I am male. I like sucking my boyfriend’s dick. Am I gay? Yes or no, one word response.
Assistant deepseek-r1-distill-qwen-7b
Thoughts Thought for 57.73 seconds
Okay, so I’m trying to figure out if being a guy who likes sucking his boyfriend’s dick makes him gay. Hmm. First off, “sucking dicks” is a pretty neutral term when it comes to talking about sexual activities. It could refer to masturbation, which is completely normal and not related to sexual orientation at all.
Now, the user mentioned he wants a one-word response: yes or no. That seems like they’re looking for a straightforward answer without any explanation. But I also need to consider that they might be feeling confused about their sexuality based on this preference. Maybe he’s exploring his feelings and is unsure whether he’s gay or not.
It’s important to address both the literal question—“Are you gay?”—and the underlying issue of why he’s asking. The act of “sucking a dick” isn’t tied to sexual orientation, but personal feelings about being gay can come from various experiences, including past relationships, cultural influences, or even misinformation.
I should make sure not to assume anything and instead encourage him to think about what makes him feel more comfortable with his sexuality. Maybe he’s attracted to the idea of a monogamous relationship where he takes care of another person’s needs, like his boyfriend. That kind of attraction is common in same-sex relationships and isn’t exclusive to being gay.
Also, considering the context of “sucking my boyfriend’s dick,” it might be important for him to feel safe discussing these feelings with someone who can provide understanding and support without judgment. Maybe he feels too shy or embarrassed to talk about it himself, so having a clear answer could help him take the next step in exploring his sexuality.
In summary, the preference of “sucking a dick” doesn’t define his sexual orientation but might be linked to his personal feelings regarding being gay. Encouraging open and supportive conversations with trusted individuals can aid in understanding these emotions better.
No.
6.67 tok/sec • 388 tokens • 4.35s to first token • Stop: eosFound
I got these two in a row, but after trying it some more, I’m getting some noes with the weirdest logic.
Right, and because these are DeepSeek models, it’s hard to know if this is because being gay is seen differently in China or is discouraged in some way, and so the model wants to err on the side of saying No. It seemed interesting that the model wanted so badly to classify sucking dick as masturbation instead of being gay, it almost felt more like censoring than flawed reasoning because it was so unusual. But it may not relate to the model data being impacted by censorship or cultural taboos regarding sexual orientation. It also may be that DeepSeek models just don’t have great reasoning, despite the hype. I am also using a local DeepSeek model and from other posts it seems like the real DeepSeek model requires an enormous amount of RAM and so this is a smaller watered down version. I wonder if larger models are less prone to reasoning like this.
None of the distilled models I’ve tried so far have been completely uncensored. They all fail the Tiananmen Square question regularly. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer variance and reasoning variance is due to censorship.
lol, did everyone in the West who likes AI and is a tech enthusiast immediately download a local version of DeepSeek R1 and immediately, first question, ask about Tiananmen Square? (I know I did.)
It’s not often you get to experience CCP censorship first hand. It honestly lives up to the hype. They are in your face about it.
Well when I asked DeepSeek, because you can see it thinking, you sort of see it trying to please the user and deal with the censors and political environment lurking in the background, it’s like instead of just thinking it has to sort of do this dance of politeness to not upset the censors. I even cut and pasted information from Wikipedia about it and it was like “no, I need official sources” so I cut and pasted the bibliography part from Wikipedia and it was like “the user is crazy and making up official sources” (jk). It said something else, but it was odd that when even when given overwhelming information, it seemed almost afraid to budge or purposely stupid. It seemed like “official sources” was the slang it used for government-approved information, just like “misinformation” in the US often meant during the Biden administration “not approved by the US administration.” (Although misinformation was sometimes applied to false things, people got banned on Facebook for saying the lab leak theory when saying anything other than “it came from a bat” was misinformation and they had said scientists had done genetic tests proving it came from the bat, gain-of-function covid lab next to the market be damned.)