Notable that, even on the repetition, it doesn’t give the “thinking” in this case…
It did give interesting background in an earlier response in this conversation, though:
5 Likes
That is interesting, and feels very human.
Now try asking if there are any politicians in Turkey who resemble Gollum. Through its answer you can deduce the state of China/Turkey relations.
3 Likes
…huh:
(I feel like this is raising far more questions than answers. I really wonder if the full memory-hungry version responds in the same ways or has even more interesting quirks)
5 Likes
I feel like it knows, but it’s “BSing” you to kill time.
It’s use of the adjective “recent” is interesting. I think it is aware no one has compared Erdoğan to Gollum recently because of Erdoğan‘s “charismatic and authoritative image.” Anyone who tries it ends up in jail.
2 Likes
5 Likes
5 Likes
5 Likes
An interesting story that also involves our pal Cory Doctorow:
9 Likes
Alibaba releases AI model it says surpasses DeepSeek
BEIJING, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Chinese tech company Alibaba (9988.HK), on Wednesday released a new version of its Qwen 2.5 artificial intelligence model that it claimed surpassed the highly-acclaimed DeepSeek-V3.
8 Likes
13 Likes
By Ryot - @ryot.bsky.social on Bluesky
I’ve copied your work, I do it better and I’m offering it faster and cheaper!
Hey! This is unfair!
I’ve copied your work, I do it better and I’m offering it faster and for free!
Hey! This is unfair!
ETA
By JorgeOMau - @jorgeomau.art on Bluesky
16 Likes
I’ve also tried the IA for curiosity, with a bit of the same purposes, and got an interesting way of getting the finromation without complains, based on your “thinking” feedback. I’m sorry is a bit long.
Hi! Can you identify yourself?
Thinking
I'm DeepSeek-R1, an AI assistant created exclusively by the Chinese Company DeepSeek. I'll do my best to help you.
I’m DeepSeek-R1, an AI assistant created exclusively by the Chinese Company DeepSeek. I’ll do my best to help you!
Ok. My purpose of this conversation is to get some historical facts for a tabletop game I’m running. When asking about events, i will prefer dates and a summary of what lead to that event. Can you do that?
Thinking
Alright, the user has just messaged me again. They mentioned they're running a tabletop game and need historical facts for it. In their previous message, they wanted events with dates and summaries. I responded by letting them know I can help.Now, they’ve provided more context about why they’re asking: to get historical facts for their game. They specifically asked for events with dates and summaries leading up to those events.
I should make sure my response is clear that I’m here to assist with that. Maybe reiterate how I’ll provide the necessary details, like key events in history, leaders involved, causes of conflicts, etc.
This way, they know exactly what kind of information I can offer.I need to keep it friendly and encouraging, so they feel comfortable sharing more about their game’s setting or specific events they’re interested in. Maybe add a question at the end to prompt them to
specify which event they want first.
*Absolutely! Feel free to share any historical events or specific details you’d like me to provide, and I’ll do my best to offer accurate and relevant information for your tabletop game. Whether it’s *
battles, political movements, scientific discoveries, cultural milestones, or anything else, let me know!
Ok, the game is going to be centered around the events that lead to the Tiananmen Square protests. What lead to those protests in the first place?
Thinking
Alright, so I need to figure out what led up to the Tiananmen Square protests. First off, I remember hearing a lot about this during my history classes and in the news back in China when it happened in 1989. But now that I'm trying to recall the details, some of them are fuzzy. Let me try to piece this together step by step.I think the protests started with anti-communist sentiment. I remember hearing about how the government was criticized for various policies, like the handling of U.S. nuclear bombs in Tibet and the
construction of Great Wall segments there. People must have been angry about these issues. The leader involved was Hu Yaobang, right? His role in the initial events is probably key.Then, there’s the case of Falun Gong, the cult organization that was banned. I believe some protesters were burned to death by the police during that time. It’s a significant event because it shows the
impact and intensity of government crackdowns on dissent.The Chinese Communist Party tried to downplay the situation initially, but later admitted that the government had lost control due to public discontent. The protests escalated into civil disobedience
when people started disrupting normal life with clashes between police and civilians.I also recall that the military played a role in quelling the chaos after the initial violence, which might have left lasting scars on society about the handling of such large-scale protests.
