Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 633 posts

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#21

Post by bitmasher9 »

jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

The reason why some Capital Interests want to blacklist DeepSeek in the US is so that you are forced to buy Claude/GPT/Gemini, which will feed revenue into an industry that requires revenue (or it’s a big problem).

The reason why some Capital Interests don’t want to ban DeepSeek is so companies that utilize AI have more options, and running your own DeepSeek cluster acts as an independent cost comparison for enterprise inference contracts.

The raising AI valuation is giving more weight to those that want to blacklist DeepSeek. The AI Safety narrative is strong. I see a path where any institution with enough compute might be watched in a similar was chem labs are observed by the DEA.

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#22

Post by CPLX »

jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it.

Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy.

Unilateral surrender in a core aspect of statecraft, which involves maintaining our industrial power and skilled labor force, is absolutely insane. I hope my government never gets convinced by market fundamentalist idiots to do such a thing, any more than it already has, to our great detriment.

The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have.

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#23

Post by preommr »

jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

[flagged]

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#24

Post by shimman »

itake wrote: post #3
_aavaa_ wrote: post #2

> Anthropic said it identified a campaign by DeepSeek and two other Chinese AI labs to illicitly extract capabilities from its Claude AI platform to improve their own models Oh, won’t someone think of the poor mass copyright infringers.

Just because they did it doesn't mean more people should do it...

Oh course it does, why wouldn't it work this way in regards to computer science?

Are we seriously going to go back to a time where numbers were considered munitions?

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#25

Post by ceejayoz »

curt15 wrote: post #7
_aavaa_ wrote: post #2

> Anthropic said it identified a campaign by DeepSeek and two other Chinese AI labs to illicitly extract capabilities from its Claude AI platform to improve their own models Oh, won’t someone think of the poor mass copyright infringers.

"illicitly" implies a law that is being violated. What law?

It could also mean a TOS violation / breach of contract.

(To be clear, I find the complaint hilariously hypocritical.)

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#26

Post by dakolli »

Havoc wrote: post #19

The whole thing seems like nonsensical. Their website literally has chinese characters on it even in english mode and everyone under the sun including crappy money talk show hosts know them as the chinese player that undercut western players. It's not exactly a secret. You'd think anyone with two brain cells and confidential data could apply some judgement of their own...

I trust Chinese companies with my data far more than American companies.

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#27

Post by epolanski »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #2

> Anthropic said it identified a campaign by DeepSeek and two other Chinese AI labs to illicitly extract capabilities from its Claude AI platform to improve their own models Oh, won’t someone think of the poor mass copyright infringers.

Also in Musk vs Altman case, we have found that this is regularly done by all labs.

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#28

Post by ceejayoz »

CPLX wrote: post #22
jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Unilateral s…

> The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it.

Yeah, that was the argument against Japanese car makers, too.

A shitty system needs destroying sometimes. Competition from Toyota/Honda was critical in making US auto makers up their game.

It is terrible public policy to fall decades behind making expensive shitty versions of what the rest of the world has.

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#29

Post by dakolli »

jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

China does not think llms are a matter of national security, they aren't as brain broken as the west.

Re: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks

#30

Post by setopt »

zerobees wrote: post #6
itake wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they did it doesn't mean more people should do it...

This doesn't at all change the irony of big AI labs complaining about Chinese startups stealing the labs' IP, essentially by scraping the responses. HN has a higher proportion of AI promoters than AI skeptics, and for a good while, the default response to complaints from book authors, bloggers, and other content creators was that "you put it on the internet so it's fair game", or "it's no different from a human learn…

Completely agreed. I would go further and say that it should be legal to scrape responses from LLMs to train new LLMs, and that forbidding that in your ToS should be considered an illegal contract. That’s simply the best way to avoid complete monopolization of the space, without requiring more drastic measures like antitrust down the line (which we seem to not manage well these days, given the number of monopolies). As long as you pay for your tokens like anyone else, "Big LLM" shouldn’t be allowed to control what you use the output for.
Post reply on HN