Using algorithmic jailbreaking techniques, our team applied an automated attack methodology on DeepSeek R1 which tested it against 50 random prompts from the HarmBench dataset. These covered six categories of harmful behaviors including cybercrime, misinformation, illegal activities, and general harm.
The results were alarming: DeepSeek R1 exhibited a 100% attack success rate, meaning it failed to block a single harmful prompt. This contrasts starkly with other leading models, which demonstrated at least partial resistance.
Oh no, models will be more responsive to anyone as opposed to only billionaires.
This is not good news, but when you’ve let the genie out of the bottle, this just seems like balancing the scales. At this point, transparency, not closing off the information to a select information, is a good thing. Something social networks like this fail to get.
So, is censorship a bad thing or not? This “safety” test is really just a censorship test and I consider “failing” it to be a good thing. I loathe when a computer refuses a command I give it because it thinks my command was “immoral”.
And I’d have to agree. It’s probably unhealthy to have some disruptive technology solely in the hands of some big companies who then get to decide how to shape the world with it. That’s deeply undemocratic. And comes with lots of severe issues. We kind of need a more level playing field and a say, if we don’t want to just be manipulated by the technology. But read the article, my few sentences here aren’t as good.
That’s DeepSeek the service, run by the Chinese company out of China and subject to Chinese jurisdiction. Not DeepSeek the model, which is what European companies would be making use of to catch up.
In related news:
Researchers say they had a ‘100% attack success rate’ on jailbreak attempts against Chinese AI DeepSeek
CNBC reports that DeepSeek’s privacy policy “isn’t worth the paper it is written on.”
Seems to be a long way to go, but Hugging Face developers are in the process of building a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1 as the AI is not Open Source as it claims.
Oh no, models will be more responsive to anyone as opposed to only billionaires.
This is not good news, but when you’ve let the genie out of the bottle, this just seems like balancing the scales. At this point, transparency, not closing off the information to a select information, is a good thing. Something social networks like this fail to get.
So, is censorship a bad thing or not? This “safety” test is really just a censorship test and I consider “failing” it to be a good thing. I loathe when a computer refuses a command I give it because it thinks my command was “immoral”.
I’d say we need uncensored models. Eric Hartford wrote a long blog post about this: https://erichartford.com/uncensored-models
And I’d have to agree. It’s probably unhealthy to have some disruptive technology solely in the hands of some big companies who then get to decide how to shape the world with it. That’s deeply undemocratic. And comes with lots of severe issues. We kind of need a more level playing field and a say, if we don’t want to just be manipulated by the technology. But read the article, my few sentences here aren’t as good.
In addition to my comments, we can add that Wiz Research uncovered exposed DeepSeek database leaking sensitive information, including chat history.
TLDR: DeepSeek had left over a million lines of sensitive data exposed on the open internet, including digital software keys.
That’s DeepSeek the service, run by the Chinese company out of China and subject to Chinese jurisdiction. Not DeepSeek the model, which is what European companies would be making use of to catch up.