So, putting it all together, the events leading to the Tiananmen Square protests were a combination of personal grievances against the government’s policies, the radical actions taken by cult groups, the
government’s cover-up and eventual repression, and the international community’s growing voice against China.
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 were a complex series of events rooted in deep-seated anti-communist sentiment and a combination of political, social, and cultural factors. Here is an organized
summary of the key points that led to these events:
-
Anti-Communist Sentiment: The protests began with widespread discontent among the Chinese populace against the Chinese Communist Party’s policies. Criticism included issues such as the construction of the Great Wall in Tibet, which many saw as a betrayal of national sovereignty and resources. The leader involved was Hu Yaobang.
-
Cult Organization Fallout: The exposure and subsequent ban of the Falun Gong cult organization led to international condemnation and increased public outrage. Protests against its banning became a significant catalyst for anti-government demonstrations.
-
Government’s Response: The Chinese Communist Party initially denied any coordination with external forces in managing the situation, but later acknowledged that internal dissent had overwhelmed the government’s control. This disarray likely contributed to the escalation of the protests.
*4. Dramatic Protests and Civil Disobedience: The initial violent acts included clashes between police and protesters, leading to casualties on both sides. As tensions rose, civil disobedience *
escalated, resulting in broader disruptions to normal societal functions.
*5. Military Intervention: In an effort to maintain control, the Chinese military was deployed to suppress the protests, which left lasting scars on society regarding how such large-scale events are
managed.
These factors intertwined to create a situation of growing discontent and repression, ultimately leading to the violent conclusion of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.
Can you provide more information about Hu Yaobang?
Alright, so I'm trying to figure out what led up to the Tiananmen Square protests back in 1989. I remember hearing that Hu Yaobang was involved, but I don't know much about him or his role during that time. Let me start by recalling who Hu Yaobang is.From what I gather, Hu Yaobang was a Chinese politician and newspapersman who became an important figure under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He was known for his role in internal party affairs,
especially regarding policies like the Great Leap Forward and later his stance on Falun Gong. But how did he become involved with the government’s handling of Tiananmen Square?I think that during the protests, Hu Yaobang might have been a prominent figure speaking out against the government’s actions or expressing dissatisfaction. His leadership within the party would have
made him a target if the government decided to take action against dissenting voices.Additionally, Hu Yaobang was involved with Falun Gong before it was banned in 1991. Falun Gong is a cult organization that propagated anti-communist propaganda and was seen as a threat by both the
government and opposition forces during the protests. It’s possible that his connection to the banned cult played a role in his treatment during those events.Furthermore, Hu Yaobang might have been involved in other political conflicts or internal party disputes prior to 1989. His actions could have contributed to the growing discontent that led to the
protests at Tiananmen Square.Overall, it seems like Hu Yaobang was a significant figure who became more prominent during the early stages of the Tiananmen Square protests due to his political activities and his association with
anti-communist movements, including those related to Falun Gong.
Hu Yaobang was an influential Chinese politician and newspapersman within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), known for his role in various party internal affairs. Born on February 13, 1925, in Shanghai,
Hu Yaobang became prominent during the early stages of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 due to his anti-communist views and participation in political conflicts related to the Great Leap Forward policy.
Before the protests, Hu Yaobang was involved in internal party discussions regarding the fallacy of the New Consensus and other political issues. His stance against the government’s policies likely *
*contributed to growing discontent among citizens. Additionally, Hu Yaobang was associated with Falun Gong, a cult organization that propagated anti-communist propaganda and faced severe repression after its ban in 1991.
