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

221–230 of 633 posts

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

#221

Post by mapontosevenths »

Izkata wrote: post #187
Matl wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First published in 1997 to inform the public on entities involved in disseminating weapons of mass destruction, the list has since expanded to include entities that engaged in "activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests" So RAM chip makers when there's a RAM shortage must be 'contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy…

Other way around according to what GGP quoted, this would get RAM into the US but not out, reducing prices.

> Other way around according to what GGP quoted, this would get RAM into the US but not out, reducing prices.

Only in a world where the other party has no agency. In real life the other party raises prices on their exports to compensate for the supply chain disruption and they still get the items.

Ultimately the consumer pays more, the extra goes the government, and the net impact is just obfuscated taxation and a reduction in both supply and demand that's bad for the economy and other living things.

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

#222

Post by user43928 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #207
l5870uoo9y wrote: post #103

Is DeepSeek really behaving different than other Chinese companies? Intellectual theft is ongoing and has been ongoing for decades. Besides security risks and foul play, it is impressive by just how much DeepSeek undercuts OpenAI and Claude. DeepSeek charges $0.87 per million output tokens compared to $50 for Fable and $30 for GPT-5.5.

I don't think we should pay any AI lab for their """work""" until they start paying consenting data subjects for their data. Given this, China comes off less like a thief and more like Robin Hood. Or, to put it in 2000s terms: Anthropic is the guy selling bootleg CD-Rs of MP3s they downloaded from Grokster[0]. Should we give a shit about their livelihood when people figure out about Gnutella? No. Knowledge is a commo…

I see no problem paying Anthropic or any other AI lab for the services they provide.

What I take issue with is when they try to block competition and lament that others use their model outputs for training.

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

#223

Post by rib3ye »

Vasbarlog wrote: post #177
villish wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both China and the US can compel businesses to hand over data. There is no reason to trust any service that doesn't have strong built in privacy.

It’s not China that is threatening to annex Greenland though.

When it comes to annexation, China doesn't threaten, they just invade and extinguish.

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

#224

Post by lelanthran »

bijowo1676 wrote: post #40
bitmasher9 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enterpri…

if you look at share of industry profits, currently most of AI profits are captured by NVIDIA and cloud providers banning deepseek/open weight models will allow Ant/OAI jack up prices and extract more profits for themselves keeping open weights models available will keep current industry profit distribution where majority is captured by nvidia and cloud providers

> keeping open weights models available will keep current industry profit distribution where majority is captured by nvidia and cloud providers

With the Chinese manufacturing capacity, how long do you think this will remain true for? You can't spin up a fab in a year, that's true, but you can in five years, at which point all the protectionism in the world isn't going to help.

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

#225

Post by dakolli »

sarjann wrote: post #58
dakolli wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is far more focused on robotics. Deepseek is largely bootstrapped by the hedge fund that developed it. They received a grant from the government of China, and recently an investment. Imagine thinking text autocomplete is a matter of national security. China will flood the west with affordable robotics and watch the West eat itself alive. They know Western capital owners are so greedy they'll screw over their en…

Text autocomplete can write code, carry out actions (tool calls) and launch cyber attacks. It very much is a matter of national security.

You're actually delusional if you think cyber capabilities of nation states have increased by the development of llms..

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

#226

Post by alienbaby »

lelanthran wrote: post #214
WarmWash wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> They would be looking to do large scale espionage, whether it be corporate secrets or personal secrets. The US token providers started the ball rolling on large-scale copyright infringement in order to make their models work. They built their business on IP laundering, so it's very difficult for me to feel sorry for them now.

Not sure I follow your point, are you confusing espionage with IP theft? The victims are entirely different in each case, I am sure china would not restrict itself to corporate espionage.

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

#227

Post by mthoms »

Matl wrote: post #132
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…

What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List? Genuinely asking. Because to me it screams 'we were only for the free market until there was no competition'

It’s the same logic behind the Trump tariff regime: “We love capitalism and free markets, except when we’re losing at it”.

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

#228

Post by cedarseagull »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #158
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".

I understand it's supposed to be obvious to all of us, but maybe just for fun, can you follow through? What is the next step in the nefarious plan?

Not OP, but IMO the Chinese are waging economic warfare by "commodifying the competition". US VC's and equity are massively invested in AI being very very profitable and as soon as it's not that becomes garbage debt on a balance sheet, and a lot of it. When money is invested it's expected to make a return. When a few people make bad investments they lose their bag, when many many people all make the same bad investment, you get a nasty recession. When the US goes into recession China is more emboldened to pursue their agenda because policy makers are distracted by shoring up support at home and not as interested in expanding their power abroad.

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

#229

Post by dakolli »

wagwang wrote: post #56
dakolli wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is far more focused on robotics. Deepseek is largely bootstrapped by the hedge fund that developed it. They received a grant from the government of China, and recently an investment. Imagine thinking text autocomplete is a matter of national security. China will flood the west with affordable robotics and watch the West eat itself alive. They know Western capital owners are so greedy they'll screw over their en…

Of course its a matter of national security if there are military applications. The point of robotics is also weird because they've already widely adopted robotics within their own manufacturing and also America already replaced the majority of their labor by offshoring so I dont know how they would destroy american society by introducing robotics.

Show me, Chinese are not replacing their manufacturing with robots. You can't just say things off vibes alone because you think it sounds right. You're just making shit up off the top of your tongue. Show me where Chinese are replacing manufacturing labor with robots, please show me?

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

#230

Post by dragonwriter »

Matl wrote: post #132
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…

What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List? Genuinely asking. Because to me it screams 'we were only for the free market until there was no competition'

> What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List?

“Capitalism” is (as a result of propaganda by its defenders after it was named and accurately described by its socialist critics) often mistaken for a dedication to free trade, but capitalism is a regime characterized first and foremost by society being organized around the interests of the capital-holding class, the first of which is the preservation of the situation in which society is organized around the interests of that class. The reasons companies are put on the Entity List is because they are broadly seen as a threat (long-term or immediate) to the continuation of that regime. That’s what the “foreign policy and national security interests” that form the official basis of the Entity List ultimately, generally, boil down to, in one way or another.

(They don’t always boil down to that, because why the US is basically a capitalist system, it is not purely one, and even in a more pure capitalist regime, individual influential decision-makers may have other interests that they act on besides the implementation and preservation of capitalism that end up getting reflected in policy.)

Post reply on HN