NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

> Not to mention that the entire US was stolen from the natives.

This is partially true. But partially false. You can figure out why if you’re curious.

> (antonvs) If only that were true.

Using a charitable reading of your comment, it seems you are actually talking about the effectiveness of NIST, not about its mission. In so doing, you were not replying to my actual claim. If you read my sentence in context, I hope it is clear that I'm talking about the implicit values baked into the report. When I write that NIST promotes certain ideals, I'm talking about its mission, stated here [1]:

> To promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

This is explained using different words in a NIST FAQ [2]:

> Everything in science and technology is based on measurement. Everything we use every day relies upon accurate measurements to work. NIST ensures the measurement system of the U.S. meets the measurement needs of every aspect of our lives from manufacturing to communications to healthcare. In science, the ability to measure something and determine its value — and to do so in a repeatable and reliable way — is essential. NIST leads the world in measurement science, so U.S. businesses can innovate in a fair marketplace. We use measurement science to address new challenges ranging from cybersecurity to cancer research.

It is clear NIST's mission is a blend of scientific rigor and promotion of western values (such as free markets, free ideas, innovation, etc). Reasonable people can disagree on the extent to which NIST achieves this mission, but I don't think reasonable people can deny that NIST largely aims to achieve this mission.

My take on the Trump and his administration: Both are exceptionally corrupt by historical standards. They have acted in ways that undermine many of the goals of NIST. But one has to be careful to distinguish elected leaders and appointees from career civil servants. We have to include both (and their incentives, worldviews, and motivations) when making sense of what is happening.

[1]: https://www.nist.gov/about-nist

[2]: https://www.nist.gov/nmi

1. You accept the definition: "Xenophobia is fundamentally about irrational fear or hatred of people based on their foreign origin or ethnicity. It targets people and operates through stereotypes, dehumanization, and often cultural or racial prejudice."

2. You claim this sentence from the NIST report is an example of irrational fear: "the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security."

3. As irrational fear isn't sufficient for xenophobia, you still need to show that it is "based on their foreign origin or ethnicity".

4. You don't provide any evidence from the report of #3. Instead, you refer to Trump's comments as evidence of his xenophobia.

5. You directly quote my question "Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report?" In your response, you imply that Trump's xenophobic language is somehow part of the report.

My responses to the above (again, which I think is an accurate but clearer version of your argument): (1) Good; (2) I disagree, but I'll temporarily grant this for the sake of argument; (3) Yes; (4) Yes, Trump has used xenophobic language; (5) Since we both agree that Trump's language is not part of the report, your example doesn't qualify as a good answer to "Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report?".

Your claim only shows how a xenophobic Trumpist would interpret the NIST report.

My take: Of course the Trump administration is trying to assert control over NIST and steer it in more political directions. This by definition will weaken its scientific objectivity. To what degree it has eroded so far is hard for me to say. I can't speak to the level of pressure from political appointees relating to the report. I can't speak to the degree to which they meddled with it. But this I can say: when I read the language in the report, I don't see xenophobia.

You aren't using the words "absolute" [1], "charitable" [2], and "smear" [3] in the senses that reasonable people expect. I think you are also failing to use your imagination and holding onto one possible explanation too tightly. I think it would benefit you to relax your grip on one narrative and think more broadly and comprehensively.

[1] Your use of "absolute" is rhetorical not substantive.

[2] You use the word "charitable" but I don't see much intellectual flexibility or willingness to see other valid explanations. To use another phrase, you seem to be operating in a 'soldier' mindset rather than a 'scout' mindset. [5]

[3] Here is the sense of smear I mean from the Apple dictionary: "to damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander: someone was trying to smear her by faking letters." NIST is not smearing DeepSeek, because smearing requires false claims. [4]

[4] If you intend only to claim that NIST is overly accentuating negative aspects of DeepSeek and omitting its strengths, that would be a different argument.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scout_Mindset

Yes, that contains a quote from the executive summary. First (perhaps a minor point), I wouldn't frame this a fear, I would call it a risk assessment. Second, it is not an irrational assessment. It seems you don't understand the reasoning, in which case disagreement would be premature.

> There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expensive frontier models.

I'm going to put aside your unfounded rhetoric of "vague handwaving". You haven't connected the dots yet. Start by reviewing these sections with curiosity and an open mind: 3.3: Security Evaluations Overview (pages 15-16); 6.1: Agent Hijacking (pages 45-57); 6.2: Jailbreaking (pages 48-52); 7: Censorship Evaluations (pages 53-55)

Once you read and understand these sections, the connection to the stated risks is clear. To spell it out: when an organization deploys a DeepSeek model, they are exposing themselves and their customers to higher levels of risk. Risks to (i) the deploying organization; (ii) the customer; and (iii) anything downstream, such as credentials or access to other systems.

Just in case I need to spell it out: yes, if DeepSeek is only self-deployed (e.g. via Ollama) on one's local machine, some risks are much lower. But a local-deployment scenario is not the only one, and even it has significant risks.

Lastly, it is expected (and not unreasonable) for government agencies to invoke national security when cybersecurity and bioterrorism are involved. Their risk tolerance is probably lower than yours, because it is their job.

Next, I will ask you some direct questions:

1. Before reading Hartford's post, what were your priors? What narratives did you want to be true?

2. Did you actively try to prove yourself wrong? Did you put in at least 10 uninterrupted minutes trying to steel-man the quote above?

3. Before reading the NIST report, would you have been able to e.g. explain how hijacking and jailbreaking are different? Would you have been able to explain in your own words how they fit into a threat model?

Of course you don't have to tell us your answers. Some people have too much pride to admit they are uninformed or mistaken even privately, much less in public. To many, internet discussions are a form of battle. Whatever your answers are, strive to be honest with yourself. For some, it takes years to get there. I'm speaking from experience here!