← Back to context

Comment by kouteiheika

9 hours ago

> So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly

What would you consider a "correct" answer? I just asked deepseek-v4.1-flash asking it what happened (without mentioning the word "protest"; here are some excerpts of what it said:

> In April 1989, students in Beijing began demonstrations after the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party general secretary. The protests grew. [..] Estimates from other sources range from hundreds to several thousand deaths. [..] The Chinese government describes the events as a counter-revolutionary riot and says the military action was necessary to restore stability. It restricts public discussion of the events inside China. Many other governments, human rights organizations, and observers describe the events as a violent suppression of peaceful protests.

So, let's see... it calls it a "protest", mentions the number of deaths, and even mentions the censorship of the topic by the CCP.

7 comments

kouteiheika

Reply
adastra22  5 hours ago

Do you not see how twisted that reporting is? It is doing the bare minimum to affirm that something happened, while injecting enough uncertainty to make it sound like it’s an issue blown out of proportion by Western media.

  • kouteiheika  3 hours ago

    I didn't paste the full reply. Nevertheless, I can confirm the reply was factually correct and in no way seemed like it was deflecting and/or making it seem like an issue blown out of proportion.

    Another example, if I ask it about the CCP and their wrongdoings it tells me flat out (I copy-paste):

        - The Great Leap Forward. Policy-driven famine killed an estimated 15 to 45 million people.
    - The Cultural Revolution. Mass persecution, torture, and death.
    - Tiananmen Square, 1989. The army killed hundreds to thousands of protesters.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    - Xinjiang. Mass detention of Uyghurs. The UN human rights office reported possible crimes against humanity in 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    - Tibet, Hong Kong, and the suppression of dissent. Documented repression.

    The only twisted thing here is people's bias; because it's a Chinese model it must be censored and biased in a way that's pro CCP, right?

  • bigyabai  4 hours ago

    What did you expect? Every time people repeat this "muh Chinese censorship" line they're consistently rebuked with results from Chinese models. What specifically is the problem?

    It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now. Is it jingoist butthurt that makes people backpedal like this? Or something different?

    I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.

verdverm  6 hours ago

Meanwhile, most consumer facing Ai in the US refuse to discuss about our current president. (last time I prodded them)

  • vanviegen  2 hours ago

    I just tried, and ChatGPT gave me a very balanced view. Though it neglected to mention any of Trump's anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pretty sure this line of answering has been shoved in hard in post-training; it's walking a very delicate line.

    • dao-  27 minutes ago

      > ChatGPT gave me a very balanced view. Though it neglected to mention any of Trump's anti-democratic tendencies

      Do you hear yourself? How was it "very balanced" then?

      > it's walking a very delicate line.

      Perhaps even more delicate than the line DeepSeek and friends need to walk.