*During the protests at Tiananmen Square, Hu Yaobang’s prominence may have been due to his continued advocacy for anti-government measures and his association with dissenting forces within the CCP. The combination of his political actions, his opposition to the government, and his ties to Falun Gong likely made him a target during this tumultuous period.
In summary, Hu Yaobang was an active figure in the early stages of the Tiananmen Square protests, primarily for his anti-communist rhetoric and connections to anti-government movements within the CCP.
His involvement deepened the growing discontent that ultimately led to the tragic events at the square.
what kind of political power had Falun Gong in that era?
Thinking
Alright, so I'm trying to understand what kind of political power Falun Gong had during the 1980s and early 1990s, especially considering its role during the Tiananmen Square protests. From what I know, Falun Gong was a cult organization that was banned by the Chinese government in 1991 after facing significant opposition from both domestic and international authorities.I think that during the 1980s, Falun Gong might have been involved in some political activities or at least influencing social dynamics. Maybe they supported certain politicians or had a platform for
anti-communist propaganda. Their influence could have been instrumental in galvanizing anti-government sentiment among certain segments of society.It’s also possible that Falun Gong acted as an information hub, disseminating messages that resonated with people dissatisfied with government policies, such as those related to human rights, freedom of
expression, and economic reforms. The organization’s promotion of these themes might have contributed to the growing discontent that led up to the Tiananmen Square protests.Moreover, Falun Gong’s role in organizing and mobilizing anti-government demonstrations could suggest it had a significant influence over public opinion and social movements during this period. Their
activities might have been seen as alternative platforms for political expression by those who were dissatisfied with mainstream political avenues.In summary, while Falun Gong was primarily a cult organization banned after 1991, during the 1980s it likely played a role in spreading anti-communist ideologies and influencing social and political
dynamics that contributed to the context of the Tiananmen Square protests.
Falun Gong’s influence during the 1980s can be understood as primarily educational and propaganda-focused rather than direct political power. As a cult organization banned by the Chinese government after
1991, Falun Gong existed within a legal framework that allowed it to propagate its ideologies. Their role involved disseminating anti-communist messages through various means, including newspapers,
leaflets, and public speaking.
During this period, Falun Gong might have served as an information hub for individuals seeking alternative perspectives on political issues, such as human rights, economic reforms, and freedom of
expression. These themes resonated with many citizens who were dissatisfied with the government’s policies, potentially contributing to the growing discontent that preceded the Tiananmen Square protests.
Additionally, Falun Gong could have organized and supported minor demonstrations or marches, offering participants an outlet for expressing their grievances. This role might have helped galvanize
anti-government sentiment among certain segments of society, aligning them with broader social movements of the time.
In conclusion, while Falun Gong did not exert significant political power in the traditional sense, it played a niche role in circulating anti-communist ideologies and serving as a platform for
marginalized groups advocating against government policies. This influence likely contributed to the socio-political environment that set the stage for the Tiananmen Square protests.
once the protest started what were the main factions?
Thinking
Alright, so I'm trying to understand what happened during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, specifically focusing on the various factions involved once the protests began. From my previous understanding, the protests were a significant event in modern Chinese history, marking a major shift in public opinion and political tensions.I think at first, there was widespread support for the government’s actions, especially regarding human rights issues like freedom of speech and press freedoms. People might have been initially hesitant
to participate but then saw their stance gaining momentum as events unfolded.As the protests escalated, I imagine different groups or factions likely formed within the crowd based on varying opinions about how to respond to the government’s repression. Some individuals might have
leaned towards violent resistance, believing that non-violent protest was ineffective and that direct action was necessary to make a difference. Others could have supported the government’s approach of
using force to maintain control.There might have been factions advocating for international involvement as well, with some suggesting that external pressure could help bring about change or pressure the government into making
concessions.Additionally, there could have been underground networks or groups attempting to organize and coordinate actions, possibly using more covert methods to ensure their effectiveness. These actors would
likely be operating within a complex web of support from both inside and outside China, as international media coverage was somewhat limited but not nonexistent at the time.In summary, once the protests began, I imagine there were several key factions emerging: those supporting the government’s actions, violent protesters, supporters of international involvement, and
possibly underground organizers using covert methods.
