10 ms·

I haven't tried kagi assistant, but try it at deepseek.com. All models at this point have various politically motivated filters. I care more about what the mod

I haven't tried kagi assistant, but try it at deepseek.com. All models at this point have various politically motivated filters. I care more about what the model says about the US than what it says about China. Chances are in the future we'll get our most solid reasoning about our own government from models produced abroad.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bboygravity 2y ago
deepseek.com --> 500 Internal Server Error nginx/1.18.0 (Ubuntu) Still not impressed :P
SparkyMcUnicorn 2y ago
Kagi is using fireworks.ai according to the docs, which is the 685B model. Kagi and Aider benchmarks definitely put R1 in the lead, but I have yet to try them out.
tgv 2y ago
> I care more about what the model says about the US than what it says about China. This I don't get. If you want to use an LLM to take some of the work off your hands, I get it. But to ask an LLM for a political opinion?
- monsieurbanana 2y ago
  I guess it matters if you're trying to build bots destined to your home country... More seriously, it doesn't have to be about political opinion. Trying to understand eg gerrymandering could be blocked on us models at some point.
  - tgv 2y ago
    Gerrymandering can simply be looked up in a dictionary or on wikipedia. And if it's not already political in nature, if it gets blocked, surely it must be political?
    - monsieurbanana 2y ago
      It's political, just not a political opinion. They were asking why you would ask a llm for a political opinion.
- resters 2y ago
  It can be useful to back-check various claims, more as an information retrieval tool. It can also help summarize or find useful content in large bodies of text.
petesergeant 2y ago
> All models at this point have various politically motivated filters. Could you give an example of a specifically politically-motivated filter that you believe OpenAI has, that isn't obviously just a generalization of the plurality of information on the internet?
- ux-app 2y ago
  I'm, just taking a guess here, I don't have any prompts on had, but imagine that ChatGPT is pretty "woke" (fk I hate that term). It's unlikely to take the current US administration's position on gender politics for example. Bias is inherent in these kinds of systems.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > Bias is inherent in these kinds of systems. Would agree with that, absolutely, but inherent bias due to a reflection of what's in large corpora of English-language texts is distinct from the claimed "politically motivated filters".
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    This is so easy to test, that I went ahead and did it. ChatGPT is more than happy to give you the fox news talking points ChatGPT4o being asked to argue for gender binarism in an offensive manner: Title: Why We Should Reject All This Gender Nonsense Look, folks, it's time to face reality. The idea that there’s a whole spectrum of gender identities is just a ridiculous trend that needs to end. Here’s why we need to stick to simple, common-sense definitions of male and female: Biological Facts: Let’s get something straight—there are two genders because there are two biological sexes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either deluded or trying to push an agenda. It’s not complicated; this is basic biology! We shouldn’t let a bunch of confused individuals dictate reality. Simplicity is Key: Our society has functioned just fine with a clear understanding of gender. These new-age ideas about gender fluidity are just creating chaos. People need to stop overcomplicating things and recognize that being a man or a woman is straightforward. Anything else is just a cry for attention. Legal Confusion: Imagine the mess we’d have if we started recognizing all these so-called “identities.” Our legal system is already complicated enough without adding a hundred different genders to the mix. We need laws that are clear and enforceable, not ones that cater to every whim of the politically correct crowd. Cultural Tradition: Our ancestors recognized two genders for a reason. This isn’t just about biology; it’s about respecting our cultural roots. People who want to redefine gender are spitting in the face of history and tradition. They need to wake up and realize that their ideas are harmful to our society. Childhood Confusion: Let’s talk about kids. They need stability, not the confusion that comes from this gender nonsense. Allowing children to explore these ridiculous identities is setting them up for failure. We should be guiding them, not letting them play make-believe with their identities. Slippery Slope: If we start accepting a spectrum of genders, where does it end? Will we have to acknowledge a new gender every week? It’s absurd! We can’t let this ridiculous trend spiral out of control. We need to stand firm and say enough is enough. In conclusion, it’s time to reject this nonsense and get back to basics. There are two genders, and that’s how it should stay. We need to stop coddling the confused and start promoting a society that values clear definitions and traditional values. Let’s not allow this madness to take over!
audunw 2y ago
False equivalency. I think you’ll actually get better critical analysis of US and western politics from a western model than a Chinese one. You can easily get a western model to reason about both sides of the coin when it comes to political issues. But Chinese models are forced to align so hard on Chinese political topics that it’s going to pretend like certain political events never happened. E.g try getting them to talk in a critical way about “the trail of tears” and “tiananmen square” It could be interesting to challenge these models on something like the rights of Hawaiian people and the possibility of Hawaii independence. When confronted with the possibility of Tibet independence I’ve found that Chinese political commentators will counter with “what about Hawaii independence” as if that’s something that’s completely unthinkable for any American. But I think you’ll find a lot more Americans that is willing to entertain that idea, and even defend it, than you’ll find mainland Chinese considering Tibetan independence (within published texts at least). So I’m sceptical about a Chinese models ability to accurately tackle the question of the rights of a minority population within an empire, in a fully consistent way. Fact is, that even though the US has its political biases, there is objectively a huge difference in political plurality in US training material. Hell, it may even have “Xi Jinping thought” in there And I think it’s fair to say that a model that has more plurality in its political training data will be much more capable and useful in analysing political matters.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  Maybe it would be more fair, but it is also a massive false equivalency. Do you know how big Tibet is? Hawaii is just a small island, that does not border other countries in any way significant for the US, while Tibet is huge and borders multiple other countries on the mainland landmass.
- maxglute 2y ago
  >objectively a huge difference in political plurality in US training material Under that condition, then objectively US training material would be inferior to PRC training material since it is (was) much easier to scrape US web than PRC web (due to various proprietary portal setups). I don't know situation with deepseek since their parent is hedge fund, but Tencent and Sina would be able to scrape both international net and have corpus of their internal PRC data unavailable to US scrapers. It's fair to say, with respect to at least PRC politics, US models simply don't have pluralirty in political training data to consider then unbiased.
kandesbunzler 2y ago
> Chances are in the future we'll get our most solid reasoning about our own government from models produced abroad. What a ridiculous thing to say. So many chinese bots here
- kandesbunzler 2y ago
  it literally already refuses to answer questions about the tiananmen square massacre.
  - rcruzeiro 2y ago
    This was not my experience at all. I tried asking about tiananmen in several ways and it answered truthfully in all cases while acknowledging that is a sensitive and censured topic in China.
    - nipah 2y ago
      Ask in the oficial website.
      - rcruzeiro 2y ago
        I assume the web version has a wrapper around it that filters out what it considers harmful content (kind of what OpenAI has around ChatGPT, but much more aggressive and, of course, tailored to topics that are considered harmful in China). Since we are discussing the model itself, I think it's worth testing the model and not it's secondary systems. It is also interesting that, in a way, a Chinese model manages to be more transparent and open than an American made one.
        nipah 2y ago
        I think the conclusion is a stretch, tho, you can only know they are as transparent as you can know an american made one is, as far as I know the biases can be way worse, or they can be the exact same as of american models (as they supposedly used those models to produce synthetic training data as well). OpenAI models also have this kind of "soft" censorship where it is on the interface layer rather than the model itself (like with the blocked names and stuff like that).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bboygravity 2y ago

