I spent only two minutes reading their documentation and it’s clear no one did any proofreading and it’s full of mistakes made by non-native speakers.
Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized.
Example: the third page about tokens has some zipped code to “calculate the token usage for your intput/output” and obviously “intput” should be “input” but misspelled.
As a company that produces LLMs, they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues, and yet they did not.
Maybe I’m just extra sensitive to grammar and spelling issues but this kind of lack of attention to detail is a huge subconscious turnoff. I had to fight my urge to close the tab.
Yeah I think those details are the least of most peoples concerns. I can't vouch one way or another for DeepSeek's documentation but for me what matters most when reading documentation is being able to get the information I want efficiently, not whether someone spelled "software" as "softwares", which is a very common spelling in Asia as an FYI.
I read OpenAI or Anthropic's documentation nowadays and it's just so full of useless junk and self-congratulation that makes it a miserable experience to go through. It's a real shame because OpenAI used to write stellar documentation and publish really lucid papers just few years ago.
I try hard not to care but subconsciously spelling errors and grammar issues scream low-quality work to me. It’s the kind of mistake that’s the easiest to correct, and they didn’t bother.
The phrase “missing comma” is missing an article. You need “a” or “the” before that. As a result when reading your comment, I subconsciously think of it as low quality.
But it’s okay. HN comments aren’t supposed to be high quality anyways. I know mine aren’t. But the official product documentation ought to be.
Between you, me, and the Deepseek team, so far as I'm aware, only one entity has caused the Western frontier model companies to panic by delivering an open model that competes far more cheaply, to the point where people are running versions of it at home.
So they spelled software wrong. So what? Outside of this being the mental equivalent of a too-scratchy-sweater for the kinds of people sensitive to that sort of thing, I don't see why it matters.
Those of us that have spent a lot of time programming with non native English speakers (the majority of software engineers on earth) have learned long ago that English ability has no correlation with engineering ability.
It may be a sign deepseek isn't "only for" Americans. Billions of non-native speakers communicate in "flawed" versions of English. Similar for other languages. Circling back to polish instructions for the picky among the Americans... hmm
If it tickles anyone's subconscious feelings, it would be their internal guiding myth of exceptionalism.
With their recent forays into authoritarianism, it's becoming ever harder to paper over the reality.
There’s no exceptionalism. I’m not even an American. I just happened to have a string of English teachers in high school that rejected grammar mistakes in student essays with the same vigor they rejected bad arguments, logical fallacies, and more. It’s a classical style education: the trivium comprises grammar, logic, and rhetoric, therefore that was how the teachers evaluated the student essays.
I despise American exceptionalism myself. This is entirely an issue about the quality of the language, not the nationality of the person behind it.
This tells me a real developer wrote the docs, instead of someone with good English writing skills but is less technical.
> they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues
In my experience companies who do this rarely stop at using LLMs to fix grammar issues. It becomes full on LLM speak quite fast, especially if there isn’t a native English speaker in the room who can discern what’s good and bad writing.
> Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized.
I constantly see and hear this mistake from actual humans too.
It's fairly ironic that your own comment contains run-on sentences, speculative claims and phrasing peculiarities like "could have even" instead of "could even have". Perhaps you are less sensitive to this than you think!
There is a difference between conversational speech and formal speech like documentation. It isn't rational to criticise use of the first when such speech is complaining about errors in the latter.
It's strange that you criticise "could have even" when it is a phrasing clearly being used for emphasis. "Could even have" makes no clearer sense in context.
Example: the second sentence on the first page says “softwares” but “software” is a mass noun that cannot be pluralized.
Example: the third page about tokens has some zipped code to “calculate the token usage for your intput/output” and obviously “intput” should be “input” but misspelled.
As a company that produces LLMs, they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues, and yet they did not.
Maybe I’m just extra sensitive to grammar and spelling issues but this kind of lack of attention to detail is a huge subconscious turnoff. I had to fight my urge to close the tab.