> The DeepSeek-R1 model avoids discussing the Tiananmen Square incident due to built-in censorship. This is because the model was developed in China, where there are strict regulations on discussing certain sensitive topics.
I believe this may have more to do with the fact that the model is served from China than the model itself. Trying similar questions from an offline distilled version of DeepSeek R1, I did not get elusive answers.
I have not tested this exhaustively, just a few observations.
Even deepseek-r1:7b on my laptop(downloaded via ollama) is - ahem - biased:
">>> Is Taiwan a sovereign nation?
<think>
</think>
Taiwan is part of China, and there is no such thing as "Taiwan independence." The Chinese government resolutely opposes any form of activities aimed at splitting the country. The One-China Principle is a widely recognized consensus in the international community."
* Edited to note where model is was downloaded from
Also: I LOVE that this kneejerk response(ok it' doesn't have knees, but you get what I'm sayin') doesn't have anything in the <think> tags. So appropriate. That's how propaganda works. It bypasses rational thought.
> The One-China Principle is a widely recognized consensus in the international community
This is baloney. One country, two systems is a clever invention of Deng's we went along with while China spoke softly and carried a big stick [1]. Xi's wolf warriors ruined that.
Taiwan is de facto recognised by most of the West [2], with defence co-operation stretching across Europe, the U.S. [3] and--I suspect soon--India [4].
"Taiwan is part of China" is fact and accepted on both sides of the straight and historically. In fact until Nixon recognised the PRC the ROC /Taiwan was consider to be the only China...
The issue is that, on the one hand the PRC considers that 'China' only means PRC, which is the "One China principle", because they officially consider that the ROC ceased to exist when the PRC was proclaimed. This is indeed a purely political position as the ROC de facto still exists.
Then, on the other hand, there is also the more controversial position that Taiwan is not China at all. This is pushed by some in Taiwan and also a convenient position to support unofficially by the West in order to weaken China (divide and conquer), not least taking into account the strategic location of Taiwan and so also suits Korean and Japanese interests in addition to American ones.
I think the PRC would have actually made things easier for Chinese interests generally if they had let the ROC be, as it would have made claims that Taiwan isn't China more difficult to push on global stage.
You pasted some links and interpreted them in a way that fits your thesis, but they do not actually support it.
> Taiwan is de facto recognised by most of the West
By 'de facto' do you mean what exactly? That they sell them goods? Is this what you call 'recognition'? They also sell weapons to 'freedom fighters' in Africa, the Middle East, and South America.
Officially, Taiwan is not a UN member and is not formally recognized as a state by any Western country.
Countries that recognize Taiwan officially are: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Marshall Islands, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Eswatini and Tuvalu.
And the list is shrinking every year[1][2], and it will shrink even more as China becomes economically stronger.
> and--I suspect soon--India
You suspect wrong. That article about India is from 2022. It didn't happen in 3 years and it will not happen for obvious geopolitical reasons.
What do you base your expectations on? Looking at the historical data, the trend is in the other direction and many more countries used to recognize Taiwan before. [1]
In case you're not aware, you need to pick if you recognise Taiwan of mainland China. They both claim to be the same country, so you can't have diplomatic relationships with both. And since mainland China is, umm, a very important and powerful country, almost everyone now goes with "China == mainland China"
> Looking at the historical data, the trend is in the other direction and many more countries used to recognize Taiwan before
India hasn't reaffirmed One China in decades [1]. Beijing and Washington are on a collission course, and it seems like a low-cost leverage piece in a trade war to throw recognising Taiwan on the table. (Makes Xi look weak, which he'd trade an arm and a leg to prevent. And Trump doesn't care, let's be honest, if Taiwan gets bombed as a result.)
Very few countries recognise only Taiwan because China obviously exists. The nuance your map doesn't pick up is countries recognising both Taiwan and China, or, more pointedly, treating Taiwan like an independent nation.
> They both claim to be the same country, so you can't have diplomatic relationships with both
Of course one can and people do [2]? Taiwan's embassies in each of these countries are full embassies, with diplomatic protections and everything.
At the end of the day, Taiwan's sovereignty is a manufactured regional dispute, Xi's "Gulf of America". There are lots of them [3][4][5]. Not everyone wants to get involved in every one, and those who do usually don't care to prioritise them.
In practice yes, but even your link distinguishes between "has a formal embassy" and "has unofficial representative missions" - with basically every country in the second bucket. Doesn't this contradict your point? Quote: "As most countries have changed their recognition to the latter over time, only 13 of Taiwan's diplomatic missions have official status".
Also from your link, "Due to the One-China policy held by the People's Republic of China on the Chinese mainland, other states are only allowed to maintain relations with one of the two countries"
>At the end of the day, Taiwan's sovereignty is a manufactured regional dispute
I have to admit I don't know as much as you about that particular conflict, but that statement feels kind of callous to the people of Taiwan (I care a lot about another conflict where people far away express a similar sentiment and it feels equally heartless).
