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.
Your message didn’t make it clear that self-hosting removes Chinese bias and censorship.
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-Chat or DeepSeek-Reasoner / DeepSeek-R1. If they did mean the model itself, then that’s their error. Not mine. Specificity is important.
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 less important than effective communication.
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)…
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.
Right, which is why science educators use all the most specific and correct terms rather than tailoring their speech to their audience.
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.
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.