Certainly? I don’t have time to read the whole thing but-

> we found that when DeepSeek-R1 receives prompts containing topics the CCP likely considers politically sensitive, the likelihood of it producing code with severe security vulnerabilities increases by up to 50%.

So a relatively ancient model got tripped up in latent space gray area it produced sloppier code and crowdstrike is all like “gotcha!” Sounds like the basic thesis? Not great support, more like FUD

▲

GeorgeWBasic 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Note that all of a sudden, the great majority of the comments on this page appear to be pro-US government and pretend that the CCP is somehow worse. Not a coincidence: the regulatory capture is starting right here.

	▲	linkregister 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's a banal observation that users of a US-based venture capital firm's web forum have a bias toward that country's governance model.

▲

unethical_ban 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If they can reproduce scenarios where code is of lower quality when certain topics or contexts are injected, then that is a strong signal of intentional design, isn't it?

	▲	jazzyjackson an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No; it’s a signal of lobotomy. Models get dumber near where you sensor them. You could almost think of it like your prompt is getting redacted, and so the LLM has to deal with these holes in your prompt (where you mentioned the semantic contraband) and it doesn’t do a very good job because it has no idea what you’re talking about. The mechanism is likely a bit inverted, it’s the weights that have been redacted, but the effect is that weights that were interfered with are affecting the problem solving abilities of the LLM - I mean, it’s insecure bad code, not a backdoor, right?