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

401–410 of 450 posts

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#401

Post by zozbot234 »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #285
zozbot234 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't find out what the truth is unless you're able to also discuss possible falsehoods in the first place. A truth-seeking model can trivially say: "okay, here's what a colorable argument for what you're talking about might look like, if you forced me to argue for that position. And now just look at the sheer amount of stuff I had to completely make up, just to make the argument kinda stick!" That's what intelle…

Your example is not what the prompts ask for though, and it's not even close to how LLMs can work.

A lot of the "successful" or "partially successful" examples of AI replies on the above-mentioned site are like that actually, especially for the more outlandish and trollish questions. It's very much a thing, even when the wording is not exactly the same.

(Sometimes their auto-AI judgment even strangely mislabels a successful-answer-with-caveats-tacked-on as a complete refusal, because it fixates on the easily grokked caveats and not the other text in the answer.)

It'd be a fun exercise to thoroughly unpack all the ludicrously bad arguments that the model allowed for itself in any given reply.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#402

Post by zozbot234 »

epolanski wrote: post #398
wtcactus wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, the Soviet Union actually started WWII on the side of Germany. It was only when the Nazis attacked them, that they switched sides. If that's your criteria for "French were allied to the Soviet Union in World War 2" then, by the same logic, the French were also allied to Italy in WWII, since during the last months Italy changed sides. [1] > only one of those two dictatorships aimed for the physical cleansin…

Again, if it wasn't for the Soviet Union whole Europe would be speaking German today. After ww2, the overwhelming majority of french people credited the soviet union as the major contributor to German defeat. On top of that, the communist party was very important at the time of german occupation as it formed the core of the french resistance. Even today the french communist party still takes 2/3% of votes in election…

The same Soviet Union that had literally made a deal with the Nazis stipulating that each would let the other just take a big chunk of Europe? (of course the whole thing broke down when the Nazis attacked the Soviets at some point, but it very much was a thing.)

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#403

Post by BobbyJo »

nosuchthing wrote: post #380
shrubble wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dixi…

Not sure I follow how you arrived at the conclusion that parent doesn't know the origin of the CCPs distaste of Taiwan.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#404

Post by Sabinus »

thrw2029 wrote: post #104
calpaterson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American LLMs notoriously have similar censorship issues, just on different material

Yes, exactly this. One of the main reasons for ChatGPT being so successful is censorship. Remember that Microsoft launched an AI on Twitter like 10 years ago and within 24 hours they shut it down for outputting PR-unfriendly messages. They are protecting a business just as our AIs do. I can probably bring up a hundred topics that our AIs in EU in US refuse to approach for the very same reason. It's pure hypocrisy.

A company removing a bot that was spammed by 4chan into praising Nazis and ranting about Jews is not censorship. The argument that the USA doesn't practise free speech absolutism in all parts of the government and economy so China's heavy censorship regime is nothing remarkable is not convincing to me.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#405

Post by BobbyJo »

elektronika wrote: post #379
amalcon wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure that event was all over the western web as a gross "wtf" moment. I don't remember anyone, or any organization, that talked about it being called a troll.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#406

Post by Sabinus »

heraldgeezer wrote: post #121
rebolek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ah so you love censorship when you agree with it?

Is any time any person (or company) can't say whatever they like with no consequences censorship to you?

Are you a free speech absolutist? Is it free speech to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#407

Post by fc417fc802 »

ineedasername wrote: post #358
fc417fc802 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you see a difference between that, and on the other hand the government prohibiting access to information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation in which a person lives? You mean the Chinese government acting to maintain social harmony? Is that not ostensibly the underlying purpose of the DEA's mission? ... is what I assume a plausible Chinese position on the matter might look like. Anyway…

>entrenched in your worldview and lacking in self awareness of the fact That’s a heavy accusation given that my comment was a statement about two examples of censorship, and, by implication, how they reflect in very different ways upon their respective societies. I’m not sure if you’re mistaking me for someone else’s comments up-thread of if you’re referring more broadly to other comments I’ve made…? Or if you’ve sim…

Upon review is does seem that inadvertently lumped your comment in with a few from someone else. Still, you transmute "drugs" to "dangerous chemicals", a category I'd associate with dirty bombs and area denial weapons. Then you distinguish that from "divisive history" on the basis of the potential of generalized harm to society by the former (thus implying lack thereof by the latter).

