121–130 of 251 posts
The author, Eric Hartford, wrote: > Strip away the inflammatory language Where is the claimed inflammatory language? I've read the report. It is dry, likely boring to many.
I'm not at all surprised, US agencies have long since been political tools whenever the subject matter crosses national borders. I appreciate this take as someone who has been skeptical of Chinese electronics. While I agree this report is BS and xenophobic, I am still willing to bet that either now or later, the Chinese will attempt some kind of subterfuge via LLMs if they have enough control. Just like the US would,…
Care to share specific quotes from the original report that support such an inflammatory claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about a rational distaste for the CCP?
Not sure how it’s rational if you don’t extend the same distaste to our authoritarian government. Concentration camps, genocide, suppressing free speech, suspending due process. That’s what it’s up to these days. To say nothing of the effectively dictatorial control the ultra wealthy have over public policy. Sinophobia is a distraction from our problems at home. That’s its purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re misunderstanding me. My point is if we were to have sincere solidarity with Chinese people against the international ruling class we would look at our domestic members of that class first. That is simply the practical approach to the problem. The function of the administration’s demonization of China (it’s Sinophobia ) is to 1) distract us from what our rulers have been doing to us domestically and 2) to inspi…
> distract us from what our rulers have been doing to us domestically America doesn’t have rulers. It has democratically elected politicians. China doesn’t have democracy, however. > if we were to have sincere solidarity with Chinese people against the international ruling class There is also no “international ruling class”. In part because there are no international rulers. Speak in more specifics if you want to sti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to know more
They revoke passports of personnel whom they deem are at risk of being negatively influenced or even kidnapped when abroad. Re influence, think school teachers. Re kidnapping, see Meng Wangzhou (Huawei CFO). There is a history of important Chinese personnel being kidnapped by e.g. the US when abroad. There is also a lot of talk in western countries about "banning Chinese [all presumed spies/propagandists/agents] from…
Like who? Meng Wanzhou?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's to recognize that people want open source models and publish domestic ones of the highest quality so that people use those. How would that generate profit for shareholders? Only some kind of COMMUNIST would give something away for FREE /s (if it wasn't somehow obvious)
I mean, it's sarcasm but it's also an argument you can actually hear from plutocrats who don't like competition. The flaw in it is, of course, that capitalism is supposed to be all about competition, and there are plenty of good reasons for capitalists to want that, like "Commoditize Your Complement" where companies like Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, AWS, Google Cloud, etc. benefit from everyone having good free models…
You're supposed to vertically integrate your complement now!
The old laws have gine the way of Moses, this is the new age of man, but especially machine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re misunderstanding me. My point is if we were to have sincere solidarity with Chinese people against the international ruling class we would look at our domestic members of that class first. That is simply the practical approach to the problem. The function of the administration’s demonization of China (it’s Sinophobia ) is to 1) distract us from what our rulers have been doing to us domestically and 2) to inspi…
> distract us from what our rulers have been doing to us domestically America doesn’t have rulers. It has democratically elected politicians. China doesn’t have democracy, however. > if we were to have sincere solidarity with Chinese people against the international ruling class There is also no “international ruling class”. In part because there are no international rulers. Speak in more specifics if you want to sti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's whataboutism at its purest. It's perfectly possible to criticize any government, whether your own or foreign. Claiming that every criticism is tantamount to racism is what's distracting from discussing actual problems.
You’re misunderstanding me. My point is if we were to have sincere solidarity with Chinese people against the international ruling class we would look at our domestic members of that class first. That is simply the practical approach to the problem. The function of the administration’s demonization of China (it’s Sinophobia ) is to 1) distract us from what our rulers have been doing to us domestically and 2) to inspi…
I see your point, but disagree with it.
Having solidarity with the Chinese people is unrelated to criticizing their government. Bringing up sinophobia whenever criticism towards China is brought up, when the context is clearly the government and not its people, is distracting from discussing the problem itself.
The idea that one should first criticize their own government before another is the whataboutism.
Also, you're making some strong and unfounded claims about the motivations of the US government in this case. I'm an impartial observer with a distaste of both governments, but how do you distinguish "sinophobia" from genuine matters of national security? China is a political adversary of the US, so naturally we can expect propaganda from both sides, but considering the claims from your government as purely racism and propaganda seems like a dangerous mentality to have.
The author, Eric Hartford, wrote: > Strip away the inflammatory language Where is the claimed inflammatory language? I've read the report. It is dry, likely boring to many.
Honestly, I think this article is itself the hit piece (against NIST or America). And it is the one with inflammatory language.
The author, Eric Hartford, wrote: > Strip away the inflammatory language Where is the claimed inflammatory language? I've read the report. It is dry, likely boring to many.
Ironically there is a lot of inflammatory language in the blog post itself that seems unjustified given the source material.
NIST doesn't seem to have a financial interest in these models.
The author of this blog post does.
This dichotomy seems to drive most of the "debate" around LLMs.