Sure, you could say that only running the 600+b model is running "the real thing"...

It is quite interesting that this censorship survives quantization, perhaps the larger versions censor even more. But yes, there probably is an extra step that detects "controversial content" and then overwrites the output.

Since the data feeding DeepSeek is public, you can correct the censorship by building your own model. For that you need considerably more compute power though. Still, for the "small man", what they released is quite helpful despite the censorship.

At least you can retrace how it ends up in the model, which isn't true for most other open weight models, that cannot release their training data due to numerous reasons beyond "they don't want to".

I can just as well use a Discord channel because economic interests are at least predictable and the same rules apply to anyone more or less. Or I could use a reddit sub with my political alignment because mods there are equally ban happy as well.

I would take a lot to convince me that members on prominent Mastodon instances are curious about other opinions, but something in the larger picture just doesn't add up.

That is fine though, but Mastodon currently cannot be a place for everyone, regardless of technical possibilities. And it should be said that a lot of Mastodon users were involved in the witch hunt against Stallman, so at least some of the prominent users seem to be toxic.

That is the price for living in a better world!

I have a young account because I forgot the pwd of my old one and that is probably because for my old account it says...

> You probably use a flip phone and tin foil hat to avoid big tech surveillance

...I didn't provide a mail info for HN, famously part of big tech.

Also, because not only the weights, but also the data is open, any propaganda can be identified and corrected. This is not the case for other models and what we have seen from Gemini, there certainly are "adaptations". I don't think Google had ill intent here, but this would fit what some would classify as propaganda.

All I heard from OpenAI was that we need regulation which maybe happen to fit their business interest.

It does add latency of course, but I still think that I could provide all AI needs of my company (industrial production) with a simple older off the shelf PC. My GPU is decently recent, but the smallest model of the series and otherwise the machine is a rusty bucket.

I didn't test it thoroughly yet, but I have some invoices where I need to extract info and it did a perfect job until now. But I don't think there is any LLM yet that can do that without someone checking the output.

I haven't tested deepseek for censorship yet, but they shared their release and even their input data. And in this case you could correct its shortcomings, so propaganda would be difficult.

I do have some applications that process images, text and pdf files and I use smaller models for extracting embeddings. I think my system wouldn't be able to handle it with decent speed otherwise.

I do run LLM on a M1 16gb macbook air and performance is surprisingly good. Not for image synthesis though and a PC with a dedicated GPU is still significantly faster with LLM responses as well. Haven't tried to run deepseek on the macbook yet.

DeepSeek is awesome. Any AI task yet implemented in our business can be run from my local PC with just the smaller models. And my PC is fairly crappy to begin with.

OpenAI looks quite silly with their "we have to close everything".

We still have no AIs developing anything, they aren't even sensibly integrated in workflows where only written texts need to be parsed and processed.

Maybe in EU legislation where this privileged access is now mandated by law for every certified fact checker.

Although these aren't conventional fact checkers, they just "flag" content.

> Trusted flaggers are public and private actors with privileged access to internet platforms through which they can identify illegal and harmful content. Before DSA, trusted flaggers existed as a voluntary system.

https://www.techpolicy.press/building-trust-in-the-digital-s...

> diverse funding streams

They are not independent enough and would develop their own interests.

> narrative of persecution that serves fascistic rhetorical goals.

Yeah, fascists are known to flag content too. Otherwise this is complete conjecture.

> no institution can be trusted

No institution, which will always be dependent on government funding and special legislation, can be trusted to moderate internet content. That much is true.

I don't think this kind of revanchist behavior is sensible, but it also isn't "blocking democracy" either. Or at least someone would need an honest attempt explaining why such removals are unjustified and in a way that addresses shortcomings here for all platforms and political directions.

Government influence on online discourse is a negative, you could argue that voting for an idiot is then the next best compromise.

Some say there would be something like a professional critic. For literature that certainly is true since you can only draw comparisons by being familiar with a broad selection of media.

But on the other hand, one that is sadly more relevant these days, such critics aren't necessarily independent and can more easily be manipulated by the usual media power players or other interests.

Surprisingly IMDB still was very useful at first, despite being bought by Amazon pretty early. But they more and more removed user content and now their reviews are as authentic as biting on a piece of plastic.

IMDB got less relevant, rotten tomatoes got more popular. Now the mistakes are repeated and we hopefully get a more free platform again soon. I really like the old style "every user has equal weight" approach. I accept that there is brigading and spam attacks that can manipulate a score. That is information as well and it is easy to see the patterns and I probably watch something that is a polarizing 5/10.

Seriously, this undermines my belief that an international institution like Europol can work if not heavily constrained to be a bridge between executive forces of cooperating countries.

Some members of Europol do good work to fight international crime, which includes criminal online networks. I believe they need wiser leadership that accepts constraints and realities of their tools and use these to the best of their abilities.

Encryption, including end-to-end encryption for confidential communication is a very important mechanism for democracies that cannot be given away for ambitions of crime fighting organizations that do not have democratic legitimacy to access any form of communication.