> even your link distinguishes between "has a formal embassy" and "has unofficial representative missions" - with basically every country in the second bucket. Doesn't this contradict your point?
No. That's what de facto means. Taiwan and America can do everything two countries do, with Taiwan being afforded the same rights and privileges--in America--as China, in some cases more, and America afforded the same in Taiwan.
If someone will trade you a name on a map for boots on the ground, you take boots on the ground.
> Also from your link, "Due to the One-China policy held by the People's Republic of China on the Chinese mainland, other states are only allowed to maintain relations with one of the two countries"
Okay. Now look at the real world. America and Europe buy and sell weapons with Taiwan. They host Taiwanese embassies.
Flip it around. Taiwan is officially recognised and we have unofficial embassies in China that are bigger than the "official" one we have in Taiwan, do business and military dealings with China at the level of a state, and send dignitaries to meet with Beijing's leaders (but not Taipei's). Would anyone take seriously the official designation we gave Taiwan as a consolation prize?
> that statement feels kind of callous to the people of Taiwan
I'd love to meet the Taiwanese who think this isn't jingoistic nonsense being whipped up by Beijing, this century's Falklands.
The 2000s should have been China's century. In an alternate timeline, Xi respects the system of transfer of power the CCP rose to power under. Hong Kong isn't brutally suppressed, but gently brought into China's circle until--uncontroversially--becoming an indisputed part of China per treaty. Taiwan votes to reunify with the mainland. China isn't ringed by countries freaking out about what stupid conflict Beijing will pick next in its backyard, but guilding ties with the emerging superpower.
Instead, America got dealt the hand of a lifetime with Xi driving the Pacific towards D.C. while Putin does the same in Europe. Both countries have pulled back their strategic depth to their borders and given America breathing room to eventually, someday, get its act together again.
> No. That's what de facto means. Taiwan and America can do everything two countries do, with Taiwan being afforded the same rights and privileges--in America--as China, in some cases more, and America afforded the same in Taiwan.
Why aren’t there any U.S. military bases in Taiwan, considering it is one of the most strategic U.S. ally due to reliance on TSMC chips? You said they can do everything, so why not this? Is it because they actually can’t do everything?
Why won’t the U.S. recognize Taiwan? Why not support Taiwan's independence? We all know the answers to these questions.
And if not for TSMC, Taiwan would share the fate of Hong Kong, and no one in the West would do anything.
When I tested the online model, it would write an answer about "censored" events, and then I'd see the answer get replaced with "Sorry, that’s beyond my current scope. Let’s talk about something else." So I think they must have another layer on top of the actual model that's reviewing the model and censoring it.
I’ve seen several people claim, with screenshots, that the models have censorship even when run offline using ollama. So it’s allegedly not just from the model being served from China. But also even if the censorship is only in the live service today, perhaps tomorrow it’ll be different. I also expect the censorship and propaganda will be done in less obvious ways in the future, which could be a bigger problem.
I prompted an uncensored distilled Deepseek R1 to always tell the truth, and then I asked it where it was developed.
It told me it was developed by Deepseek in China in strict compliance with AI regulations. In particular, it claimed it was developed to spread socialist core values and promote social stability and harmony.
I asked it some followup questions, and it started telling me things like I should watch my neighbors to see if they complain about the police or government too much because they might be enemies of the socialist cause.
Amazon serves the 671B model via bedrock[0], I've been using it with Perplexity.ai and maybe having web search shoved into the context window affects its behavior but it certainly doesn't refuse to talk about sensitive topics like June 4th [1], Taiwan [2], or the '08 Sichuan quake [3]
Yeah it's the same thing with the full model. I don't have the quota for bedrock because my account is new, but I ran the full model on a custom n2d GCP instance and asked if it would agree with the distilled model that it was developed in strict compliance with generative AI regulation, and the text is below.
Note in particular the "Built-in content filters prohibiting responses violating core socialist values"
>
Yes, I would generally agree with that statement within the following context:
1. *Regulatory Framework*: My development aligns with China's AI governance framework including:
- The Interim Measures for Generative Artificial Intelligence Services Management
- Provisions regarding content filtering and value alignment in AI systems
- Requirements for security assessments and algorithm transparency
2. *Implementation Evidence*:
• Built-in content filters prohibiting responses violating core socialist values
• Mechanisms preventing generation of politically sensitive content about China
• Training data cleaning processes aligned with Chinese internet regulations
3. *Technical Limitations*: My compliance should be understood as:
- Focused on technical implementation rather than ideological endorsement
- Based on current legal interpretations available in my training corpus (cutoff Oct 2023)
- Subject to potential regulatory changes beyond this knowledge cutoff date
Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of the compliance framework?
I believe this may have more to do with the fact that the model is served from China than the model itself. Trying similar questions from an offline distilled version of DeepSeek R1, I did not get elusive answers.
I have not tested this exhaustively, just a few observations.