this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
17 points (84.0% liked)
Privacy
1474 readers
106 users here now
Protect your privacy in the digital world
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
- No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
- Stay on topic.
- Don't promote big-tech software.
- No reposting of news that was already posted. Even from different sources.
- No crypto, blockchain, etc.
- No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
Related communities:
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is incorrect. This only applies if not hosted locally. I host it myself it has none of these restrictions. If you're using it from their app or website it's hosted in China and must follow Chinese law.
This is literally what I've just said...
It also changes responses on the fly to fit with Chinese law. You called what Is aid wrong, and then immediately exactly reiterated what I've said...
Why? What do you get out of it?
I suppose if that line is a catch-all, sure. Your message didn't make it clear that self-hosting removes Chinese bias and censorship. This is an important bit of information for OPs question, and what I get out of it is a valid and important addition to the conversation. I genuinely don't know why you're defensive. Being incorrect, or I suppose in this case, lacking nuance, isn't a character flaw. I do it all the time.
Why would I have to include that? OP asked if DeepSeek can be trusted. DeepSeek is the online cat interface--which is what OP was referring to. If they meant the model specifically they would have (or should have) referenced the model specifically which is
DeepSeek-ChatorDeepSeek-Reasoner / DeepSeek-R1. If they did mean the model itself, then that's their error. Not mine. Specificity is important.I think you're assuming far too much of someone asking beginner questions, and you come off as a bit pretentious for it.
Specificity is important no matter what you do. If that makes me "pretentious" because you were under the impression that I misunderstood, when in fact you misunderstood, then I'm okay with that. It's not my job to ensure that you're using nomenclature correctly, and I'm not responsible for your misunderstandings when I do use nomenclature correctly.
🤷♂️
Specificity is less important than effective communication. If you're sacrificing communication for the sake of being pedantic, what's the point? There's a reason experts don't use jargon when talking to novices, and this is exactly that situation. I really don't understand why you're so bent out of shape over a reasonable addition to the conversation, and one that was helpful to the OP.
Specificity is effective communication.... If you say "hand me the pen" while there is a pen and a pencil in front of me, you don't then get to be pissed that I handed you the pen when you meant pencil. You're the one who isn't communicating effectively. Same thing here. If you ask if DeepSeek (which is the web-ui to the DeepSeek-chat model) is safe to use and I outline examples specifically why it can't really be trusted in certain situations, you don't then get to be pissed because you actually meant the model itself (DeepSeek-Chat/R1)...
Pretty simple stuff.
Right, which is why science educators use all the most specific and correct terms rather than tailoring their speech to their audience. Don't be such a pedant and realize that the OP clearly didn't know the difference from the outset. You're so concerned about being correct that you fully missed being right.
lmao what in the fuck did you just say? You don't even hear yourself when you speak, do you? Yes. The scientists--the least pedantic people we can collectively think of. /s
You're being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Are you seriously trying to suggest that science educators use jargon? Watch a TED talk. Attend an open lecture. Open youtube or your preferred equivalent. You're so wrong it's funny. Good communicators reach their audience where they are.
Additionally, it's pedantry to the extreme to pretend that me saying "I use deepseek," referring to my self-hosted solution, is incorrect, when it absolutely is deepseek. Yes, you could be more specific, but it absolutely is correct to refer to deepseek in any of its forms as deepseek. Chat-GPT is Chat-GPT, regardless of version. You've made up rules you're expecting others to follow, and the rules themselves are inconsistent with how people speak.
You care so much about being right that you'll move any number of goalposts and define things any way you like just to be absolutely, technically correct. The idea of saying, "You know what, I didn't think about that. I could've been more nuanced," must be a nightmare to you.
Top to bottom this is the most insane fucking conversation I've ever had. You've convinced yourself that correctly identifying objects is "jargon" because your brain can't physically live in a world where you're unjustified. It's a literal masterclass of sociopathy. It's so fucked up you're claiming that I "just want to win online arguments" while you twist and contort reality into a version of events where you're somehow "not wrong" to the point where you're claiming that correctly identifying objects somehow isn't important and is considered "jargon." You said that SCIENTISTS aren't pedantic. For fucks sake man. Talk to a therapist; seek help.
Worst of all, you sound ignorant. Like... Very ignorant. Like taking your car to a mechanic and them saying you need new wheel bearings and instead of wheel bearings you get new tires and when your tire disconnects from your frame you run back to the mechanic and lambast them for being stupid and having to be right all the time because...you completely misrepresented what they had said because they "used jargon!" kind of ignorant. lol
The group chat is going crazy at these replies man.
Jargon was an example from an analogous situation, that of someone knowledgeable explaining to a beginner. OP didn't understand you. My contribution explained it to them. You care more about pedantry than effective communication. I don't know what else to tell you. Seriously, find me anyone doing science communication that uses technical language rather than general. I'd love to provide as many counter examples as you need. My point is that your communication wasn't as effective as it could be, and rather than accepting a helpful addition to the conversation, you made it defensive. Again, I'm not suggesting you are using jargon. What you are doing, assuming meaning from a beginner's usage of general speech, is the same as an expert choosing jargon when interfacing with a member of the general public. In good communication, it just doesn't happen.
If the group chat thinks absolute specificity is more important than effective communication, that is, communication that the other party understands, then they can be wrong too. OP did not understand you. My followup with them confirms this. This is a waste of my time.