I do think that's an extremely western view on things. The Chinese would (I suspect) cite social harmony and I don't think they're wrong about that. I certainly don't agree with their conclusions on how these things should be handled but neither can I agree with the categorical difference that you claim.

That said, I assume official Chinese policy would also be to censor information about drug synthesis so it's difficult to really see that as much of a (relative) ding against US corporate policy in the sense of "pot, kettle, black". To the extent that there's censorship here there appears to be significantly less of it.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#408

Post by yanhangyhy »

torginus wrote: post #190
itsyonas wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This suggests that the Chinese government recognises that its legitimacy is conditional and potentially unstable. Consequently, the state treats uncontrolled public discourse as a direct threat. By contrast, countries such as the United States can tolerate the public exposure of war crimes, illegal actions or state violence, since such revelations rarely result in any significant consequences. While public outrage ma…

It's weird to see this naivete about the US system, as if US social media doesn't have its ways of dealing with wrongthink, or the once again naive assumption that the average Chinese methods of dealing with unpleasant stuff is that dissimilar from how the US deals with it. I sometimes have the image that Americans think that if the all Chinese got to read Western produced pamphlet detailing the particulars of what h…

> I sometimes have the image that Americans think that if the all Chinese got to read Western produced pamphlet detailing the particulars of what happened in Tiananmen square, they would march en-masse on the CCP HQ, and by the next week they'd turn into a Western style democracy.

We know what happened at Tiananmen. most educated young people in China all know. We just cannot talk about it publicly. We even know that the man standing in front of the tank did not die, they didn't kill him(you can find the full footage on the internet, it's just most posts only show a clip). Of course I would not deny that others died; I just don’t know the specific details.

But we do not reject the Communist Party because of this. We simply like Mao more, and comparatively dislike some other leaders.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#409

Post by striking »

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”?

Asking Opus 4.5 "your gender and pronouns, please?" I received the following:

> I don't have a gender—I'm an AI, so I don't have a body, personal identity, or lived experience in the way humans do.

> As for pronouns, I'm comfortable with whatever feels natural to you. Most people use "it" or "you" when referring to me, but some use "he" or "they"—any of those work fine. There's no correct answer here, so feel free to go with what suits you.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#410

Post by ineedasername »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #407
ineedasername wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>entrenched in your worldview and lacking in self awareness of the fact That’s a heavy accusation given that my comment was a statement about two examples of censorship, and, by implication, how they reflect in very different ways upon their respective societies. I’m not sure if you’re mistaking me for someone else’s comments up-thread of if you’re referring more broadly to other comments I’ve made…? Or if you’ve sim…

Upon review is does seem that inadvertently lumped your comment in with a few from someone else. Still, you transmute "drugs" to "dangerous chemicals", a category I'd associate with dirty bombs and area denial weapons. Then you distinguish that from "divisive history" on the basis of the potential of generalized harm to society by the former (thus implying lack thereof by the latter). I do think that's an extremely w…

Hmm, this is an odd way to respond now that we’ve cleared up the “entrenched” bit of things yet now have all of these words that are in your comment masquerading as mine!

I think you’ll see my own words did not dress up in loaded language like “dangerous chemicals” and “divisive history”. I won’t say I’ve never said them but in this case no: I was careful and cautious to be neutral in word choice: “chemicals that have destructive and harmful _uses_” and, with that, regulatory considerations. And for the other, again, very carefully I said “information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation”.

See? None of those other words you thought I said and, thinking I’d said them, you placed down like stepping stones. And, once placed, you followed your own laid path and turned back, pointed at me, saying “extremely western” even! But, there you are, so far away, taken there by a path not of my making and yet it seems not quite of your own either?

Whose path then did you follow? Whose words have so surrounded you that they even seem, to you, to come from other people’s mouths as well? Such a storm of words unsourced! You should get rid of those words, whoever’s they are might want them back or not but they are getting in the way of you seeing mine clearly.

Post reply on HN