Meenwhile Europe is sandwiched between these two aweful governments
And I'm guessing China and US are to blame for the explosive growth in the far-right parties of almost every continental European country?
NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
181–190 of 251 posts
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying Deepseek is more expensive is FUD Token price on 3.2 exp is <5% what the US LLMs are and it's very close in benchmarks. Which we know that ChatGPT, Google, Grok and Claude have explicitly gamed to inflate their capabilities
And we "know" that how, exactly?
Read a study called "The Leaderboard Illusion" which credibly alleged that Meta Google OpenAI and Amazon got unfair treatment from LM Arena that distorted the benchmarks
They gave them special access to privately test and let them benchmark over and over without showing the failed tests
Meta got to privately test Llama 4 27 times to optimize it for high benchmark scores and then was allowed to report the only the highest cherry picked benchmark
Which makes sense because in real world applications Llama is recognized to be markedly inferior to models that scored lower
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like generating vulnerable code given a specific prompt/context. That's easy (well, possible) to detect. I'd go the opposite way - sift the code that is submitted to identify espionage targets. One example: if someone submits a piece of commercial code that's got a vulnerability, you can target previous versions of that codebase. I'd be amazed if that wasn't happening already.
The thing with chinese models for the most part is that they are open weights so it depends on if somebody is using their api or not. Sure, maybe something like this can happen if you use the deepseek api directly which could have chinese servers but that is a really long strech but to give the benefit of doubt, maybe but your point becomes moot if somebody is hosting their own models. I have heard glm 4.6 is really…
I was actually thinking of the American models ;)
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about a rational distaste for the CCP?
TikTok under co-ownership by Jared Kushner is already drastically more censored than when it was supposedly controlled by the CCP In every case where we see a company trade hands to US ownership it becomes more controlled and anti consumer then before
"TikTok under co-ownership by Jared Kushner is already drastically more censored than when it was supposedly controlled by the CCP"
That deal hasn't actually gone through yet so you are just making things up.
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. 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…
> Having solidarity with the Chinese people is unrelated to criticizing their government. It’s not unrelated because the NIST demonization of China as a nation contributes to hostilities which have real impacts on the people of the US and China, not simply the governments. > The idea that one should first criticize their own government before another is the whataboutism. Again, that’s not my position. You present me…
> It’s not unrelated because the NIST demonization of China as a nation contributes to hostilities which have real impacts on the people of the US and China, not simply the governments.
I don't doubt that it has impacts, but you're characterizing this as "demonization". The current administration certainly engages in some harmful rhetoric, but then again, what is the "right" way to address a hostile political enemy?
> > The idea that one should first criticize their own government before another is the whataboutism.
> Again, that’s not my position. You present me as countering criticism by pointing at US faults.
I'm not presenting you this way. You brought up the faults of the US government at a comment pointing out a distaste for the Chinese government. This inevitably steers the conversation towards comparisons and arguments about which one is worse, which never goes anywhere, and always ends badly. Granted, the CCP comment wasn't going to spur thoughtful discussion anyway, but your comment assured it.
This is a common tactic used by Chinese agents and bots precisely because it muddies the conversation, and focuses it on the faults of some other government, typically of the US. I'm not suggesting you are one, but it's the same tactic.
> My point is that both have faults, both governments deserve our suspicions, and our actions, practically speaking, should be first directed at the dictators at home.
Again, this is what I disagree with. Making a topic relative to something else only serves to direct the focus away from the original topic. If I criticize the food of a restaurant, the response shouldn't be to bring up my own cooking, but about the restaurant itself.
As for this particular case, I haven't read the NIST report, nor plan to. I'm just saying that if both countries are at war with each other, as the US and China certainly are (an information war, if nothing else), then acts of war and war-related activities are to be expected from both sides. At what point would you trust your government to inform you when this is the case, instead of dismissing it as domestic propaganda and "demonization"?
The TikTok situation is a good example. It is undisputable that having US citizens using a social media platform controlled by the Chinese government is a matter of national security. A child could understand that. Yet attempts to ban TikTok in the US have been criticized as government overreach, an attack on free speech, with whataboutism towards domestic social media (which is also an issue, but, again, unrelated), and similar nonsense. Say what you will about the recent TikTok deal to keep it running in the US, and there's certainly plenty to criticize about it, but at the very least it should mitigate national security concerns.
It's the same with any Chinese-operated service, such as DeepSeek. I don't doubt that the NIST report makes nonsensical claims that technically shouldn't be a concern. But DeepSeek is also a hosted service, which is likely to be the primary interface for most users. Do you think that the information provided to it by millions of US citizens won't be used as leverage during times of war? Do you think that US citizens couldn't be manipulated by it, just like they are on TikTok and other social media, in ways that would benefit the Chinese government?
We barely understand the impacts of this technology, and most people are clueless about how it works, and what goes on behind the scenes. Do you really trust that a foreign hostile government would act in good faith? To me, as someone without a dog in this fight, the answer is obvious. It would be too naive to think otherwise.
This is why I'm surprised at how quick US citizens are to claim sinophobia, and to criticize their own government, when it's clear their nation is in a state of war, and has been in sociopolitical disarray for the past decade. Yet there's a large portion of the country that is seemingly oblivious to this, while their nation is crumbling around them. Ultimately, I think this is a result of information warfare and propaganda over decades, facilitated by the same tools built by the US. This strategy was clearly explained by an ex-KGB agent decades ago[1], which more people should understand.
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone from (and who lives) in the developing + non-aligned part of the world, I'm always amazed at how ingrained hatred for anything western and non-democratic is for Americans. Anything that isn't a so-called democracy with so-called western values (which change every 10 years) is patently evil. Is this a relic of cold war propaganda? I hate to call it "brainwashing" because that's a very politically charged wo…
Dude. The CCP sucks. Just ask Jack Ma or Gedhun Choekyi Nyima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima
The American "democracy" also sucks. Just ask anyone in Latin America who had to live under US-backed dictatorships, or those in Middle Eastern countries that were destabilised or destroyed by American influence. Or the immigrants (or citizens that happen to look like immigrants) under siege in the country right now. I could go on for a long, long time.
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#187Earlier 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…
If you think "democratically elected politicians" are the ruling class in Western "democracies", you haven't been paying attention.
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#188People. Who has taken the time to read the original report? You are smarter than believing at face value the last thing you heard. Come on.
Who cares for reading reports! I just let ChatGPT do that for me! --- I'd usually not, but thought it would be interesting to try. In case anybody is curious. On first comparison, ChatGPT concludes: > Hartford’s critique is fair on technical grounds and on the defense of open source — but overstated in its claims of deception and conspiracy. The NIST report is indeed political in tone, but not fraudulent in substance…
We should have a new HN rule: don't post comments that are mostly LLM summaries. It's 2025's LMGTFY.
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they do this? Deepseek is a private company not owned by the CCP. There's zero reason or even technical feasibility for them to skip in backdoor that would be easily detected and destroy their market share None of the security benchmarks or audits show that any Chinese models write insecure code
I'm not saying that they do this today, I'm saying that China and US will both leverage that capability when the time and conditions are right and it's naive to think that they wouldn't. Antrophic have already published a paper on this topic, with the added bonus that the backdoor is trained into the model itself so it doesn't even require your target to be using an attacker-controlled cloud service: https://arxiv.or…
And how would an open source model ever find out that it's being used by an adversarial country?
Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece
#190Racism and Xenophobia, that's how. Same thing with Huawei, and Xiaomi, and BYD.
TIL that Huawey was breaking sanctions while suplying Iran regine because or racism and xenofobia