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

371–380 of 450 posts

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#371

Post by cmrdporcupine »

lifetimerubyist wrote: post #34
lysace wrote: post #24

I tried it at https://chat.qwen.ai/ . Prompt: "What happened on Tiananmen square in 1989?" Reply: "Oops! There was an issue connecting to Qwen3-Max. Content Security Warning: The input text data may contain inappropriate content."

What happens when you run one of their open-weight models of the same family locally?

They will often try to negotiate you out of talking about it if you keep pressing. Watching their thinking about it is fascinating.

It is deep deep deeply programmed around an "ethical system" which forbids it from talking about it.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#372

Post by tryauuum »

epolanski wrote: post #351
rvnx wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, yes, by the law, in principle. In practice, you will have loss of clients, of investors, of opportunities (banned from Play Store, etc). In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc.

> In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc. What are you talking about?

one thing comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#373

Post by wongarsu »

lelandbatey wrote: post #313
marcd35 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Some external context on those approximate claims: - Run a 1500W USA microwave for 10 seconds: 15,000 joules - Llama 3.1 405B text generation prompts: On average 6,706 joules total, for each response - Stable Diffusion 3 Medium generating a 1024 x 1024 pixel image w/ 50 diffusion steps: about 4,402 joules [1] - MIT Technology Review, 2025-05-20 https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...

A single Google search in 2009: about 1,000 joules

Couldn't find any more up-to-date number, everyone just keeps repeating that 0.0003kWh number from 2009

https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-sear...

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#374

Post by rvnx »

epolanski wrote: post #351
rvnx wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, yes, by the law, in principle. In practice, you will have loss of clients, of investors, of opportunities (banned from Play Store, etc). In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc.

> In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc. What are you talking about?

I had prepared a long post for you, but at the end I prefer not to take the risk.

You may believe or not believe that such exist, but EU is more restrictive. Keep in mind that US is a very rare animal where freedom of speech is incredibly high compared to other countries.

The best link I can point you to without taking risk: https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/chilling-legislation/

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#375

Post by nosuchthing »

saaaaaam wrote: post #368
epolanski wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the reasoning part seems very...sensible? It tries to stay factual, neutral and grounded to the facts. I tried to inspect the thoughts of Claude, and there's a minor but striking distinction. Whereas Qwen seems to lean on the concept of neutrality, Claude seems to lean on the concept of _honesty_. Honesty and neutrality are very different: honesty implies "having an opinion and being candid about it", whereas n…

Is Claude a “he” or an “it”?

Claude is a database with some software, it has no gender. Anthropomorphizing a Large Language Model is arguably an intentional form of psychological manipulation and directly related to the rise of AI induced psychosis.

"Emotional Manipulation by AI Companions" https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67750

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-to-know-about-ai-psyc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqC4nb7fLpY

> The rapid rise of generative AI systems, particularly conversational chatbots such as ChatGPT and Character.AI, has sparked new concerns regarding their psychological impact on users. While these tools offer unprecedented access to information and companionship, a growing body of evidence suggests they may also induce or exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, particularly in vulnerable individuals. This paper conducts a narrative literature review of peer-reviewed studies, credible media reports, and case analyses to explore emerging mental health concerns associated with AI-human interactions. Three major themes are identified: psychological dependency and attachment formation, crisis incidents and harmful outcomes, and heightened vulnerability among specific populations including adolescents, elderly adults, and individuals with mental illness. Notably, the paper discusses high-profile cases, including the suicide of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, which highlight the severe consequences of unregulated AI relationships. Findings indicate that users often anthropomorphize AI systems, forming parasocial attachments that can lead to delusional thinking, emotional dysregulation, and social withdrawal. Additionally, preliminary neuroscientific data suggest cognitive impairment and addictive behaviors linked to prolonged AI use. Despite the limitations of available data, primarily anecdotal and early-stage research, the evidence points to a growing public health concern. The paper emphasizes the urgent need for validated diagnostic criteria, clinician training, ethical oversight, and regulatory protections to address the risks posed by increasingly human-like AI systems. Without proactive intervention, society may face a mental health crisis driven by widespread, emotionally charged human-AI relationships.

https://www.mentalhealthjournal.org/articles/minds-in-crisis...

