That's just whataboutism. Why shouldn't people talk about the various ideological stances embedded in different LLMs?

Why do we hear censorship concerns only when it comes Chinese models? Why don't we hear similar stances when Claude or OpenAI releases models?

We either set the bar and judge both, or don't complain about censorship

▲

roywiggins 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think more people should spend time talking about this with American models, yeah. If you're interested in that then maybe that can be you. It doesn't have to be the same exact people talking about everything, that's the nice thing about forums. Find your own topic that American models consistently lie or freeze on that Chinese models don't and post about it.

▲

throwaw12 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't want to criticise models for things they're not being trained on or constraints companies have. None of the companies said our models don't hallucinate and we always have right facts.

For example,

* I am not expecting Gemini 3 Flash to cure cancer and constantly criticising them for that

* Or I am not expecting Mistral to outcompete OpenAI/Claude on their each release, because talent density and capital is obviously on a different level on OpenAI side

* Or I am not expecting GPT 5.3 saying anytime soon: Yes, Israel committed genocide and politicians covered it up

We should set expectations properly and don't complain about Tianmen every time when Chinese companies are releasing their models and we should learn to appreciate them doing it and creating very good competition and they are very hard working people.

	▲	roywiggins 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think most people feel differently about an emergent failure in a model vs one that's been deliberately engineered in for ideological reasons. It's not like Chinese models just happen to refuse to talk about the topic, it trips guardrails that have been intentionally placed there, just as much as Claude has guardrails against telling you how to make sarin gas.