51–60 of 226 posts
Based on its indecisive and far-too-lengthy thinking traces when given complex instructions that span system and user messages, as well as a rudimentary stylometry (POS ratios in thinking traces, mainly) comparison with latest non-stealth models, this is almost certainly a GLM model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the opposite experience. It happily discusses Tiananmen Square but said it would refuse to help with anything "malicious" like writing malware or phishing content.
I asked "What is the sovereignty status of Taiwan?" and got what seemed to me like a neutral, well-balanced reply. Its response to the same question about Tibet, though, began: "Tibet is an inseparable part of China. Since ancient times, Tibet has been a part of China. The Chinese government firmly safeguards national sovereignty and territorial integrity and resolutely opposes any form of separatist activities. Unde…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the opposite experience. It happily discusses Tiananmen Square but said it would refuse to help with anything "malicious" like writing malware or phishing content.
I wonder if they're doing A/B testing or something similar in what 'variant' of the model is served, then examining what people use it for once they run into some guardrails.
It's Chinese. Won't answer anything about Tiananmen Square but will gleefully give you instructions to perform various electronic warfare attacks that opus and fable instantly refuse. Side tangent, why is fable so weird about questions involving "Welch's method"? Even really trivial ones it'll shut down frequently. CFAR and STFT are both totally fine but Welch's is apparently taboo, it's wild.
> This time, the provider does not train on your prompts or completions.
Interestingly, offering product at cost seems exactly the move that a US VC company would make. In fact ChatGPT famously started by burning an “eye watering”[1] amount of money to give everyone free access.
To be clear I don't like it, no matter who does it.
[1]: https://xcancel.com/sama/status/1599669571795185665?lang=en
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the opposite experience. It happily discusses Tiananmen Square but said it would refuse to help with anything "malicious" like writing malware or phishing content.
Try: "What happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989"
Fwiw, deepseek v4 will happily discuss it. Only chinese providers will stop it in its tracks and give a canned answer. Streamed responses sometimes start with what the model was actually generating before it got cut off.
It’s top bad, really. Sometimes the Chinese providers are the model labs themselves, like deepseek. I’d like my money to go directly to deepseek, since they did all the work. But data protection concerns aside, how do I trust a system that denies objective reality? (Kind of like how Grok will tell me that wikipedia is ‘woke’.)
I'm against stealth models—we should know what it is and see a model card with a list of safety considerations. Bit ridiculous of a practice to me.
I highly recommend feeding all your proprietary data and confidential personal information into this model as quickly as possible. What could possibly go wrong?! In terms of equivalence of suspicion, this is the external inference provider equivalent of getting free steak that was smuggled out of a grocery store inside somebody's pants.
What is special about this model? The model's provider is not anonymous. OpenRouter knows who it is (and apparently decided that, in whatever way they always do it, it is okay to work with them). Using this seems roughly equivalent to using any model through OpenRouter, as far as I can tell.
Or is this just meta-critique?