There are now 5 inference providers for abliterated DeepSeek

The thread quickly moved past the novelty of five hosted abliterated DeepSeek variants and argued over whether stripping refusal behavior solves a real problem. Several heavy users of open-weight models say ordinary coding work almost never triggers a block, making paid refusal-free hosting feel like a solution in search of a problem. Others gave concrete counterexamples: reverse engineering old firmware, restoring control over consumer hardware, analyzing DRM-protected legacy software, offensive-security work, and politically sensitive questions. Their point is that refusals may appear inside hidden reasoning or subtly redirect the task, so users can miss the model declining them even when it returns plausible-looking output. Skeptics also challenge the technical value of abliterated checkpoints. One tester found performance degraded while the models mainly became more willing to generate harmful or manipulative material; they report that ordinary jailbreaking and retries often achieve the same practical result. That leaves concern that providers are selling an unreliable, lower-quality variant under a provocative label. Privacy distrust compounds it: hosted zero-refusal services invite honeypot and logging speculation, while a safety-minded voice notes that an agent facing prompt injection may need the ability to refuse. The broad agreement is that the term itself was poorly explained, though commenters converged on weight editing rather than prompt tricks as the basic mechanism.