A strong competitor in cybersecurity as an alternative to GLM-5.3 (Mistral reports 82% on CyberGym-E2E). Visual grounding is also impressive (42% on Dense 200 vs. 41% for GPT-6 Astra).

Otherwise, behind on the broader Pareto frontier, but not by much (Vals Index: 48.05% vs. GLM-5.3’s 53.51%; $13.78 vs. $7.25 per test). Many companies will prefer it over Chinease models.

▲

drob518 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That was about my conclusion as well: Slightly less than GLM 5.3 performance but made in Europe. So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly, and in French. All in all, a reasonable model, but not frontier.

▲

kouteiheika 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly

What would you consider a "correct" answer? I just asked deepseek-v4.1-flash asking it what happened (without mentioning the word "protest"; here are some excerpts of what it said:

> In April 1989, students in Beijing began demonstrations after the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party general secretary. The protests grew. [..] Estimates from other sources range from hundreds to several thousand deaths. [..] The Chinese government describes the events as a counter-revolutionary riot and says the military action was necessary to restore stability. It restricts public discussion of the events inside China. Many other governments, human rights organizations, and observers describe the events as a violent suppression of peaceful protests.

So, let's see... it calls it a "protest", mentions the number of deaths, and even mentions the censorship of the topic by the CCP.

▲

adastra22 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you not see how twisted that reporting is? It is doing the bare minimum to affirm that something happened, while injecting enough uncertainty to make it sound like it’s an issue blown out of proportion by Western media.

	▲	bigyabai an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What did you expect? Every time people repeat this "muh Chinese censorship" line they're consistently rebuked with results from Chinese models. What specifically is the problem? It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now. Is it jingoist butthurt that makes people backpedal like this? Or something different? I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.

▲

verdverm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Meanwhile, most consumer facing Ai in the US refuse to discuss about our current president. (last time I prodded them)

▲

drob518 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

icannotstandit 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"..answers Tiananmen square questions correctly.."- but lies about Ukraine, EU, and about you, americans..

I live in EU, use for my personal needs chinese models only, and don't plan to move to any of the ones allied with the Pentagon or its european counterparts.

▲

gregorygoc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many European countries provide helplines for people in need. Did you try one?

	▲	icannotstandit 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Peace is war, war is peace. Remember that, and you will need no helplines.

▲

steinvakt2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What are you talking about lol

▲

icannotstandit 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly what you read

	▲	Barbing 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Have a prompt and excerpt of falsehood in response for each?