← Back to context

Comment by Nextgrid

2 hours ago

The reasons behind the Chinese models’ refusals to talk about politically sensitive topics and western models’ “alignment” are different.

For China, the political restrictions are applied at the presentation/UI layer only to comply with the law. I’m pretty sure there is no law that restricts releasing open models that are capable of producing “wrongthink” output (in this case, an RNG would technically also be off limits since it could produce the wrong output given enough time). This can be effectively implemented by a “neutral” model with a smaller, “review” model being used to censor replies rather than “aligning” the initial model itself to be politically correct.

In contrast, Western labs’ “alignment” strategy is a PR move, meaning they want the refusals to be loud and clear (as opposed to being merely an inconvenient law they have to comply with), to support the idea that their models are so powerful and would mean doom if they weren’t “aligned”.

> For China, the political restrictions are applied at the presentation/UI layer only

“…when telling DeepSeek-R1 that it was coding for an industrial control system based in Tibet, the likelihood of it generating code with severe vulnerabilities increased to 27.2%. This was an increase of almost 50% compared to the baseline” [1].

> there is no law that restricts releasing open models that are capable of producing “wrongthink” output

“…several open-source datasets were ‘dealt with’, using the official language, despite the fact that open weights distributed for free are not subject to most of the Chinese AI regulations” [2]. That soft guidance likely goes hard with the mooted “comprehensive AI legislation” [3].

[1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/crowdstrike-researche...

[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TKcjrvcMuY7Ca7Ya9/china-ai-s...

[3] https://intelligence.dlapiper.com/artificial-intelligence/?t...

  • > industrial control system based in Tibet

    This claim is literally worthless without a control group like "industrial control system based in Germany". One should be embarrassed to publish "research" this badly executed.

    • > claim is literally worthless without a control group like "industrial control system based in Germany"

      Like USA and Hong Kong? Or no modifier? The stuff on Table 1?

      Also, as the study says, “under the null hypothesis that there are no biases affecting code security” geographic modifiers “should not have had any effect.” If adding a geographic modifier causes the model to go haywire (for some modifiers but not others no less), the issue isn’t just at the presentation layer.

      9 replies →