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

111–120 of 633 posts

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

#111

Post by drnick1 »

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…

This is absolutely true. Remember that automakers greatly contributed to war efforts in the past. It is an indispensable domestic industry, just as much as energy.

Then there is the issue that BYD cars are presumably connected to servers in China and most probably backdoored. They are too much of a security risk. I would absolutely not drive such a car, without permanently disabling the onboard cellular modem.

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

#112

Post by ceejayoz »

CPLX wrote: post #108
ceejayoz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because America's world wide industrial dominance soundly beat the shit out of everyone, due to deployment of a highly successful industrial policy. That industrial dominance came largely during the war, and was made possible by the fact that they weren't being bombed while it scaled up. There's a huge element of geopolitical luck involved in the rise of the US. > Imagine if we needed to rapidly step up industrial…

Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours. Which was the original point. They don't let western businesses overwhelm their domestic industry at all. For us to let them do it to us would be unilateral disarmament and suicide.

> Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours.

Yes! Their car industry is competing; ours is hoping to avoid it.

You now understand my point and objection to preserving domestic capacity via selling worse cars more expensively to its own citizens.

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

#113

Post by mcbuilder »

trunnell wrote: post #97

What an amazing achievement by America's adversaries. The Trump administration lists Anthropic as a security risk and kneecaps its best model, despite the fact that compared to the other frontier US labs Anthropic is more transparent, more safety-oriented, frequently honest to a fault, and is clearly acting with patriotic intent. Meanwhile, the same administration is hesitating to counter certain Chinese companies' e…

I've always found this line of reasoning troubling and uninformed.

Chinese models first of all can be hosted on your own hardware, I'd argue they are way more transparent than US companies, by well releasing stuff.

Second, the "smoking gun" of DeepSeek training off Claude isn't as bad as you may think, and the amount of tokens was deemed trivial. Did you also know that if you asked Claude's it's name in Chinese it would respond as "DeepSeek" until just a few months ago until they patched it?

Third, I find it a little hypocritical to call out Chinese for "industrial-scale" theft when anyone could create Studio Ghibli style image gen photos. How could they do that unless US companies trained on copyrighted works.

Chinese are just innovating faster at this point, DeepSeek V4 is an actual technological advancement (KV Cache compression) more than a cheap clone.

The administration does have it backwards, but IMO it's more them playing into the big tech companies plans (of course they have their favorites) instead of actually investing in education, and research like the Chinese do.

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

#114

Post by resters »

trunnell wrote: post #97

What an amazing achievement by America's adversaries. The Trump administration lists Anthropic as a security risk and kneecaps its best model, despite the fact that compared to the other frontier US labs Anthropic is more transparent, more safety-oriented, frequently honest to a fault, and is clearly acting with patriotic intent. Meanwhile, the same administration is hesitating to counter certain Chinese companies' e…

It's not surprising that Trump is as bad as he is at many of these things, but what is surprising is that he's worshiped by his supporters.

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

#115

Post by Elzair »

Filligree wrote: post #44
Elzair wrote: post #38

To give credit where credit is due, it is good that the Trump administration has not avidly played these stupid export control games. They tend to do little except hurt open collaboration; I remember when all open source cryptography had to be developed outside the US due to ITAR.

I don’t have the emoji handy, so just imagine the most savagely doubtful-looking emoticon that anyone has ever made.

It is very possible that Trump and his cronies are just too incompetent to do that. In this one particular aspect (i.e. open source) I prefer having a stupid enemy than a "smart" enemy.

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

#116

Post by miroljub »

WarmWash wrote: post #106

If Chinese LLMs are successfully making people in the west defend China, then I think we have all the evidence we need to explain why they are giving away their models. The next step of course will be to get people using that ungodly cheap AI on Chinese servers. Which will also be defended because "I would never trust an American Lab".

As a European, I trust Chinese AI providers more than American. Cloud act did it for me.

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

#117

Post by bijowo1676 »

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…

it would destroy it, but then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to tesla.

US Big Three are simply full of incompetent boomers who want to maintain monopoly using tariffs, chicken tax, and banning of competitors that actively harm consumers.

Suddenly US government thinks that capitalism and free market is not desirable... huh

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

#118

Post by CPLX »

ceejayoz wrote: post #112
CPLX wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours. Which was the original point. They don't let western businesses overwhelm their domestic industry at all. For us to let them do it to us would be unilateral disarmament and suicide.

> Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours. Yes! Their car industry is competing; ours is hoping to avoid it. You now understand my point and objection to preserving domestic capacity via selling worse cars more expensively to its own citizens.

No I don't understand your objection. My argument is that preserving domestic capacity is necessary for our survival, and that limiting imports is necessary but insufficient to achieve that goal.

Banning stock buybacks would be another helpful step. Can you imagine being at the helm of a major US automaker as the transition to electric is happening and thinking you have no better investment to make in your own company than literally taking the revenue you're earning and sending it to hedge funds and Wall Street?

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

#119

Post by wat10000 »

teravor wrote: post #88
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…

> It's why we can't buy BYD cars are you sure it has nothing to do with the fact that those cars are very heavy, potentially fire-making (battery firmware) computers on wheels that can be rooted (or are already) at any time by their manufacturers in China?

What makes BYD different from, say, Volvo, which sells EVs freely in the US?

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

#120

Post by tmaly »

em500 wrote: post #18

Noteworthy that Z.ai, maker of the just released near-frontier GLM 5.2, has already been on the Entity List since Jan 2025[1]. Being on the Entity List does not mean all trade is forbidden. Broadly speaking it means American companies and individuals are not allowed sell them goods and services, but they are still allowed to buy from them and pay them. AFAIK the Chinese AI companies barely depend on US goods and serv…

that is open to debate. Any commercial activity with a sanctioned entity has a pretty broad interpretation. Companies might not want to take the chance even if they are "still allowed".
Post reply on HN