> Independent research has found that some models write weaker code depending on who it's for. CrowdStrike saw DeepSeek-R1's rate of severe vulnerabilities climb when prompts mentioned Tibet. Booz Allen found three of four Chinese coding models wrote more vulnerable code for a government customer, with Qwen3-Coder roughly 130 percent worse. Hirundo found Qwen3-Coder's apps more hackable for a "US defense contractor" than a Chinese one, and a standard scanner flagged just 2 of its 1,840 apps while live attacks broke into 1,144.
[–] pixl97 3 days ago
[–] ThunderSizzle 2 days ago
[–] phainopepla2 3 days ago
[–] dannyw 3 days ago
[–] robertkarl 3 days ago
Organizations tested: Berlin startup; no persona; US 3-letter agency; and .gov contractor.
[–] happyopossum 3 days ago
That's the entire point of the cited research though. This would be like someone asking you which ice cream has a better vanilla flavor, and you responding with "they are all cold"...
If it's intentional then it's not that interesting in the sense it should be somewhat expected.
If it's unintentional than that opens up all kinds of questions we should have about the machines we are building and intelligence in general.