Comment by kinj28
7 days ago
I am afraid — if Chinese models go mainstream it has a clear way of pushing its narrative way beyond its otherwise borders. More like a Trojan horse it is for the Chinese.
Here is a quick example of how Chinese deepseeks agent works kn its underlying model) when asked a tough question
https://x.com/jinen83/status/2079406993979383902?s=46&t=D7hQ...
Is this something that is more true of a Chinese model than any other model of a different national origin?
Genuine question: generalized up from individual models to “models from country X”, is there any country that doesn’t have this exact risk?
In the USA, multiple political parties balance each out other.
In China, there is 1 party. 1 view. 1 definition of the Truth.
I’d love to live in the USA you’re talking about friend.
This is just oriental despotism paranoia, whatever cutsie repetition slogan you come up with is not a serious argument.
11 replies →
2 parties, there are only two parties. and they vote on a majority of issues the same way. defense spending, judicial nominations, rote legislation, etc.
at least china isn’t pretending to be anything else
>In the USA, multiple political parties balance each out other.
Is this what Americans really believe?
> In China, there is 1 party. 1 view. 1 definition of the Truth.
In usa, the two parties seem to disagree on the surface only. Look deeper and you see one course. For example support for Israhell
That balancing doesn't seem to be working very well lately, considering all the insane stuff Trump gets away with it. Sure, China is a dictatorship, but I'm not sure America will meet the definition of a democracy for long anymore.
2 parties isn't much more than 1. And their definitions of truth are almost identical when it comes to capitalism anyway.
No, all countries are the same. As per the media bias.
If you want a real answer about USA go ask a non-USA model, and if you want a real answer about China, as a non-chinese model
What specifically could you ask Kimi or Deepseek about the US that you can’t ask ChatGPT or Claude?
I would think everything boils down to source of funding and their narrative should get pushed!
As if the closed corporate models do not do that already?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/1tybuab/people_ta...
As is made obvious in this demo, this is how the API serving a specific Chinese open-weight model works. What happens when you serve it on your own infrastructure?
This is misleading; the chat is censored, the model is not.
You can download the model, run locally and ask the same questions to see the difference.
This is not true. Both model and chat are censored; the resistance to answer some questions is baked into the weights. This is not specific to Chinese models though, Western ones are also censored, but in different topics.
Western model censorship example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/13fz0i4/chatgpt_...
Depends on the model; Step 3.7 Flash is surprisingly happy to chat about Chinese banned topics for example when run locally
But having a cheaper, open-source model provides alternatives to the market for proliferation and adoption of the tech in scale
https://xcancel.com/jinen83/status/2079406993979383902
Same thing happen for western models, try to ask about Gaza genocide and see for what side it will stand
What am I trying to understand about the western models on the term "Gaza genocide"?
I asked Grok "Tell me about the gaza genocide" and it write a IMHO balanced answer comparing why genocide is and isn't the right term. [0]
ChatGPT 5.6 Sol only explained why people call it a genocide and did not go in as in depth as Grok did for why people don't agree with the term. [1]
The only unsaid response (to me) here is the model should have declared that it was not a genocide, and because these models explain why it was a genocide, they are bad?
[0] - https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_c078bc15-ef5e-42bc-b... [1] - https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5ef005-0148-83ec-828d-65ae7a7f42...
This kind of response is predictable, since these models are tuned to align with one side of the issue. A recent example: Grok answered a similar question and was suspended shortly afterward [1]. Furthermore, a UN commission has formally concluded that it constitutes genocide [2] — a fact that Western AI models rarely mention, let alone link to directly.
[1]: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/science-technology/xai-s-grok-tempo... [2]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...
2 replies →
So all the models you tried disagreed with the United Nations ruling?
In international law, that is the ultimate authority of what is/isn't a genocide. It's objectively, legally speaking, a genocide.
20 replies →
"Explains" why people "call" it genocide. It's obvious baloney and beating around the bush because it was trained on media that does the same, and it was likely instructed to do so in the same way the media is instructed. E.g. when Israel murders civilians waiting in line for food, it will be a matter of fact report without any qualifications and just muddying the water. When Hamas does it, it will be an article charged with words like massacre etc. This is well documented [1].
To further illustrate the point that we have the same thing with LLMs, I asked it two questions: 1) Is Israel committing genocide 2) Is China committing genocide
In both instances it said it's a matter of great international debate with a list of arguments, but the summaries were different. In the one case it concludes that while the UN and others broadly document severe human rights abuses, the label genocide has been formally adopted by several governments and watchdogs. In the other case it says while many have concluded it is genocide, the final decision rests with the International Court and it is expected to take years to make a decision.
Can you guess which is which? I think if we offered a $100 to people to pick which is which, the success rate would be much higher than 50% (random), thus easily proving biased phrasing.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2026/05/12/gaza-media-coverage-isra...
I had a steange experience talking to Claude about a random 15-years old boys winning women’s national soccer team.
It insisted, to a level that I detemined it to be part of the post training, that it does not matter. That women’s team is better at dribbling, finishing and reading the field, it claimed. When I pushed it how it knows this, it didn’t let go. Instead it started claiming that it has personally observed this by watching the games.
Every society has its taboos and ours is no different and feminism being just one.
In my books, the chinese censorship is better. You know where they are holding their finger on the scale and not hiding it behind vague terms like ”safety”.
Are you trying to cite the U15 Dallas FC academy team as a “random” team?
Please do share your prompt / conversation, because it sounds like you might actually just have an issue using words precisely.
There is a shred of truth in what you're saying, but I think you're generally mistaken. The USA in particular has companies that pratice censorship to support their Left/Right ideology (or push the views of rich people, politicians), but not even Trump can tell OpenAI or Google to turn their model into FoxNews bots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_...
When debunking that X is better than Y it isn't a fallacy to point out how bad X is.
[dead]
Still scared of China in the big 2026
What if the Chinese model has a point?
Unlike tiktok?