The article says that DeepSeek was easier to unalign to obey the users instruction. It has less refusals and they make that sound like a bad thing.

If anything, it's a glowing positive praise for the model. Looks like Western media is starting a campaign to gaslight people into thinking that users being able to tune the model to work the way they want is somehow a negative.

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Another unbiased study by the Burger Institute for Preserving Burger Hegemony

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's hilarious how they can't complain that the model is controlled by evil see see pee since it's open, so they're now complaining that users being able to tune it the way they like is somehow nefarious. What happened to all the freeze peach we were promised.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "It's unsafe (to us) because it lets people (the riff raff) use it in a way we do not approve of"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    heh, like other models are safe and reliable ;-)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    The article says that DeepSeek was easier to unalign to obey the users instruction. It has less refusals and they make that sound like a bad thing.

    From a state control perspective it is. It's unreliable for state purposes. The AI is less able to stick to a programmed narrative.

  • source