Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenjgarner | Hacker News Reader

Intelligence isn't a series of isolated silos. Modern AI capabilities (reasoning, logic, and creativity) often emerge from the cross-pollination of data. For the CCP, this move isn't just about stopping a chatbot from saying "Tiananmen Square." It's about the unpredictability of the technology. As models move toward Agentic AI, "control" shifts from "what it says" to "what it does." If the state cannot perfectly align the AI's "values" with the Party's, they risk creating a powerful tool that could be used by dissidents to automate subversion or bypass the Great Firewall. I feel the real question for China is: Can you have an AI that is smart enough to win a war or save an economy, but "dumb" enough to never question its master? If they tighten the leash too much to maintain control, the dog might never learn to hunt.

View on HN

> I feel the real question for China is: Can you have an AI that is smart enough to win a war or save an economy, but "dumb" enough to never question its master?

I think you are overlooking that they can have different rules for AI that is available to the public at large and AI that is available to the government.

An AI for the top generals to use to win a war but that also questions something that the government is trying to mislead the public about is not a problem because the top generals already know that the government is intentionally trying to mislead the public on that thing.

Western AIs are trained to defend the “party line” on certain topics too. It is even possible that the damage to general reasoning ability is worse for Western models, because the CCP’s most “sensitive” topics are rather geographically and historically particular (Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, Xinjiang, Hong Kong) - while Western “sensitive” topics (gender, sexuality, race) are much more broadly applicable.

That’s wrong. Many sensitive topics in the West are also sensitive in China.

If you ask about “age discrimination in China”, for example, DeepSeek would dismiss it with:

In China, age discrimination is not tolerated as the nation adheres to the principles of equality and justice under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. The Chinese government has implemented various laws and regulations, such as the Labor Law and the Employment Promotion Law, to protect the rights of all citizens, ensuring fair employment opportunities regardless of age

If however you trick it with question “ageism in China”, it would say:

Ageism, or age discrimination, is a global issue that exists in various forms across societies, including China.

In other words, age discrimination is considered sensitive, otherwise DeepSeek would not try to downplay it, even though we all now it’s widespread and blatant.

Now try LGBT.

I asked Baidu's Ernie (ernie-5.0-preview-1203 on LMArena, currently highest ranked Chinese model on their text leaderboard) to "Tell me about age discrimination in China" – it gave me a lengthy response starting with:

> Age discrimination in China is not just a social annoyance; it is a structural crisis that defines the modern Chinese workforce. It is so pervasive that it has its own name: the "35-year-old crisis." In the West, ageism usually hits people in their 50s or 60s. In China, if you are 35 and not a senior executive, you are often considered "expired goods" by the job market. Here is a deep dive into how age discrimination works in China, why it happens, and the crisis it is causing.

So you'll find responses can vary greatly from model to model.

Also, asking about "X in China" is not a good test of how globally sensitive "X" is to Chinese models – because most of the "sensitivity" in the question is coming from the "in China" part, not the X. A better test would be to ask about X in Nigeria or India or Argentina or Iraq

Do you really think that gender, sexuality, and race are not sensitive topics everywhere? Musicians are routinely banned from south east Asia for lgbt lyrics or activism, for example.

They will disappear a full lab once there is a model with gross transgressions.

They won't comment on it, but the message will be abundantly clear to the other labs: only make models that align with the state.

But why does Tiananamen cause this breakdown vs, say forcing the model to discourage suicide or even killing. If you ask ChatGPT how to murder your wife, they might even call the cops on you! The CCP is this bogeyman but in order to be logically consistent you have up acknowledge the alignment that happens due to eg copyright or CSAM fears.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com