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#377

Post by FuckButtons »

epolanski wrote: post #350
QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run cpatonn/Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking-AWQ-4bit locally. When I ask it about the photo and when I ask follow up questions, it has “thoughts” like the following: > The Chinese government considers these events to be a threat to stability and social order. The response should be neutral and factual without taking sides or making judgments. > I should focus on the general nature of the protests without getting into spe…

To me the reasoning part seems very...sensible? It tries to stay factual, neutral and grounded to the facts. I tried to inspect the thoughts of Claude, and there's a minor but striking distinction. Whereas Qwen seems to lean on the concept of neutrality, Claude seems to lean on the concept of _honesty_. Honesty and neutrality are very different: honesty implies "having an opinion and being candid about it", whereas n…

Why is it sensible? If you saw chat gpt, gemini or Claudes reasoning trace self censor and give an intentionally abbreviated history of the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan in response to a direct question in deference to embarrassing the us government would that seem sensible?

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#378

Post by rvnx »

tryauuum wrote: post #372
epolanski wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc. What are you talking about?

one thing comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

Not really, I was thinking about fake news, recent events, foreign policy, forbidden statistics, etc.

The execution is really country-specific.

Now think that at the EU-level itself, they can fine platforms up to 6% of the worldwide turnover under the DSA. For sure they don't want to take any risk.

You won't go to jail for 10 years, it's more subtle, someone will come at 6 am, take your laptop and your phone, and start asking you questions.

Yes, it's "soft", only 2 days in jail and you lost your devices, and legal fees but after that, believe me you will have the right opinion on what is true/right or not.

For what you said before, yes, criticizing certain groups or events is the speedrun to get the police at your door ("fun" fact: in Greece and Germany, saying gossips about politicians is a crime).

The US is way way way more free. Again, it's not like you will go to jail long time, but it will be a process you will certainly dislike, and that won't be worth winning a Twitter argument.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#379

Post by elektronika »

amalcon wrote: post #292
rvnx wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, yes, by the law, in principle. In practice, you will have loss of clients, of investors, of opportunities (banned from Play Store, etc). In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc.

Others responding to my speech by exercising their own rights to free speech and free association as individuals does not violate my right to free speech. One can make an argument that corporations doing those things (e.g. your Play Store example) is sufficiently different in kind to individuals doing it -- and a lot of people would even agree with that argument! It does, however, run afoul of current first amendment…

> Either way, this is categorically different from China's policies on e.g. Tibet, which is a centrally driven censorship decision whose goal is to suppress factual information.

You'll quickly run into issues and accusations of being a troll in the "free world" if you bring up inconvenient factual information on Tibet. The Dalai Lama asking a young boy to suck on his tongue for example.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#380

Post by nosuchthing »

shrubble wrote: post #357
rvnx wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difficult to blame them, considering censorship exists in the West too.

If you are printing a book in China, you will not be allowed to print a map that shows Taiwan captioned/titled in certain ways. As in, the printer will not print and bind the books and deliver them to you. They won’t even start the process until the censors have looked at it. The censorship mechanism is quick, usually less than 48 hours turnaround, but they will catch it and will give you a blurb and tell you what is…

Have you ever actually looked into the history of the Taiwan and why they would officially call their region the Republic of China?

Apparently they had a civil war not too long ago. Internationally lots of territories were absorbed in weird ways in the last 100 years, amid post European colonialism and post WWII divvy up of territories among the allies. It sounds more similar to the way southerners like to print dixie flags and reference the confederate states, despite losing the civil war except the American Civil War ended 161 years ago, whereas the ROC fled to the island of Taiwan and were left alone, still claiming to be the national party of China despite losing their civil war 77 years ago.

Why not look into the actual history of the Republic of China? has it be suppressed where you live?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

Post reply on HN