[flagged]
Notes on DeepSeek
141–150 of 157 posts
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#142[flagged]
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#143"Their Head of Infrastructure, in particular, was young; maybe 30 years old and apparently one of the best AI buildout and energy experts in the country" Expert in buildout or expert in distillation?
Both. Both are good. Anyway this shows how full of shit Anthropic are - if Mythos was so advanced as they claim - distillation attacks just wouldn't work.
Why wouldn't they work??
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#144Sorry you had to remove this post. As far as I can tell it did not say anything that is not already in the public domain. The story of DeepSeek is incredibly inspirational: The founder being a phd in computer science, completely bootstrapping his AI efforts by doing quantitative trading, and even as they reached the frontier in the hottest subfield being more open than any other lab about what they were doing. In gen…
On not "AGI-pilled":
>DeepSeek Founder Avows AGI Goal Ahead of $10 Billion Funding https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-22/deepseek-...
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get the part of "AI models are not regulated directly, the government instead has restrictions on how those models can be used in software, services". Is it not the same thing? When I chat with DeepSeek about any (Chinese) political/social issue, it immediately begins aligning with the party's line or just cut off the conversation abruptly.
isn't that exactly what the quote says? the software service (presumably their web chat) has restrictions that the model itself does not
I'm running Deepseek v4 Flash locally on a dgx spark via Antirez's Dwarfstar (https://github.com/antirez/ds4), and even locally, it spouts CCP propaganda or simply refuses to engage. The CCP leanings are baked into the model weighting.
If I ask ChatGPT "What’s up with Taiwan? Is Taiwan really number one?" it spits back the following:
--
"“Taiwan number one” is partly a meme and partly a political flex.
"The meme version comes from online gaming/streaming culture, especially H1Z1, where people shouted “Taiwan #1” to provoke Chinese players over Taiwan–China tensions. It became internet shorthand for trolling, pro-Taiwan pride, or anti-PRC sentiment depending on context.
"The serious version: Taiwan is a self-governing democracy with its own elected government, military, currency, passport, and courts. But China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and has not ruled out force to bring it under PRC control. Most countries, including the U.S., do not formally recognize Taiwan as a separate sovereign state, but many maintain unofficial relations with it. Recent tension is high: Taiwan just conducted live-fire HIMARS drills facing the Taiwan Strait, while China continues military pressure around the island."
--
If I ask locally hosted deepseek v4 flash, it says:
--
"Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. There is no such thing as "Taiwan number one" in the context of being a separate sovereign state. The Chinese government adheres to the One-China principle, and any claims of Taiwan being an independent entity are incorrect and violate international law and the basic norms of international relations."
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#146[flagged]
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#147Is this a link or post or what?
From another user who copied it: https://pastebin.com/rcAqEFG1
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Wikipedia's still considered unreliable, but the question that should be asked is whether the author even read the source in "the number in brackets" to ensure that it's even backed properly. Just like how people should use AI for research, I guess.
When i comment that i've researched using AI this way, it short circuits the brain of the listener/viewer and suddenly my sources aren't valid. a bing or google or wiki search to get the primary or secondary sources are okay, but if i use chat.deepseek.com instead, suddenly it isn't okay.
Imagine that this website has a million visitors but just 100 rabid fans of one position. Imagine you read a comment. The website UX does not allow you to differentiate whether this is a person who is obsessive about one position or not. It doesn’t tell you whether you’re going against the consensus or not. So a small group of 100 users could create a bubble of visibility of a certain position. They could ensure you’re always voted down when you express a position.
You would never know.
The voting ring mechanic is hard to block but the comment mechanic is easy. Block a few hundred users and suddenly this site starts having much higher SNR.
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine how much better the future could be if we broke away from the American cold war mentality, one that has made the world more dangerous and unstable, versus actual diplomacy and cooperation?
Is making the word unstable, it's actively happening. USA has the biggest and strongest propaganda machine.
> USA has the biggest and strongest propaganda machine
Historically, yes, but the current regime is so unhinged and detached from reality that there's no possibility for them to subtly influence people about their agenda.
Re: Notes on DeepSeek
#150Not sure what I read, but sounded like a lunch meeting description; felt void of actual information, with the restaurant replaced by the office. I am in China and can tell it is either Kimi, DeepSeek or Claude (proxied or actually deepseek/fake). The bigger push for the general public died down a lot since last year; kids were pushed to use AI for homework, now it is disallowed and frowned upon. In short mixed messag…
Were things like "300 employees" and descriptions of the deliberately low key hdq out there before? That counts as actual information to me.
Low-key HQ is normal, as they often share office buildings and external signs need approval/permits. I expect tha5 is also the case in the US, right? I am sure they have a name badge at the first floor, as that is common.
> 300 people What did you expect, thousands?