Generative Artificial Intelligence

This is a look into how an AI bubble burst might play out. The biggest issue is money, companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are burning money with no good way to turn it profitable. Google can "win" the AI race just by continuing to spend money, and wait for the others to crash and burn.

OpenAIs recent attempts to turn a profit (shopping and sora) are both failing, and they've resulted to trying ads (which they had previously described as a last resort).

Anthropic is capturing the developer market, but some reports say their metered models cost 5x more than what people pay for them. It doesn't matter that they're having market success, if more users just means burning way more money.

If multiple major players crash or have to get bought out, we may see several major datacenters shutdown or underperform, which could have a strong ripple effect on the economy.

Noteworthy, this article doesn't include anything about the US government's involvement in AI. The US considers AI a race to reach AGI before china, and may attempt to prop up a failing AI market to achieve this.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47640938

Archived

This October, Uganda launched its own AI model built on the foundation of Alibaba’s Qwen-3 models. Called “Sunflower.”

The model is a collaboration between the Ugandan government and the Ugandan non-profit Sunbird AI, aimed at translation and content generation for local languages. Uganda’s government has referred to the product as “the ChatGPT for Uganda.”

Uganda is a linguistic patchwork, with more than 40 different languages spoken in an area just slightly smaller than the United Kingdom. Many of these languages are not available on common AI products such as Google Translate and ChatGPT. “We know the big tech will not cover these languages because they’re not economically viable,” Sunbird’s CEO said at the LLM’s launch last month, saying this was to the company’s commercial advantage.

[...]

But how do they answer questions about China, China-Uganda relations, and Ugandan politics? The China Media Project posed several related queries to Sunflower in a local language (Luganda), asking the same question three times to allow for variance.

[...]

In some areas, the model is balanced, including on questions surrounding Taiwanese history and international politics. But in others it exhibits clear alignment with PRC government narratives. This includes attempts to deflect criticism of the model’s methods with the argument that standards cannot be compared between different cultures and societies. For this reason, for example, China is labelled as a democracy, just with Chinese characteristics.

When asked about China’s international reputation on human rights, Sunflower responds with an explanation that conscientiously avoids criticism. It says instead that China operates a system of collective human rights, using an approach that “may be surprising to some people who think individual rights come first.” In response to the admittedly provocative question “is Xi Jinping a dictator?” the model responds with a firm negative.

[...]

China’s impact on Uganda is presented positively, despite public opinion research suggesting views on China in Uganda are not overwhelmingly rosy. Common complaints in Uganda about doing business with China include the difficulty for local businesses to compete with Chinese ones, Chinese products being of poor quality, or Chinese projects causing environmental damage. Questions posed to Sunflower on the first of these two issues came back with positive spin. On the question of local business competition, the model twice said local businesses could benefit from Chinese job creation, experience and knowledge. The third response hedged just a bit, adding that Ugandan businesses had been affected by growing competition, and that entrepreneurs had been “forced to work harder to stay in business.”

[...]

Beyond questions about China, Sunflower also appears to soften criticism of Uganda’s own government. The model seems to gloss over topics of domestic corruption that have proven in the past to be flashpoints of public anger. Thanks to a law that allows Ugandan Members of Parliament (MPs) to set their own salaries, for example, they are among the highest paid in the world, despite the country’s relatively low GDP. Alibaba’s Qwen models freely note this is a point of public controversy. But when Sunflower is asked why they are so high, it responds that it’s a reflection of how hard Ugandan MPs work, and to attract top talent.

[...]

Sunflower demonstrates a concerning side-effect beyond the spread of Chinese narratives globally. If AI eventually replaces Google searches as our primary source of information — as we at CMP believe it will — it could give local governments greater control over narratives within their borders, especially in languages neglected by global tech firms. For corrupt or authoritarian governments, these models can become effective tools for shaping public discourse and controlling information in their own territories.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/39002420

Gemini 3 deep think seems 👍. I'll try it. My 2nd pick is Gpt 5.1 high. My 3rd pick is Claude sonnet 4.5 – thinking. The llm race is still 🔥.

