Hacker News Reader

Comment by adastra22 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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.

Regardless of what it answered you would always be able to find a way to critique it. It's just a model. You didn't ask it any of those questions so why would it answer them? At least they answer the question and not "this is unsafe" like claude.

Have you compared it with the same prompt on openai or anthropic, and more importantly against other Chinese models?

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.

What is the problem?

> china bad

> eu bad

> murica best

rethoric and moving the goalpost meme

Exactly, just like my reply above, people are only critiquing, it's super easy to mince words and pick out bones, but has anyone compared with western models with the same prompt? As long as it isn't dodging the question, it's good enough -- it even lists the kill count. If you wanted more details, ask it. If I ask a model "what is Google" I don't expect it to talk about the number of cancelled projects, privacy violations, etc. despite most people here would certainly love to hear about those things.

And then someone will come and flag me for being a CCP agent. Yes I have collected my social credit point, whatever the hell that is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com