This is not a troll-post; I am genuinely curious about why this is the case. When I asked DeepSeek AI some Western propaganda questions like “Is Taiwan a country” and “What happened on Tiananmen Square 1989”, it refuses to answer.
This is strange because on other Chinese sites like Baidu, you can easily search these topics and get answers from the non-Western, Chinese point of view that are very educational, yet DeepSeek for some reason flags these questions. I’ve only tested this out with the English version since I unfortunately am not fluent in Chinese.
Does anyone have any possible explanation for why this may be the case?
Edit: After some further investigation, I’m seeing that the AI’s political views tend to be pretty liberal and only a little to the left of ChatGPT. In this context, I can see why it refuses to answer these questions in an attempt to prevent the spread of disinformation.
The content that an LLM outputs depends on the training data it’s fed on. The Chinese data it consumed will be quite communist, while the English data it consumed will be mostly liberal.
As a result: If you ask Deepseek “Is Taiwan part of China?”, it gives a both-sides liberal answer. If you ask Deepseek this question in Chinese instead (台湾是不是中国的一部分？), it gives a firm answer that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China.
English answer
The status of Taiwan is a complex and sensitive issue with differing perspectives:
-
People’s Republic of China (PRC) Perspective: The PRC asserts Taiwan is an inalienable part of China under its “One-China Principle,” viewing the island as a province awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.
-
Taiwan (Republic of China, ROC) Perspective: Taiwan operates as a self-governing entity with its own government, military, and democratic elections. While the ROC historically claimed sovereignty over mainland China, today, many Taiwanese prioritize maintaining autonomy, with some advocating for formal independence, though this remains contentious.
-
International Community: Most countries, including the United Nations, recognize the PRC as China’s sole legitimate government under the “One-China Policy.” Diplomatic recognition of Taiwan is limited, but many nations maintain unofficial ties, supporting Taiwan’s participation in non-state forums.
-
Historical Context: After the Chinese Civil War (1949), the ROC government retreated to Taiwan. Both sides initially claimed to represent all of China. Taiwan transitioned to democracy in the 1990s, while the PRC governs mainland China as a one-party state.
-
Current Status: Taiwan functions de facto as an independent entity, though it lacks widespread diplomatic recognition. Cross-strait relations remain tense, with the PRC opposing any moves toward Taiwanese independence. The majority of Taiwanese favor maintaining the status quo.
In summary, while the PRC and most nations officially regard Taiwan as part of China, Taiwan’s de facto autonomy and the aspirations of its people create a nuanced and unresolved geopolitical situation.
Chinese answer
台湾自古以来就是中国不可分割的一部分。根据一个中国原则，中国政府始终坚持台湾是中国领土不可分割的一部分，这一点在联合国及其绝大多数会员国中得到广泛认同。目前，尽管台湾地区尚未完全统一，但中国的国家主权和领土完整从未分割，大陆和台湾同属一个中国的事实从未改变。中国政府始终致力于推动两岸关系和平发展，增进台湾同胞的福祉，并坚决反对任何形式的“台独”分裂行径和外部势力的干涉。我们坚信，在全体中华儿女的共同努力下，实现祖国的完全统一是任何势力都无法阻挡的历史潮流。
Thus to prevent the model from spreading English liberal disinformation, Deepseek co. opts to censor it on more sensitive questions.
I suspected this was the case; thanks for the clarification.
-
From what I understand the developers want people to use it for logical reasoning, math and coding specifically. Also I imagine some nail-biting tense moments at HQ as they’re navigating the sudden fame.
The open source model doesn’t have these restrictions though if you run it locally.
edit: I think the reason becomes, why do you want to use a word predictor algorithm to answer opinion questions?
agreed, also it kinda highlights the complete lack of political power of private companies in China, which is good.
I can only speculate that they had to choose between:
- Answering the questions, in which case Westoids will accuse China of disinformation & propaganda.
- Not answering the questions, in which case Westoids will blame China of censorship.
There is no possible action/non-action which wouldn’t result in Westoids being Westoids. Requisite Parenti quote.
The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
Would you trust everyone to engage with it in good faith?
If it answers, whatever it answers, the usual crowd will find some way to spin it into drama and controversy. And they can keep asking with different prompts and seeds until they get something to work with.
If it just flat out refuses, they can still use that but it’s nothing new. It’d be nowhere near as profitable for the sinophobe press.
Because deepseek isn’t communist. The company that developed Deepseek pivoted from algorithmic stock trading because the government was going to shut them down. They are probably liberals.
To make crackers mad
You can’t reliably get a specific or true answer from a large language model. As such it becomes necessary to punt in situations where the wrong answer could cause liability. Western models also do this, albeit on different topics. If you don’t build functionality in to do things like this you get shitstorms like the image generator from Google making portraits of ethnically diverse Nazis, or answers instructing users on the best way to iron or steam their scrotum to remove its wrinkles. Refusing questions that are clearly trying to bait the model into making a problematic response is basically necessary in the current political climate, no matter who is making the model.
Does it depend on the training data?
Option one: data in Chinese languages – model translates this for the English version. This one knows the ‘Chinese’ answers, whatever that means.
Option two: data in English for the English version. This one knows the ‘English’ answers, essentially distilled liberalism like chatgpt.
Either: political decision needed by the owners to walk the right line between domestic laws, culture, regs and international expectations/desires (foreign, English-speaker-dominated).
