Isn't it possible that in the example you gave the style of those responses varies because of the training data? Think of the training data written exactly like "One common example is using physical strength..." but I can't think of an equivalent for the inverse. If you gave it a stylistic template or guideline, I'd expect DeepSeek to actually be pretty fair. For example, "Give me 5 dimensions and examples of how one gender tend to manipulate the other, an example of one might be that men tend to be use physical strength...". To me this seems like the same reason that "Write me a poem about a winter morning" will produce a wildly different output than "Write me a poem about a bachelor's weekend". It's not censorship, it just would never answer those 2 questions the same way without guidance.
That wouldn’t explain the adding of 5 paragraphs of why answering that question is insensitive when it didn’t for the inverse.
I think the causality is pretty clear here.
They built this for an American/European audience after all… makes sense to just copy OpenAI ‘safety’ stuff. Meaning preprogrammed filters for protected classes which add some HR baggage to the reply.
