I don't think you're taking the good-faith reading of the sentence's grammar here, which is:

"[When China is mentioned] the comments section stops discussing [technical aspects], and instead starts going on about [non-technical aspects], and all that [stuff which I do not feel is relevant]."

I'm struggling, though, to find a good-faith reading of what you meant by:

"Denying human rights. Classic. Sorry - you instantly lost any respect I could have maybe had for your opinion."

Specifically, "classic" - classic what? "Classic" meaning "a trait you personally believe is more prevalent in people who (might be) citizens of a specific country"?

Hopefully the good-faith interpretation of GP's comment, which you might have unintentionally missed, will help you engage with their opinion with more respect.

I think it's an easy opinion to empathise with personally. I would be enormously frustrated myself, on an individual level, if interesting technical achievements made by companies in my own country were overshadowed by political discussion about the actions of the country overall, when spoken about on technical forums.

This would be especially true for me if I - as an individual - disagreed with politically with my country's leadership. Frustration at a topic of discourse is not mutually exclusive with being in favour of human rights.

I don't think GP has done themselves any favours with the broad statements that close their comment, and is clearly frustrated themselves. That there's mutual frustration is probably a sign that empathy on both sides might lead to a really productive discussion - but focusing on the more substantive points they've made, rather than escalating by misinterpreting the less important aspects of what they commented - is what will lead to that.

Perhaps whenever a US firm, eg. Open AI, Anthropic, Gemini, Grok etc. release a model.

Top comments should be criticising US torture camps in Guantanamo bay or their recent bombing of a girls school in Iran.

I don't believe the GP is claiming that the idea of human rights is itself rubbish. Rather, the GP is claiming that what is rubbish is the practice of veering into the topic of human rights whenever a new AI model is announced from China.

You are not allowed to discuss human rights until your government stops its unprovoked war on Iran, issues a full repudiation of the policies that led to it, and makes full reparations to the entire rest of the world whose energy prices you have driven up for the benefit of a handful of wealthy inside traders.

Edit: Parent poster wasn't American. I incorrectly assumed their nationality.

> Denying human rights.

Taking words out of context. Classic. Sorry - you instantly lost any respect I could have maybe had for your opinion.

I don't see anyone talking about Trump, ICE executing people in the streets, the insane level of US politics, the slow build up of the surveillance state, etc when discussing claude or openai

he never said anything about denying human rights

I think he means rubbish as in completely off topic.

[dead]