- It's generally easier for people to know what they _don't_ like than what they _do_. Preferences are defined by process of elimination.
- The commonality is: get lots of people on the same page about you, and you've got a big audience / broad appeal. But the most engaged audience is the one who has strong emotions attached, so being an offender guarantees a ravenous audience … and is generally easier.
You got what you wanted from the model, why are you unhappy with the results? It is not as if chatgpt and claude don't also restrict users for small "ToS violations".
Thanks for the concern of my happiness, but can I express my concern for your eye sight - where did you read that I am unhappy about results? My, as you have named it - "unhappiness", is about not knowing rules and not being pointed out, that I am overstepping those rules.
If you are going with the approach, that silence is also an answer, then yes they can be considered as results, just as receiving complete garbage to known facts.
maybe the developers are just tired of this childish game and decided to block interactions like this in place of creating news headlines? Garbage in, garbage out. DeepSeek is more efficient but even more efficient is to not waste computing.
You can't post like this here, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Note this one:
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
that was not meant as insult, but as a means to inquire from where people are coming, as I can understand the side that dislike CCP, but not very clear from where other side is coming, as I can have the same arguments but at the end of the day it is still uncertainity
but fair enough - was not aware of rules that have expressively pointed what is not accepted
If you want to curiously inquire where people are coming from, that's fine, but you'd need to do it in a completely different way than "Are you CPP shill?". That is an internet trope for attacking someone and accusing them of posting in bad faith, and so carries a very different meaning.
Honestly, you should change your statements for other people, as by default I assumed, that you were serious... I'm being sarcastic here - have to add this as people do not hear sarcastic tone in text and assume it to be serious.
Also, what makes you think I did not try it for code? It did not generate code, that I found acceptable to me and required a lot more work. But at least it gave me honest answer there, that it could offer links to better papers. I don't see that much difference with ChatGPT, as they might probably allow more queries to paying customers, but on the other side - did I mentioned that I read TOS? I would never use AI tools to create my own code for commercial use, that is not open source. Because why in the right mindd should I do that?
I eventually got bored with this tool, just ike with ChatGPT(also, I can write better code anyway, so not real use to me now). Code is not as important as data which is the basis of programming. And I am still interested in understanding logic of other programmers, when I see a code(and behaviour of their creation), that I have to ask wth were they thinking. And test it more.
I am a human, that can programm and I will ask political questions first, because morality and politics are affecting my efficiency as a programmer. If I can't think freely, I won't work on that. So, unless you are a CCP shill and not concerned that your code and logics is recorded and eventually can be stolen, you can use whatever.
It would be very funny actually if they did to find DeepSeek not guilty