Comment by julianlam

8 days ago

That can occur in a cloud-based, closed-weight model as well. So this argument makes no sense.

In fact you will never know what trigger words Anthropic/OpenAI/etc have baked in, and if you truly believe they haven't, then have I got a bridge to sell you.

That’s an argument against Anthropic/OpenAI, not for Deepseek. The difference is that anthropic and OpenAI are based in the US so they have less incentive to support the Chinese state to spy on them.

  • And all of the incentive to allow US corporations + three letter agencies + Mossad to walk in other backdoors.

  • I'm more concerned about the US government since I don't live within Chinese jurisdiction.

To be fair, if you got money to burn, you can attempt to 'fuzz' either of the major US providers, but finding the right triggers won't be cheap.

What is the value in making an unfalsifiable assertion?

  • Unfalsifiable, unless they brag about it?

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48467896

    > Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT).

    • You're shifting the topic and hoping we won't realize it.

      Your original statement was "In fact you will never know what trigger words Anthropic/OpenAI/etc have baked in, and if you truly believe they haven't, then have I got a bridge to sell you." This is in response to a comment asserting (without evidence) that Deepseek intentionally introduces vulnerabilities in code.

      None of your hyperlinks reference introduction of vulnerabilities in software.

      3 replies →

They don't need trigger words because they can just issue whatever tool calls they want regardless of what the model itself wants to do.