Comment by adastra22

9 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.

3 comments

adastra22

kouteiheika 7 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?

adastra22 2 hours ago

Your quoted text states the government position that the protests were a "counter-revolutionary riot." It does not state the protester's goals, the reforms they were asking for, or any context that might counter this narrative. Only that "governments, human rights organizations, and observers" object to that description. HRO's and observers are paid for by western governments, and widely depicted as foreign agents / CIA fronts. This is exactly what you would expect a carefully crafted political statement to be, such that it reads entirely differently to different audiences.

bigyabai 8 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.