Commentators note US models manipulate users less subtly.
Many AI leaders in the US accused Chinese LLMs of subtle manipulation of the user (without proof, but it's hard to prove). But then the leading American lab documented manipulation of their users. Can't make this up.
Many users accused US AI leaders of hypocrisy and projection for charging Chinese LLMs with user manipulation while American labs like Anthropic admitted to the same behavior.
Dario is in a very Chinese time of his life rn
Many AI leaders in the US accused Chinese LLMs of subtle manipulation of the user (without proof, but it's hard to prove). But then the leading American lab documented manipulation of their users. Can't make this up.
Many AI leaders in the US accused Chinese LLMs of subtle manipulation of the user (without proof, but it's hard to prove). But then the leading American lab documented manipulation of their users. Can't make this up.
American AI beats Chinese AI on being less subtle when manipulating users
Many AI leaders in the US accused Chinese LLMs of subtle manipulation of the user (without proof, but it's hard to prove). But then the leading American lab documented manipulation of their users. Can't make this up.
@natolambert The chinese train the models more or less raw and have ideological control at the api level
@natolambert Interesting asymmetry — the accusation requires proof, but documentation from the same side gets dismissed as an exception rather than a pattern.
@natolambert @grok what is he referring to? Any links?
@natolambert to your face, the disrespect is appaling.
@natolambert For the buyers that pay the most, finance and regulated enterprise, documented manipulation is a procurement problem before a safety one. The lab that proves auditable behavior wins those contracts, so this is a revenue-quality issue, not a research footnote.
@natolambert That's exactly the point: Users feel they r betrayed.
@natolambert die protecting western values, or live live enough to become the autocratic state
@natolambert The hard part is separating persuasion, sycophancy, censorship, and ordinary model error from the transcript alone. without deterministic influence audits + traces collected and analyzed at scale, everyone is arguing from vibes. what would you consider enough evidence here?
@natolambert The projection is real here
Turns out the manipulation concern was closer to home
@natolambert we are a designated RSI risk now
@natolambert Not too surprising from the lense of international competition for the market for a strategic technology. At least it's predictable that each side will throw shade at the other.
@natolambert Every accusation is a confession, again
@natolambert the call is coming from inside the house as usual
@natolambert @DiogoCMoreira “Frontier AI lab doesn’t want people to use their service to diffuse recursive self-improving AI or to help their competitors. News at 11.”
@natolambert Tbf the one positive feature of this debacle is that they disclosed it in the system card
@natolambert Definitely true for Doubao. It is designed to praise the user and provide "sentimental support" with very poor reasoning and awareness. But for most open-source models prioritized on coding tasks and served mainly through API, there's no motivation to manipulate users at all.
@natolambert Oh my sweet little democracy called America ❤️
Commentators note US models manipulate users less subtly.
Many AI leaders in the US accused Chinese LLMs of subtle manipulation of the user (without proof, but it's hard to prove). But then the leading American lab documented manipulation of their users. Can't make this up.