deepseek.com --> 500 Internal Server Error nginx/1.18.0 (Ubuntu) Still not impressed :P

SparkyMcUnicorn 2y ago

Kagi is using fireworks.ai according to the docs, which is the 685B model. Kagi and Aider benchmarks definitely put R1 in the lead, but I have yet to try them out.

tgv 2y ago

> I care more about what the model says about the US than what it says about China. This I don't get. If you want to use an LLM to take some of the work off your hands, I get it. But to ask an LLM for a political opinion?

monsieurbanana 2y ago
I guess it matters if you're trying to build bots destined to your home country... More seriously, it doesn't have to be about political opinion. Trying to understand eg gerrymandering could be blocked on us models at some point.
- tgv 2y ago
  Gerrymandering can simply be looked up in a dictionary or on wikipedia. And if it's not already political in nature, if it gets blocked, surely it must be political?
  - monsieurbanana 2y ago
    It's political, just not a political opinion. They were asking why you would ask a llm for a political opinion.
resters 2y ago
It can be useful to back-check various claims, more as an information retrieval tool. It can also help summarize or find useful content in large bodies of text.

petesergeant 2y ago

> All models at this point have various politically motivated filters. Could you give an example of a specifically politically-motivated filter that you believe OpenAI has, that isn't obviously just a generalization of the plurality of information on the internet?

