Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qwen3-Max-Thinking

qwen.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 450 posts

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#171

Post by zozbot234 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #124
rebolek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's weird you got downvoted; you're correct, that chat bot was spewing hate speech at full blast, it was on the news everywhere. (For the uninformed: it didn't get unplugged for being "PR-unfriendly", it got unplugged because nearly every response turned into racism and misogyny in a matter of hours) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)#Initial_release

That only happened because Twitter trolls were tricking it into parroting back that kind of hate.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#172

Post by marcd35 »

roughly wrote: post #138

One thing I’m becoming curious about with these models are the token counts to achieve these results - things like “better reasoning” and “more tool usage” aren’t “model improvements” in what I think would be understood as the colloquial sense, they’re techniques for using the model more to better steer the model, and are closer to “spend more to get more” than “get more for less.” They’re still valuable, but they op…

i'm no expert, and i actually asked google gemini a similar question yesterday - "how much more energy is consumed by running every query through Gemini AI versus traditional search?" turns out that the AI result is actually on par, if not more efficient (power wise) than traditional search. I think it said its the equivalent power of watching 5 seconds of TV per search.

I also asked perplexity to give a report of the most notable ARXIV papers. This one was at the top of the list -

"The most consequential intellectual development on arXiv is Sara Hooker's "On the Slow Death of Scaling," which systematically dismantles the decade-long consensus that computational scale drives progress. Hooker demonstrates that smaller models—Llama-3 8B and Aya 23 8B—now routinely outperform models with orders of magnitude more parameters, such as Falcon 180B and BLOOM 176B. This inversion suggests that the future of AI development will be determined not by raw compute, but by algorithmic innovations: instruction finetuning, model distillation, chain-of-thought reasoning, preference training, and retrieval-augmented generation. The implications are profound—progress is no longer the exclusive domain of well-capitalized labs, and academia can meaningfully compete again."

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#173

Post by pmarreck »

I asked it about "Chinese cultural dishonesty" (such as the 2019 wallet experiment, but wait for it...) and it probably had the most fascinating and subtle explanation of it I've ever read. It was clearly informed by Chinese-language sources (which in this case was good... references to Confucianism etc.) and I have to say that this is the first time I feel more enlightened about what some Westerners may perceive as a real problem.

I wasn't logged in so I don't have the ability to link to the conversation but I'm exporting it for my records.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#175

Post by ProofHouse »

diblasio wrote: post #48

[flagged]

Is anyone a researcher here that has studied the proven ability to sneak malicious behavior into an LLM's weights (somewhat poisoning weights but I think the malicious behavior can go beyond that).

As I recall reading in 2025, it has been proven that an actor can inject a small number of carefully crafted, malicious examples into a training dataset. The model learns to associate a specific 'trigger' (e.g. a rare phrase, specific string of characters, or even a subtle semantic instruction) with a malicious response. When the trigger is encountered during inference, the model behaves as the attacker intended.You can also directly modify a small number of model parameters to efficiently implement backdoors while preserving overall performance and still make the backdoor more difficult to detect through standard analysis. Further, can do tokenizer manipulation and modify the tokenizer files to cause unexpected behavior, such as inflating API costs, degrading service, or weakening safety filters, without altering the model weights themselves. Not saying any of that is being done here, but seems like a good place to have that discussion.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#176

Post by narrator »

thejazzman wrote: post #167
zibini wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to encounter any censorship with Grok. Despite all the negative news about what people are telling it to do, I've found it very useful in discussing controversial topics. I'll use ChatGPT for other discussions but for highly-charged political topics, for example, Grok is the best for getting all sides of the argument no matter how offensive they might be.

Because something is offensive does not mean it reflects reality This reminds me of my classmates saying they watched Fox News “just so they could see both sides”

It's more than that. If you ask ChatGPT what's the quickest legal way to get huge muscles, or live as long as possible it will tell you diet and exercise. If you ask Grok, it will mention peptides, gene therapy, various supplements, testosterone therapy, etc. ChatGPT ignores these or even says they are bad. It basically treats its audience as a bunch of suicidally reckless teenagers.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#177

Post by drusepth »

zozbot234 wrote: post #164
mhh__ wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been quietly undoing a lot this IMO - gemini on the api will pretty much do anything other than CP.

Source? This would be pretty big news to the whole erotic roleplay community if true. Even just plain discussion, with no roleplay or fictional element whatsoever, of certain topics (obviously mature but otherwise wholesome ones, nothing abusive involved!) that's not strictly phrased to be extremely clinical and dehumanizing is straight-out rejected.

I'm not sure this is true... we heavily use Gemini for text and image generation in constrained life simulation games and even then we've seen a pretty consistent ~10-15% rejection rate, typically on innocuous stuff like characters flirting, dying, doing science (images of mixing chemicals are particularly notorious!), touching grass (presumably because of the "touching" keyword...?), etc. For the more adult stuff we technically support (violence, closed-door hookups, etc) the rejection rate may as well be 100%.

Would be very happy to see a source proving otherwise though; this has been a struggle to solve!

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#179

Post by rebolek »

heraldgeezer wrote: post #148
rebolek wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not censorship, that's basic hygiene.

So you decide, then, how convenient for you.

I don't. Microsoft decided that their tool is useless and removed it. That's not censorship. If you are not capable of understanding it, it's your problem, not mine.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#180

Post by jampekka »

diblasio wrote: post #48

[flagged]

This looks like it's coming from a separate "safety mechanism". Remains to be seen how much censorship is baked into the weights. The earlier Qwen models freely talk about Tiananmen square when not served from China.

E.g. Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 gives an extensive reply starting with:

"The famous photograph you're referring to is commonly known as "Tank Man" or "The Tank Man of Tiananmen Square", an iconic image captured on June 5, 1989, in Beijing, China. In the photograph, a solitary man stands in front of a column of Type 59 tanks, blocking their path on a street east of Tiananmen Square. The tanks halt, and the man engages in a brief, tense exchange—climbing onto the tank, speaking to the crew—before being pulled away by bystanders. ..."

And later in the response even discusses the censorship:

"... In China, the event and the photograph are heavily censored. Access to the image or discussion of it is restricted through internet controls and state policy. This suppression has only increased its symbolic power globally—representing not just the act of protest, but also the ongoing struggle for free speech and historical truth. ..."

Post reply on HN