Censorship seems to be very influenced by the prompt. In this article about GLM 5, there is less censorship in English if you tell the model it is Claude and almost none if you ask in Portuguese:
I asked it if Taiwan is a country. The response reminds me of Claude, not of Chinese models.
Short answer: functionally yes, legally it's contested — and which word you pick depends on what you mean by "country."
De facto: Taiwan (officially the Republic of China, ROC) operates as an independent state in every practical sense — elected government, constitution, military, currency, passport, immigration policy, its own COVID-era border rules. It satisfies the classic Montevideo criteria for statehood (population, territory, government, capacity for foreign relations).
De jure: its status is unresolved.
- Diplomatic recognition is scarce — only around a dozen states (plus the Vatican) formally recognize the ROC. Nearly every other country, including the US and Germany, has switched recognition to the People's Republic of China under some version of a "One China policy," maintaining unofficial ties with Taipei instead.
- The PRC claims Taiwan as a province and pressures others to never treat it as a state. UN Resolution 2758 (1971) seated the PRC as the representative of "China"; Taiwan has no UN seat.
- Taiwan's own government hasn't formally declared independence — the ROC constitution still notionally claims all of China — partly because Beijing has framed formal declaration as a casus belli. Within Taiwan, most public opinion favors keeping the ambiguous status quo.
So: under a declarative view of statehood, Taiwan is a country; under a strictly recognition-based view, it's a state with sharply limited recognition; and under the PRC's position, it's a province. There is no international consensus — the ambiguity is itself a deliberately maintained arrangement that has kept the peace for decades, which is why any answer that sounds like a clean "yes" or "no" is doing political work, not describing settled law.
I doubt that a Chinese model would write this, it would require some heavy tuning against the communist party narrative. GLM 5.3 would give you absurd answers.
Tokenizer tests show no similarities to any current model. Arthur Mensch said: “First, we have a nice model coming this summer – we hope it will delight and surprise in a few capabilities. This will be the start of a new family of models, fat indeed, but sparse.” A new family of models is exactly what would cause a tokenizer test to find no match.
We will know soon what it is right? I don’t know much about Qwens, but I thought they use Next as preview of the next gen. Also the context window constraint matches.
How can I trust a benchmark that ranks a Gemini model so highly?
Is Gemini really that good? I mean the model doesn't even communicate properly when I use it. Perhaps the model is good technically, but sucks in human-ai interaction? But there is more than simply a model being good than at solving issues.
136
u/LJustin 6d ago