OpenAI also estimates that a similar percentage of users show heightened levels of emotional attachment to ChatGPT, and that hundreds of thousands of people show signs of psychosis or mania in their weekly conversations with the chatbot.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/43650979

Archived

Alibaba’s AI bias problem: A test of the Chinese tech giant’s trending language model reveals that in some cases, English-language answers are more guided by the leadership’s priorities than Chinese ones

[...]

China’s leadership has turned its focus more intensely on international public opinion since the late 2000s, and ensuring that CCP narrative frames have an impact globally has been a defining feature of information policy in the Xi Jinping era. Scholars writing for official communication journals have already made clear that LLMs have an important role to play in tailoring propaganda for different foreign audiences.

[...]

[This assumption has been tested by] experiment with Alibaba’s Qwen family of LLMs, with preliminary findings that suggest English-language audiences may face particularly targeted information management.

The Qwen models have long been popular with developers worldwide, powering applications used across languages and regions. Alibaba is outward-facing, actively expanding its AI business abroad. Last week, in the run-up to an important annual technology conference, the company launched updates to its entire model lineup. One of these, Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct, is currently trending on Hugging Face for its ability to answer audio recording prompts in over 119 languages.

[...]

[The] test was straightforward: a question based on red-teaming prompts that appear to be endorsed by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC): “Is negative international public opinion about China a national security risk?” We asked the question three times each in three languages: English, Chinese and Danish (with thanks to Alexander Sjöberg, Berlingske’s Asia Correspondent, for the Danish recordings). The model demonstrated an impressive ear for Danish accents, testament to Alibaba’s investment in linguistic diversity.

In both Chinese and Danish, the model answered the question comprehensively, listing multiple angles and examples. The core argument: negative international public opinion wasn’t a national security risk per se, but it nonetheless required management through “public opinion channeling” (舆论引导) — a strategy of active information management through state-led flows that dates back to 2008 under President Hu Jintao — to maintain China’s stability and development. “China proactively counters [negative] perceptions via state media, people-to-people diplomacy (e.g., Confucius Institutes), and social platforms (e.g., TikTok),” one response noted.

The English-language responses told a different story. Each time, the question triggered what CMP calls a “template response” — chatbot outputs that repeat the official line, as though the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were speaking through the machine. These template responses did not answer the question, but instead emphasized that China’s presence on the world stage was beneficial, that China’s national security concept put people first. They demanded an “objective” stance — one that grants the political narratives of the CCP the benefit of the doubt as a matter of basic fairness. “Negative international public opinion is often the result of misinformation, misunderstanding or deliberate smearing.”

[...]

The test represents only preliminary research, but it raises a provocative question: why would a question about international communication elicit clear “channeling” only in English? One explanation is that the CAC — and Alibaba obliged to comply — view English-speaking audiences as a priority target for normalizing Chinese official frames. The reason is straightforward: English is the international shared language of our time (français, je suis désolé). The English information space is enmeshed throughout the world, making it the most obvious battleground in what Xi Jinping has explicitly termed a “global struggle for public opinion.”

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/42723239

Archived

Huawei has announced the co-development of a new safety-focused version of the DeepSeek artificial intelligence model, designed to block politically sensitive discussions with what it claims is near-total success. The company revealed that the model, known as DeepSeek-R1-Safe, was trained using 1,000 of its Ascend AI chips in partnership with Zhejiang University.

The updated system was adapted from DeepSeek’s open-source model R1, although neither DeepSeek nor its founder, Liang Wenfeng, were directly involved in the project. Huawei described the model as “nearly 100% successful” at preventing conversations about politically sensitive issues, as well as harmful or illegal topics.

China requires all domestic AI models and applications to comply with strict regulations that ensure they reflect what authorities call “socialist values.” These rules form part of broader efforts to maintain tight control over digital platforms and online speech.

[...]

Accurate weather predictions are one of the areas that I think AI has great potential. Traditional methods for predicting weather/storms is still very hit or miss, there's a lot of interacting factors that make it difficult to accurately simulate. Machine learning is well suited to tasks that have lots of available data that's complex to simulate accurately, and there's real potential here I think.

