs
DeepSeek-R1 and R1-Zero released reasoning checkpoints, plus official distills where lineage is stated; base model is DeepSeek-V3-Base, not V4.
Good fit
First-generation reasoning release with full R1/R1-Zero and smaller Qwen/Llama distills; distill base licenses differ and should be checked individually.
Tradeoffs to expect
Tradeoffs
MIT for R1 source and weights; official card notes inherited Qwen/Llama terms for the distilled checkpoints. MIT full weights, code, paper, and distillation disclosures support inspection. Distilled checkpoints inherit separate base-model terms and the original training-data rights remain unresolved.
How to switch
Local setup
The full 671B checkpoint requires distributed server hardware. Smaller distills are separate downloadable models; select and size a specific Qwen- or Llama-based checkpoint.
Practical questions
Weights and license
Fetch the exact checkpoint revision and read its own license; sibling and distilled variants may inherit different terms.
Hardware
The full 671B checkpoint requires distributed server hardware. Smaller distills are separate downloadable models; select and size a specific Qwen- or Llama-based checkpoint.
Training data
Treat the weight license and public web/data availability separately from evidence of permission for the training data.
This is a practices and disclosure score for the named release, not a request-level energy or emissions estimate.
See the evidence
The original R1 uses the V3 base, whose paper reports H800 GPU-hours for training. This is compute disclosure, not energy or water measurement for R1. The rubric rewards documented reporting and controls; it does not infer high consumption from missing measurements.
1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 0 controls = 2/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.
No comparable per-request electricity, emissions, water, regional serving mix, or independently reviewed model footprint is established in the cited sources.
- Reporting1/3
- The original R1 uses the V3 base, whose paper reports H800 GPU-hours for training. This is compute disclosure, not energy or water measurement for R1.
- Electricity sourcing0/3
- No model-specific clean-electricity sourcing or hourly power evidence is published in the reviewed sources; zero means unestablished, not dirty electricity.
- Resource controls0/3
- No model-specific documented control or measured physical resource reduction is established by the reviewed release materials. Public weights or smaller variants alone do not prove reduced resource use.
Water disclosure
Water reporting has not been assessed for this choice.
The release provides some training-process information, but not a complete permission ledger for inherited and later training data.
See the evidence
The paper and card explain R1 training stages and identify V3-Base plus named distill bases, but they do not disclose a complete source and permission ledger for the underlying training data. A public weight license governs use of those weights; it is not proof that every training source was permitted.
1 base + 2 source transparency + 0 documented permission + 0 creator controls = 3/10. Weight licensing is not treated as training data permission.
Complete source lists, source-specific rights, inherited-base provenance, synthetic-data generation permissions, and creator removal or retraining remedies remain unestablished.
- Source transparency2/3
- The paper and card explain R1 training stages and identify V3-Base plus named distill bases, but they do not disclose a complete source and permission ledger for the underlying training data.
- Documented permission0/4
- A model-weight license governs the released checkpoint, not automatically the training data. The reviewed release doesn’t confirm affirmative rights for all inherited and post-training material.
- Creator controls0/2
- The reviewed model documentation doesn’t show creator permission covering all training data, opt-out, removal, or retraining remedy for this model family.
Privacy depends on where these released weights are run; the model family has no single prompt-retention or training route.
See the evidence
The official release makes weights available for separate deployments, but it does not define one inference host or retention policy for every user. Local and hosted operators may handle prompts differently, so a single numerical privacy grade would misstate this model-level entry.
The user-selected host, region, telemetry, logging, extensions, and provider training terms are outside the checkpoint release and require a route-specific review.
MIT full weights, code, paper, and distillation disclosures support inspection. Distilled checkpoints inherit separate base-model terms and the original training-data rights remain unresolved.
See the evidence
MIT full weights, code, paper, and distillation disclosures support inspection. Distilled checkpoints inherit separate base-model terms and the original training-data rights remain unresolved. This openness rating concerns artifacts and reproducibility only; it does not assess whether the original training data was authorized.
MIT for R1 source and weights; official card notes inherited Qwen/Llama terms for the distilled checkpoints. Model weights and documentation are available, but limitations described above reduce source-level reproducibility.
The checked release and license apply to the named checkpoints; sibling variants, future versions, and the underlying training data may have different terms or disclosures.
No model-specific worker safeguards are established for DeepSeek in the reviewed model sources.
See the evidence
The model release pages describe weights and technical properties, not conditions for employees, data annotators, evaluators, moderators, or infrastructure contractors. This is a source-bounded disclosure gap, not evidence of mistreatment.
1 base + 0 conditions + 0 worker voice/remedy + 0 evidence/follow-through = 1/10; this is a disclosure finding, not proof of abuse.
Worker locations, pay and conditions, supplier coverage, voice mechanisms, labor audits, and remediation outcomes are not established by these model-release sources.
- Pay & conditions0/3
- No worker-level conditions or supply-chain safeguards are established in this model-family source set. This is a disclosure gap, not proof of mistreatment.
- Worker voice & remedy0/3
- The model sources do not document a worker voice or remedy mechanism for data, evaluation, or infrastructure labor.
- Evidence & follow-through0/3
- No independent worker-level audit or remediation outcome is established in the reviewed model sources.
No military relationship or release-specific safeguards are established for DeepSeek in the reviewed model sources.
See the evidence
The official model card and release materials identify the model and license but do not provide a military customer, contract, deployment, or model-specific enforcement record. A relationship may still exist even if this review found no record of it.
7 base + 0 safeguard adjustment = 7/10 (0 of 9 safeguard points; every 3 adds 1). No military relationship was established in the cited sources. This ranks above known defense ties without claiming a verified clean record.
Undisclosed contracts, customer-specific deployment, end-use restrictions, and independent compliance outcomes are not established by this model-family review.
- Use restrictions0/4
- The cited model license and release documents don’t show a model-specific binding ban on military or intelligence use. This is limited to this source set.
- Enforcement & oversight0/3
- No military-specific monitoring, enforcement, or remedy mechanism is established in the reviewed model materials.
- Relationship disclosure0/2
- The model materials do not disclose a model-specific military relationship or military-use record. A relationship may still exist even if this review found no record of it.
The reviewed model-release sources don’t confirm a defense relationship; absence of disclosure is not a clean-record finding.
Military rubric ↗DeepSeek is not named in the two official BNC campaign lists checked. This is a limited list check, not BDS approval.
See the evidence
The official BNC consumer boycott/pressure guide and No Tech campaign page do not name DeepSeek among their current targets. BDS uses selective campaigns, so absence from these lists is neutral and should not be read as a clean record or approval.
This check covers only named targets in the two cited BNC campaigns; it does not cover all BDS campaigns, local groups, investments, suppliers, or downstream hosts. Lists and ownership may change.