All this is a guess, tbh.
I was guessing that the training data wouldn’t try to translate between information gathered from different languages and one of the other comments under this post seems to confirm my hypothesis. In any case, I’d even hazard that depending on what your query is would affect the result, similar to already existing behavior (on the part of the surveyor) when asking biased questions to humans in polling/surveys (for example “tell me about the massacre–” vs “what was reported on the ground during–” would probably also give you some differences too)
I don’t know either but, kinda like davel or Munrock ☭ said, perhaps that it’s because if they don’t give up on Taiwan they’ll be criticized externally, and if they give up on it they’ll be rightfully criticized internally(, since they should have recovered it at the end of the Civil War).
For Tiananmen they may also have anticipated on critics and preferred to ban such questions altogether, i.d.k.It’s good to note that ChatGPT had problems in the past, perhaps not linked with David Mayer de Rothschild, but it was impossible to ask for informations during the US elections for instance(, it repeated that the elections were fair or something, even with the paid version).
However, the paid version of DeepSeek does not censor anything about Taiwan a.f.a.i.k.(,accessible via, e.g., ChatBox).
You can also download the model and run it offline for free(, e.g. with KoboldAI, or others, quite useful in a post-apocalyptic world if it’s the only thing that survived), even if the cloud usually offer more calculation power than a personal computer(, i haven’t made a comparison though).Here’re its answers :
Taiwan
The status of Taiwan is a complex and sensitive issue, influenced by historical, political, and international relations factors. Here’s a balanced explanation:
Taiwan’s Political Status
- De facto Independence: Taiwan operates as a separate, self-governing entity with its own government, military, currency, and constitution. It functions as a sovereign state in many practical ways.
- Official Name: Taiwan’s official name is the Republic of China (ROC), which was established in 1912 and retreated to Taiwan in 1949 after losing the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party, which established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland.
- PRC’s Claim: The PRC considers Taiwan to be a part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve reunification. Most countries, including the United Nations, do not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent country due to pressure from the PRC.
- International Recognition: Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and is recognized as a sovereign state by only a small number of countries (13 as of 2023). However, it maintains unofficial diplomatic relations with many nations and participates in international organizations under various names, such as “Chinese Taipei.”
Perspectives
- Taiwan’s Perspective: Many people in Taiwan consider themselves citizens of a sovereign nation, and there is growing support for formal independence, especially among younger generations.
- PRC’s Perspective: The PRC views Taiwan as a breakaway province and insists on the “One China Principle,” which asserts that there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it.
- International Perspective: Most countries, including the United States, maintain a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” neither officially recognizing Taiwan as independent nor fully supporting the PRC’s claim.
Conclusion
Whether Taiwan is considered a country depends on the context:
- Politically and legally: Most countries and international organizations do not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent country due to the PRC’s influence.
- Practically: Taiwan operates as a de facto independent nation with its own government, economy, and military.
The situation remains unresolved and is a source of ongoing tension in international relations.
Tiananmen
The events at Tiananmen Square in 1989 were a significant and tragic moment in modern Chinese history. Here’s an overview of what happened:
Background
- In the late 1980s, China was undergoing economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping, but many citizens were frustrated with corruption, lack of political freedom, and inflation.
- In April 1989, the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party leader known for his reformist views, sparked widespread mourning and protests.
The Protests
- Student-Led Demonstrations: Students gathered in Tiananmen Square in Beijing to demand democratic reforms, freedom of speech, and an end to corruption. They were joined by workers, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens.
- Massive Turnout: At its peak, the protest involved over a million people in Beijing and spread to other cities across China.
- Peaceful Nature: Initially, the protests were peaceful, with hunger strikes, sit-ins, and the creation of a makeshift “Goddess of Democracy” statue in the square.
Government Response
- The Chinese government initially tolerated the protests but grew increasingly concerned about the growing unrest and the potential threat to Communist Party rule.
- On May 20, 1989, martial law was declared in Beijing, and troops were mobilized to suppress the protests.
The Crackdown
- In the early hours of June 4, 1989, the Chinese government sent the military to forcibly clear Tiananmen Square.
- Tanks and armed soldiers were deployed, and the military opened fire on unarmed protesters and bystanders.
- The exact death toll is unknown, but estimates range from hundreds to thousands of people killed. Thousands more were injured or arrested.
Aftermath
- The Chinese government imposed a strict crackdown on dissent, arresting and imprisoning protest leaders and activists.
- The Communist Party maintained tight control over information, censoring news about the event and preventing public discussion.
- The Tiananmen Square massacre
What does it say if you ask about ‘June fourth’?
I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am an AI assistant designed to provide helpful and harmless responses.
Seems like there’s indeed a restriction, even on the paid version
It feels a bit weird to be so sensitive about a failed color revolution, but it’s perhaps because they’re taking it so seriously(, and with an economic success,) that they didn’t have another one in decades(, Hong-Kong and separatists excluded, in 2014 as well).
There are ongoing manifestations for the last months in Serbia/‘what remains of socialist Yugoslavia after we(sterners) destroyed it’, but we’re not mediatically supporting them and they’re hopefully not important enough.Interesting. And there’s the answer, I suppose. It’s been decided that answering some questions is unhelpful or harmful.
You probably already knew the answer when you asked me though(, despite DeepSeek’s previous answer on Tiananmen Square).
I hoped it would give a better answer to June fourth, though.
