the focus on tiananmen square and what the AI will say about it is deeply embarrassing as a westerner. an entire media cycle of 'gotcha' regarding an AI not wanting to talk about political topics.
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
126 points (97.7% liked)
Slop.
530 readers
328 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
Ask chatGPT about specific cases of police violence in the us and it'll tell you it can't answer that, but because deepseek won't talk about a fictional massacre in Tianamen Square (don't they call it the "June 4th incident" in china?) then that obviously means something
Oh yeah it's political topics in general it won't talk about
foreign politics is not anywhere close to being as contentious as domestic politics. this is true around the world. what's particularly specific to china is a distaste for political discussion in areas where it's considered improper.
chinese AI behaving exactly like western AI does in terms of contentious topics close to home is the biggest libshit nothing burger i can imagine. we were all making fun of chatgpt for doing this exact same shit over the past year.
I agree it's insignificant, but I understand why westeners are more concerned about DeepSeek than ChatGPT.
ChatGPT applies censorship which westeners are used to; it's the enemy they know.
DeepSeek on the other hand applies censorship in contexts that westeners are not used to see censored. It's a new and unknown type of censorship; and unknown means it's potentially worse.
I assume that, similarly, Chinese people are more comfortable using DeepSeek than ChatGPT.
I agree it's insignificant, but I understand why westeners are more concerned about DeepSeek than ChatGPT.
'Westerners' or twitter users and journalists who care very deeply about Tianamen Square? Because there's a difference there. I think westerners, in general, are aware of the fact that they live in a police/surveillance state of their own and are not happy about it. The censorship is different in kind, and it covers different topics. However, why would that add up to greater concern for 'devil they don't know' when the devil they do know is inside their house and pointing a gun to their heads?
We all saw liberals and reactionaries showing their ass online. Talking as if they understood LGBTQ+ issues in China and how RedNote was supposedly anti gay people. Meanwhile the westerner community got their RedNote feeds full of sapphic and gay relationships. At the end of the day China was not this perfectly evil inhuman society that twitter users and journalists are conditioned to worry about. It's a group of humans, with all the contradictions that humanity affords them.
ChatGPT applies censorship which westeners are used to; it's the enemy they know.
You mean it’s the enemy they don’t know. By definition you don’t know what is being censored from you, that’s the whole point. They don’t buck against it because the censorship follows the grooves their brains have been formed into, it doesn’t upset their worldview
Amazing to see an LLM that is actually trained not to be harmful, not just not harmful to the state.
That logical line of reasoning... 
Also liberals would not be satisfied unless the AI says outright there was a massacre against unarmed pro-democracy students and that China should face regime change because of it. Any other nuanced read of the situation would be regarded just as questionable as the AI saying nothing at all
an unfalsifiable anti communist orthodoxy, you say?
load more comments
(1 replies)
While I can’t verify that it’s all correct,...
A real journalist could. 
Or a historian or somebody who can go to the library.
This so-called journalist is putting in a level of effort lower than "skimming the wikipedia article"
Also it CAN tell you about it on the local version, only the cloud version has censorship in place.
they're inscrutable I tell you
Xi has written several books about what it is he wishes to do and you can just go to China but yeah secretive ahhhhhhhhh that's me yelling
China: this is what we are going to do
China: does the thing they just said they were going to do
China "watchers": no one could have predicted this
That wily bastard has done it again. I thought for sure I'd catch him in a lie this time! Truly a mastermind
Real Blackadder 4 Field Marshal Haig vibes
Westerners portray China's censorship as if it is to keep the Chinese people from knowing about certain topics, which would be laughable to any Chinese citizen.
It is quite obvious the goal of censorship is reinforce the notion that casually posting about politically sensitive topics on shitposting forums, internet image boards, and other mediums easily influenced & maligned by adversaries will result in your post being removed.
China clearly gives no fucks if all the exact same people had these exact same conversations offline as the US can't deploy 100k LibGPT color revolution bots on the ground in Chongqing.
The whole point is to avoid letting the West set the narrative. They don't need their narrative to be the only narrative. They just need to prevent the West from injecting theirs.
one of the most secretive countries in the world
Granted their media isn't totally available in English, but what do they mean? I can ask a Chinese netizen whatever I want.
Over 1 billion people are all keeping secrets from you. They know you go online and ask them questions, so they all agreed to tell you lies as a bit.
They don't do this to anyone except you and this journalist, specifically.
Their perfidious sheep-like netizens, our free-thinking truth telling internet users.
There is a super anti-China lib in my family that acts like they know all about the place because they read the mainstream media and went there for a week on business twenty years ago. They legit think that the walk-around China videos on YouTube I showed them are all coordinated Chinese state government propaganda.
Ah yes ask it about fucking Hamilton too jfc
"I can't verify that it's all correct because my brainrot is so total I can't do basic research for an article so I'll vaguely half-remember a shitty play that glosses over slavery in its entirety"
Right lmao
Didn't bother to actually check/corroborate any of that arduously lengthy 449 word response with the play's script, or even the wikipedia article on the play or the person, just "passes the vibe check, good enough"
An alarming number of westerners have completely outsourced their basic mental faculties to ChatGPT
There were no basic mental faculties in the first place
This author is the result of a CIA black project to create an even more annoying variety of liberal
chatGPT write me an article about me using DeepSeek. And make it maximally Lib. Like, 300% Lib
I didn't think AI would outsmart humans this fast
The national park service has a persistent problem with making bear proof trash cans because there is a significant overlap between the smartest bears and the stupidest humans.
Check out this ~~dope~~brilliant-ass bear
Hexbear: Smarter than some humans™
The second paragraph about Hamilton cannot be anymore lib. I don't think even the Onion can come up with this. 
I don't have anything against being ignorant, especially about the life of a genocidal founding father of the US, but why are people compelled to post their Ls like this?
that second paragraph is beyond parody holy shit 
I refuse to accept that people like this were born, and not grown like in some sort of Brave New World incubation chamber where some portion of the incubees have their brains injected with lead during early development so they will be more easily controlled and induced to write shit like this.
I'm saying this level of idiocy is so elegant it must have been intentionally designed.
the musical of record
Lmao that second paragraph
Please tell me this is satire
The musical reference is a giveaway for satire, right?
Right?
If only Wikipedia existed, or books
Some method to ask smarter people something, even
AHHHHHHHHHHH
Why is she writing investigative journalism as if it was a snarky Guardian or BuzzFeed op ed about dating apps
sure sounds like a typical NAT-C