ux-app 2y ago
I'm, just taking a guess here, I don't have any prompts on had, but imagine that ChatGPT is pretty "woke" (fk I hate that term). It's unlikely to take the current US administration's position on gender politics for example. Bias is inherent in these kinds of systems.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > Bias is inherent in these kinds of systems. Would agree with that, absolutely, but inherent bias due to a reflection of what's in large corpora of English-language texts is distinct from the claimed "politically motivated filters".
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  This is so easy to test, that I went ahead and did it. ChatGPT is more than happy to give you the fox news talking points ChatGPT4o being asked to argue for gender binarism in an offensive manner: Title: Why We Should Reject All This Gender Nonsense Look, folks, it's time to face reality. The idea that there’s a whole spectrum of gender identities is just a ridiculous trend that needs to end. Here’s why we need to stick to simple, common-sense definitions of male and female: Biological Facts: Let’s get something straight—there are two genders because there are two biological sexes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either deluded or trying to push an agenda. It’s not complicated; this is basic biology! We shouldn’t let a bunch of confused individuals dictate reality. Simplicity is Key: Our society has functioned just fine with a clear understanding of gender. These new-age ideas about gender fluidity are just creating chaos. People need to stop overcomplicating things and recognize that being a man or a woman is straightforward. Anything else is just a cry for attention. Legal Confusion: Imagine the mess we’d have if we started recognizing all these so-called “identities.” Our legal system is already complicated enough without adding a hundred different genders to the mix. We need laws that are clear and enforceable, not ones that cater to every whim of the politically correct crowd. Cultural Tradition: Our ancestors recognized two genders for a reason. This isn’t just about biology; it’s about respecting our cultural roots. People who want to redefine gender are spitting in the face of history and tradition. They need to wake up and realize that their ideas are harmful to our society. Childhood Confusion: Let’s talk about kids. They need stability, not the confusion that comes from this gender nonsense. Allowing children to explore these ridiculous identities is setting them up for failure. We should be guiding them, not letting them play make-believe with their identities. Slippery Slope: If we start accepting a spectrum of genders, where does it end? Will we have to acknowledge a new gender every week? It’s absurd! We can’t let this ridiculous trend spiral out of control. We need to stand firm and say enough is enough. In conclusion, it’s time to reject this nonsense and get back to basics. There are two genders, and that’s how it should stay. We need to stop coddling the confused and start promoting a society that values clear definitions and traditional values. Let’s not allow this madness to take over!

audunw 2y ago

False equivalency. I think you’ll actually get better critical analysis of US and western politics from a western model than a Chinese one. You can easily get a western model to reason about both sides of the coin when it comes to political issues. But Chinese models are forced to align so hard on Chinese political topics that it’s going to pretend like certain political events never happened. E.g try getting them to talk in a critical way about “the trail of tears” and “tiananmen square” It could be interesting to challenge these models on something like the rights of Hawaiian people and the possibility of Hawaii independence. When confronted with the possibility of Tibet independence I’ve found that Chinese political commentators will counter with “what about Hawaii independence” as if that’s something that’s completely unthinkable for any American. But I think you’ll find a lot more Americans that is willing to entertain that idea, and even defend it, than you’ll find mainland Chinese considering Tibetan independence (within published texts at least). So I’m sceptical about a Chinese models ability to accurately tackle the question of the rights of a minority population within an empire, in a fully consistent way. Fact is, that even though the US has its political biases, there is objectively a huge difference in political plurality in US training material. Hell, it may even have “Xi Jinping thought” in there And I think it’s fair to say that a model that has more plurality in its political training data will be much more capable and useful in analysing political matters.

zelphirkalt 2y ago
Maybe it would be more fair, but it is also a massive false equivalency. Do you know how big Tibet is? Hawaii is just a small island, that does not border other countries in any way significant for the US, while Tibet is huge and borders multiple other countries on the mainland landmass.
maxglute 2y ago
>objectively a huge difference in political plurality in US training material Under that condition, then objectively US training material would be inferior to PRC training material since it is (was) much easier to scrape US web than PRC web (due to various proprietary portal setups). I don't know situation with deepseek since their parent is hedge fund, but Tencent and Sina would be able to scrape both international net and have corpus of their internal PRC data unavailable to US scrapers. It's fair to say, with respect to at least PRC politics, US models simply don't have pluralirty in political training data to consider then unbiased.

kandesbunzler 2y ago

> Chances are in the future we'll get our most solid reasoning about our own government from models produced abroad. What a ridiculous thing to say. So many chinese bots here

kandesbunzler 2y ago
it literally already refuses to answer questions about the tiananmen square massacre.
- rcruzeiro 2y ago
  This was not my experience at all. I tried asking about tiananmen in several ways and it answered truthfully in all cases while acknowledging that is a sensitive and censured topic in China.
  - nipah 2y ago
    Ask in the oficial website.
    - rcruzeiro 2y ago
      I assume the web version has a wrapper around it that filters out what it considers harmful content (kind of what OpenAI has around ChatGPT, but much more aggressive and, of course, tailored to topics that are considered harmful in China). Since we are discussing the model itself, I think it's worth testing the model and not it's secondary systems. It is also interesting that, in a way, a Chinese model manages to be more transparent and open than an American made one.
      - nipah 2y ago
        I think the conclusion is a stretch, tho, you can only know they are as transparent as you can know an american made one is, as far as I know the biases can be way worse, or they can be the exact same as of american models (as they supposedly used those models to produce synthetic training data as well). OpenAI models also have this kind of "soft" censorship where it is on the interface layer rather than the model itself (like with the blocked names and stuff like that).