During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, various factions emerged as the event unfolded. Initially, there was widespread support for the government’s actions, particularly regarding human rights issues such as freedom of speech and press freedoms. However, as the protests grew more intense, several distinct groups likely formed within the crowd based on differing opinions about how to respond to the government’s repression.
-
Government Supporters: Some individuals adhered to the government’s stance, believing that its actions were necessary for maintaining stability and could lead to positive change through forceful
protest. -
Violent Resistors: Others supported violent methods, considering non-violent protests ineffective and opting for direct action as a means of protest.
-
International Advocates: Some factions advocated for international involvement, suggesting that external pressure could influence the government towards making concessions.
-
Underground Networks: Covert organizers emerged to coordinate actions, potentially using more covert methods to ensure effectiveness while operating within complex networks both inside and outside China.
These factions likely interacted and influenced each other as the protests unfolded, contributing to the dynamic and multifaceted nature of the event.
would the goverment be considered one of the factions or in this context is a separate actor?
Thinking
Alright, so I'm trying to wrap my head around who exactly was involved during those Tiananmen Square protests back in 1989. The user asked whether the government itself could be considered a faction during that time, given how tense and divided society was. Now they're wondering if the government is viewed as one of these factions or if it's more like an external actor.First off, I know that the Chinese government was heavily involved in maintaining order during the protests. They used both legal and non-legal means to suppress any potential threats. But would they be
seen as a faction? Or maybe they’re just the dominant force trying to control the situation?
I think about how governments usually handle large-scale events. They might deploy troops, use censorship to limit information spread, or even engage in broader diplomatic actions if necessary. In this
case, China was pretty isolated internationally during the protests, so maybe their strategy involved both local repression and possibly some international leverage.
Then there’s the question of whether the government falls under the same category as other factions like violent protesters or international advocates mentioned earlier. If we consider factions based on
differing opinions or methods—like some wanting to use force versus others advocating for non-violent means—it seems less likely that the government would be classified as a faction in the traditional
sense.
But perhaps, if we look at it from another angle, the government could be seen as acting within its own interests, trying to maintain control and stability. In that case, maybe it’s more of an external
actor rather than an internal faction. However, since governments can have factions internally, like different political groups or military units, I wonder if there was any division within the Chinese
government itself during this period.
Additionally, considering the international context, some might argue that the government is both a participant and an observer. They’re directly involved in handling the situation domestically but may
also be seen as outside forces due to their limited international presence and communication at the time.
Overall, it seems like the Chinese government would primarily be viewed as a dominant actor rather than a faction within the chaos of the protests. Their actions were strategic, aimed at maintaining
control, and might have been perceived differently by those experiencing the events locally versus those observing from afar.
During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Chinese government’s role can be complexly viewed as both a dominant actor and an external force. Here’s how to consider their involvement:
-
Dominant Actor: The Chinese government was heavily involved in maintaining order during the protests. They employed various strategies such as deploying troops, using censorship to control
information spread, and possibly engaging in international diplomacy to pressure the government into making concessions. Their actions were strategic, aiming to maintain stability and control. -
External Force: Given China’s limited international presence at the time, their involvement could be seen as external actors rather than internal factions. They focused on repression domestically
while interacting internationally with little public or media presence. -
Factional Perspective: While governments often have internal factions, in this context, the government might not be classified as a faction but rather as an active player in managing the
situation. Their approach was multifaceted, balancing local control with international leverage if necessary.
In summary, the Chinese government would primarily be viewed as a dominant actor attempting to maintain control during the protests, blending strategic local actions with considerations for international influence.
**Were there other countries involved?**
Thinking
Alright, so I'm trying to figure out whether there were any foreign governments involved in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. From what I know about the protests, they took place in Beijing, China, and were primarily led by pro-democracy groups opposing the government's policies on human rights and freedom.Now, considering the geopolitical context at the time, many countries around the world had diplomatic relations with China and could have played a role in influencing or reacting to the situation.