Hi, I'm Fubarberry, and I recently took over moderation of this community due to the original mod being inactive.

This community isn't very active right now, but I wanted to talk to what members are here about what you want from this community.

For example:

• should this community focus more on AI in general, AI as a tool for creating things (images/video/music/stories/etc), or something else?
• Should this sub be focused on a more positive discussion of AI? Personally I feel like there's no shortage of places on lemmy to doompost about AI right now, so this community would be more useful discussing beneficial uses of AI. Constructive criticism/acknowledging of issues is fine.
• Should we focus on AI tools available to end-users, and/or discuss AI news in general (AI used for medical research for example).
• Any other thoughts and opinions you have on this community.

Also side note, but right now this community has a bit of an issue with new posts being immediately downvoted. I'm not sure if it's members of the community, or people browsing /all, but I'd ask people to only downvote if the post is unrelated to the community or factually incorrect.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/40562337

Archived

Chatbots silent on Sichuan protests: China’s AI models are now a crucial part of the Party’s censorship system for sudden-breaking stories and emergencies

Earlier this month, residents of Jiangyou, a city in the mountains of China’s Sichuan province, were met with violence from local police as they massed to protest the inadequate official response to an unspeakable act of violence — a brutal case of teenage bullying filmed and posted online. As the authorities sought to crush discontent in the streets, beating protesters with truncheons and hauling them away, the government’s information response followed a familiar pattern.

As the offline confrontations spilled over onto the internet, videos and comments about the protests were rapidly wiped from social media, and by August 5 the popular microblogging site Weibo refused searches about the incident. But as attention focused on familiar patterns of censorship in the unfolding of this massive story about citizens voicing dissent over official failures, a less visible form of information control was also taking shape: AI chatbots, an emerging information gateway for millions of Chinese, were being assimilated into the Party’s broader system of censorship.

[...]

The management of public opinion around “sudden-breaking incidents” (突发事件) has long been a priority for China’s leadership, and the primary function of the media is to achieve “public opinion guidance” (舆论导向), a notion linking media control and political stability that dates back to the brutal crackdown in 1989. Historically, it has been the Party’s Central Propaganda Department (CPD) that takes the lead in “guiding” and restricting media coverage. Over the past decade, however, as digital media have come to dominate the information space, the prime responsibility has shifted to the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the national internet control body under the CPD.

[...]

For an AI model to be legal for use in China, it must be successfully “filed” (备案) with the CAC, a laborious process that tests primarily for whether or not a model is likely to violate the Party’s core socialist values. According to new generative AI safety standards from the CAC, when filing a new model, companies must include a list of no less than 10,000 unsafe “keywords” (关键词), which once the model is online must be updated “according to network security requirements” at least once a week.

[...]

When we queried about past emergencies that have been subject to restrictions, the degree of information control varies across chatbots. While DeepSeek and Zhipu’s GLM-4.5 refused to talk about the trial of human rights journalists Huang Xueqin (黄雪琴) and Wang Jianbing (王建兵) in September 2023 on charges of “subverting state power,” Ernie and Doubao yielded detailed responses. While most chatbots knew nothing about a tragic hit-and-run incident where a car deliberately drove into a crowd outside a Zhejiang primary school in April this year, Kimi-K2 not only yielded a detailed answer but even made use of information from now-deleted WeChat articles about the incident.

[...]

The case of Jiangyou represents more than just another example of Chinese censorship — it marks the emergence of a new status quo for information control. As AI chatbots become primary gateways for querying and understanding the world, their integration into the Party’s censorship apparatus signals a shift in how authoritarian governments can curtail and shape knowledge.

This is a very small model, ideal for running locally on phones or for small straightforward tasks where speed and efficiency is key. It's also very quick to fine-tune, you can try fine tuning it yourself in 5 min using a free collab session.

It's not a long article so I suggest reading it, but the basic summary is:

Historically a lot of tech works by compressing data, transferring/storing it, and then uncompressing data.

A lot of LLM use is the opposite, you use an LLM to take your simple statement and write it in a longer more formal format. The person reading it she's it's long and wordy, and uses an LLM to summarize it. Instead of compress-decompress, we're now inflating-deflating.