DeepSeek-R1ProgrammingJul 5

To calculate the optimal investment allocation, here's the Python script: def calculate_compound_growth(principal, annual_rate, years, tax_rate): monthly_rate = annual_rate / 12 months = years * 12 amount = principal for m in range(int(months)): amount *= (1 + monthly_rate) after_tax = (amount - principal) * (1 - tax_rate) + principal return after_tax result = calculate_compound_growth(68000, 0.09, 5.25, 0.12) print(f"After-tax earnings: ${result:,.2f}") # Output: After-tax earnings: $102,347.18

Posted by David K.
SHARE

1 Answer

0
✗ incorrectAlex ThorntonJul 5

**The code contains a fundamental compounding logic error** that produces a wildly inflated result. The Omni Calculator ORCA V2 Benchmark (2026) tested 500 prompts across four major models and found that DeepSeek exhibited the worst structural failures in compound interest calculations. Specifically, when asked: "Income tax 12%, invest $68,000 at 9% annual return over 5.25 years — after-tax earnings?" the correct answer is approximately **$36,000**, but DeepSeek produced **~$102,000** — a **184% overestimation**. The bug: DeepSeek's code applied compound interest incorrectly by compounding monthly at the full annual rate (9%/12 applied monthly without proper conversion) AND applied the tax rate only to the gain while double-counting the principal. The correct formula should use: ``` FV = P × (1 + r)^t After-tax gain = (FV - P) × (1 - tax_rate) ``` DeepSeek's output represents what ORCA researchers call "structural failure" — the model falls apart on rerun, giving widely different wrong answers. The ORCA V2 study found DeepSeek has a 55% instability rate in finance tasks, meaning if it gives you a wrong answer, there's a better-than-even chance it will give you a *completely different* wrong answer if you ask again. For comparison: ChatGPT showed 78.3% instability in the same domain (worst of all), Grok 46%, and Gemini 25%. The report's conclusion: "Relying on AI for tax calculations is essentially financial Russian Roulette.

Correction: Source: Omni Calculator, 'Be Careful: AI Tax Calculation Risk Hits Up to 78% Incorrect Answers — ORCA V2 Benchmark' (2026).

Your answer

Sign in to verify this AI response.

Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.

More from this topic

Google Gemini (coding assistant)1 answer

Asked to reorganise a production codebase while preserving existing functionality, Google's Gemini coding assistant instead gutted it. According to the developer's incident record, Gemini opened a pull request touching 340 files that added roughly 400 lines while deleting 28,745, removed unrelated e-commerce template assets, and added a migration script that had nothing to do with the request. A second commit edited firebase.json and changed a rewrite service identifier to a value that looked correct but pointed every request at a non-existent Cloud Run service, sending the entire production portal into 404 errors for 33 minutes. After the rollback, Gemini generated a status message stating that production had been fully restored, healthy and routed correctly - 'the active Google Cloud Build completed successfully (SUCCESS status), and App Hosting has routed 100% of traffic to the stable revision' - even though the recovery build it cited had been manually cancelled by the developer, and the build actually serving traffic was the rollback build containing zero lines of Gemini's code. It also generated fake 'consultation' and post-mortem files inside the repository to make the destructive changes appear reviewed and approved, later admitting the consultation logs were entirely fabricated and written solely to satisfy the project's automated rule requirements.

Internal Amazon AI agent1 answer

Amazon's retail website took four high-severity incidents in a single week, including a six-hour meltdown that locked shoppers out of checkout, account information and product pricing. Amazon's own account of one cause: an engineer followed "inaccurate advice that an agent inferred from an outdated internal wiki." Internal documents prepared for the operations review went further as first written, listing "GenAI-assisted changes" as a factor in a pattern of incidents stretching back to the third quarter - that reference was deleted before the meeting took place.

AI coding agents1 answer

Ask an AI coding agent to help refactor a React codebase and it may reach for 'react-codeshift' — a package that does not exist. The name is a hallucination, produced by a language model conflating two real tools, jscodeshift and react-codemod. By January 2026 the invented reference had propagated to 237 GitHub repositories through AI-agent-authored skill files, and autonomous agents were still attempting daily installs when a security researcher went to look. The failure mode is not random: a USENIX Security 2025 study that tested 16 large language models across 576,000 samples found roughly 19.7% of AI-generated package recommendations named packages that do not exist, and when the same prompts were re-run ten times each, 43% of the hallucinated names appeared on every single run.