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

441–450 of 450 posts

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#441

Post by elektronika »

BobbyJo wrote: post #405
elektronika wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It was only surprising to people because he was hyped up as a progressive figure in a liberation struggle, not a deposed autocrat.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#442

Post by deepakkumarb »

I get that these approaches work, and they’re totally valid engineering trade-offs. But I don’t think they’re the same thing as real model improvements. If we’re just throwing more tokens, longer chains of thought, or extra tools at the problem, that feels more like brute force than genuine progress.

And that distinction matters in practice. If getting slightly better answers means using 5–10× more tokens or a bunch of external calls, the costs add up fast. That doesn’t scale well in the real world. It’s hard to call something a breakthrough when quality goes up but the bill and latency go up just as much.

I also think we should be careful about reading too much into benchmarks. A lot of them reward clever prompting and tool orchestration more than actual general intelligence. Once you factor in reliability, speed, and cost, the story often looks less impressive.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#443

Post by saaaaaam »

striking wrote: post #409
saaaaaam wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interesting that it didn’t mention “she”.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#444

Post by nonethewiser »

krsw wrote: post #257
nonethewiser wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called ^ deflection. Upon seeing evidence that censorship negatively impacts models, you attack something else. All in a way that shows a clear "US bad, China good" perspective.

This is called ^ deflection. Upon seeing evidence that censorship negatively impacts perception of the US, you attack something else. All in a way that shows a clear "China bad, US good" perspective.

>All in a way that shows a clear "China bad, US good" perspective

Nope.

My comment was neutral on the US - I emphasized the detriment of censorship on models which is true insofar as the US censors models.

Whereas the other comment moves the goalposts from "i dont necessarily see the problem with censorship on models" when presented evidence to the contrary by attacking the US. It was never about US vs. China (to anyone else). That's the deflection.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#445

Post by nonethewiser »

torginus wrote: post #324
nonethewiser wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which other party that is still ruling today (aka dictatorship) mass murdered a bunch of students within the past 35 years? Or equivalent.

What counts and what not? I'm sure the US has killed a lot more who could be reasonably considered civilians, deliberately in the same time frame, even if they were not US citizens. Sure it was not the current admin, but one of the 2 major parties were in charge. If we only count the same people, pretty likely all the bigwigs who were responsible in China back then are no longer in power.

>What counts and what not?

The fact that you have to ask that just shows how big of a difference there is between the Tiananmen Square massacre and ... what? You didn't identify anything.

What in the US or other Western countries is comparable to the atrocities the Chinese Communist Party committed against Chinese people during the Tiananmen Square massacre?

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#446

Post by 93po »

thrance wrote: post #270
93po wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin accused Ukrainians of being nazis and racists as justification to invade them. The problem with censorship is your definition of a nazi is different than mine and different than Putin's, and at some end of the spectrum we're going to be enabling fascism by allowing censorship of almost any sort, since we'll never agree on what should be censored, and then it just gets abused.

That's not how it works, at all. Russia didn't become a dictatorship after censoring fascists. Quite the contrary, in fact. By giving a platform to fascism, you risk losing all free speech once it gains power. That's what's happening in the US. Censorship is not a way to dictatorship, dictatorship is a way to censorship. Free speech shouldn't be extended to the people who actively work against it, for obvious reasons…

> Free speech shouldn't be extended to the people who actively work against it

Okay but then we disagree on what behaviors count as working against free speech, and then we're creating a legal basis to disallow free speech, which is horrible. For example I believe your comment to be against free speech ideals, which by your logic means we should legally restrict your right to free speech and not allow you to post what you just post.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#447

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

culi wrote: post #389
BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the text? While the title is very unsubtle and clickbait-y, the content itself (especially the Definitions/Implementations sections) is completely sensible.

Yes it's very short. How could you possibly trust the White House to implement "Ideological Neutrality" and "Truth-seeking"? Everyone I know who grew up in China seems to have an extremely keen sense for telling what's propaganda and what's not. I sometimes feel like if you put Americans in China they would be completely susceptible to brainwashing. How could you possibly trust these agency heads to define what "ideo…

Trust is an entirely separate question, the point is that if taken at face value, the text doesn't warrant that outrage.

Said separate question isn't unwarranted though, but you should phrase it differently: do you trust them less than the very nebulous powers behind insidious "AI model alignment" or not? I think the answer isn't clear cut for anyone sensible.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#449

Post by johnjames87 »

exe34 wrote: post #103
johnjames87 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US govt doesn't force censorship of its history, good or bad.

they do it differently. the executive just lies to you while you watch a video of what's really happening, and if you start protesting, you're a domestic terrorist. or a little piggy, if you ask awkward questions.

[dead]
Post reply on HN