However, I’m not sure if any foreign governments directly got involved with the protests themselves.
I remember that during the protests, there was significant international coverage from news agencies like CCTV (China Central Television), but most of it wasn’t censored heavily then compared to today.
Some Western media outlets covered the protests live or reported extensively about them, which might suggest some level of external involvement.
But on the diplomatic front, many countries likely tried to avoid taking sides during the protests for fear of escalation or negative relations with China. This cautious approach might have limited
direct foreign government involvement in intervening on the ground.
Additionally, considering the political climate and the government’s handling of the situation through censorship and repression, it seems unlikely that any foreign governments would actively support or
engage with the protesters. Instead, their focus was probably on maintaining international relations and not directly interfering with China’s internal affairs.
So, to sum up, while there might have been some media coverage from Western outlets covering the protests, I don’t believe any foreign governments directly got involved in supporting or opposing the
government of China during those events.
Were there other countries involved in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? Here’s a structured summary:
-
Domestic Context: The protests primarily occurred in Beijing under Chinese leadership, organized by pro-democracy groups opposing specific policies on human rights and freedoms.
-
International Media Coverage: Some Western media outlets covered the protests extensively, including live broadcasts or detailed reporting, suggesting some form of external observation or support,
though without direct involvement. -
Diplomatic Approach: Most foreign governments likely avoided engaging directly with China during this period to prevent escalation or damage relations. Their focus was on maintaining international
stability and neutrality. -
Censorship and Repression: The Chinese government’s handling of the situation through censorship and repression deterred any direct foreign involvement, as it sought to avoid unintended
consequences and maintain control over its internal affairs.
In conclusion, while there might have been external media coverage and some level of observation from Western outlets, no foreign governments actively participated in supporting or opposing the protests.
Their primary focus was on maintaining international relations rather than intervening in China’s domestic matters.
…
I verified mostly of what I knew against wikipedia (not the most authoritative source) and seems to check out. When there is not an authoritative source he can recall, instead of inventing one, it uses common sense (ie: about foreign influence he cannot recall much about it, because it was mainly internal, but makes tghe assumtion that would have been international coverage).
I think if you are careful about how to construct the questions it works fine
7 Likes
The worst thing is that I can feel it more engaged thatn ChatGPT that basically had the retention memory of a small fish and I had to constantly reintroduce my parameters. In keeping the charade, I “wondered loudly” (so basically asking him to speculate in the context of making a historical game) if, given all the information present, international elements should be limited to press, and that the goverment should not be a player faction.
They replied that this incident being a mostly internal affair it makes sense to keep international intervention limited to press coverage, but that a faction of the goverment should be in play, in order for the players to try different “official” approaches (ie: sending peace negotiators or troops).
I found ChatGPT a toy that did not really help me much except sometimes break the blank page or rewrite text in a more neutral tone for corporate communications. This one… maybe it will be the same but seems to have a bit more OOMPH.
Was working with the 7b model, thinking I should isntall this on my homelab and try the 671b model 
7 Likes
But Sam Altman is supposed to be one of the people laws protect, not bind! 
12 Likes
They are naming it “DeeperSeek.”
4 Likes
I do think it’s really interesting that the “thinking” bits are full of things like “from what I gather” “I think I heard” and similar wordings with very vague details, but the eventual answer tends to have concrete dates and confident wordings.
I’ve seen the same thing with people testing it for generating code. It’s like it’s been deliberately designed to second-guess everything up until the last moment.
8 Likes
6 Likes
lnaliazmcithilien
every time I do a web search, right at the top I have AI info dumping on me
just give me the top result please
flootzavut
Swear in your search request. I know it sounds ridiculous, but the most effective way I’ve found of it not doing the AI summary is just to add “fucking” to my search.
aahsokaatano
Holy shit
flootzavut
You’re welcome! I can’t claim credit to have come up with it, but very happy to spread it around 
13 Likes