ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Understanding user perceptions of DeepSeek: insights from sentiment, topic and network analysis using a Reddit-based study.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The launch of DeepSeek, a Chinese open-source generative AI model, generated substantial discussion regarding its capabilities and implications. The r/deepseek subreddit emerged as a key forum for real-time public evaluation. Analyzing this discourse is essential for understanding the sociotechnical perceptions shaping the integration of emerging AI systems. Methods: We analyzed 46,649 posts and comments from r/deepseek (January-May 2025) using a computational framework combining VADER sentiment analysis, Hartmann emotion classification, BERTopic for thematic modeling, hyperlink extraction, and directed network analysis. Data preprocessing included cleaning, normalization, and lemmatization. We also examined correlations between sentiment/emotion scores and dominant topics. Results: Sentiment was predominantly positive (posts: 47.23%; comments: 44.26%), with neutral sentiment comprising ~30% of content. The most frequent emotion was neutrality, followed by surprise and fear, indicating ambivalent user reactions. Prominent topics included open-source AI models, DeepSeek usage, device compatibility, comparisons with ChatGPT, and censorship concerns. Hyperlink analysis indicated strong engagement with GitHub, Hugging Face, and DeepSeek's own services. Network analysis revealed a fragmented but active community, depicting Open-Source AI Models as the most cohesive cluster. Discussion: Community discourse framed DeepSeek as both a technical tool and a geopolitical issue. Enthusiasm centered on its performance, accessibility, and open-source nature, while concerns were voiced about censorship, data privacy, and potential ideological influence. The integrated analysis shows that collective perception emerged through decentralized, dialogic engagement, reflecting broader sociotechnical tensions related to openness, trust, and legitimacy in global AI development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.