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

NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

erichartford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 251 posts

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#231

Post by xpe »

pk-protect-ai wrote: post #134
xpe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there will be some degree of governmental and/or political influence. The question is not if but where and to what extent. No one should proclaim "bullshit" and wave off this entire report as "biased" or useless. That would be insipid. We live in a complex world where we have to filter and analyze information.

This kind of BS is exactly what they targeting at. Tailoring BS into "report" with no evidence or reference and then let the ones like you defend it. Just because you already afraid or want others to be afraid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omc37TvHN74

The comment above is problematic for various reasons.

> Just because you already afraid or want others to be afraid.

We need to be more careful with our thinking and writing. [1] The word "just" indicates the commenter landed only on one explanation, but there are other plausible explanations, including, for example:

- others have different experiences -- but if this experience was communicated and understood, another person would incorporate the new information modify their assessment somewhat

- others have various values and preferences (some overlapping, some phrased differently, some in tension)

- others are using different reasoning (and if one's goal is to learn, it would be better to ask and clarify rather than over simplify and accuse them of having nefarious motives.)

Second, the commenter above is speculating. They don't know me, nor have they engaged in a sincere, constructive, meaningful discussion to understand what I'm saying.

Third, to me, the comment above comes across as unnecessarily abrasive, to the point of being self-defeating and degrading the quality of a shared discussion.

[1] If one is writing privately (e.g. a journal), I care relatively less about logical fallacies such as motivated reasoning. [2] But here in public, wayward reasoning has more negative externalities. Our time would be better spent if more people took the time to write thoughtfully. I don't think most people here are lacking in sufficient computational ability. However, they must choose to respect their audience -- their time, their diversity of values, their different experiences -- and remember that one's hasty comment (authored in say 2 minutes) might be read by hundreds of people (wasting say 100+ minutes). Lastly, it is nice to see when a person has the character to say "thank you for the correction", but this is uncommon on HN.

[2] But I still care because society is highly interconnected and the downstream effects matter to me. Put another way, "Your Rationality is My Business" as explained here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/anCubLdggTWjnEvBS/your-ratio...

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#232

Post by xpe »

pk-protect-ai wrote: post #134
xpe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there will be some degree of governmental and/or political influence. The question is not if but where and to what extent. No one should proclaim "bullshit" and wave off this entire report as "biased" or useless. That would be insipid. We live in a complex world where we have to filter and analyze information.

This kind of BS is exactly what they targeting at. Tailoring BS into "report" with no evidence or reference and then let the ones like you defend it. Just because you already afraid or want others to be afraid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omc37TvHN74

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omc37TvHN74

This links to a video titled "(why facts dont [sic] change minds (goose explains)"). First, I am not seeing the connection to the comment above -- the comment is hard to make sense of for various reasons, including grammatical errors, vague language, and easily refuted claims (see my other comment).

Second, as I watch the video, I am thinking as follows: "Yes, there are some good points here. I wish the person who posted the video would watch the video again with an eye towards self-reflection, as it reveals some areas for improvement."

My overall take on the video: it oversimplifies, even gets some things wrong. There is some value to be found if one knows how to extract the good from the bad. I would not recommend it, not even as an introduction. There are better sources.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#233

Post by antonvs »

xpe wrote: post #205
antonvs wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report? Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.” There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expen…

Here is how I would charitably and clearly restate your position -- let me know if this is accurate: 1. You accept the definition: "Xenophobia is fundamentally about irrational fear or hatred of people based on their foreign origin or ethnicity. It targets people and operates through stereotypes, dehumanization, and often cultural or racial prejudice." 2. You claim this sentence from the NIST report is an example of…

[flagged]

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#234

Post by antonvs »

xpe wrote: post #203
antonvs wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report? Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.” There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expen…

>> (me) The NIST report, of course, implicitly promotes ideals of western democratic rule over communist values > (antonvs) If only that were true. Using a charitable reading of your comment, it seems you are actually talking about the effectiveness of NIST, not about its mission . In so doing, you were not replying to my actual claim. If you read my sentence in context, I hope it is clear that I'm talking about the…

> Using a charitable reading of your comment, it seems you are actually talking about the effectiveness of NIST, not about its mission

I'm not talking about NIST in general, just about this report, which most certainly does not, as you claimed, "implicitly promote ideals of western democratic rule over communist values." Quite the contrary: it's a blatant and transparent continuation of the current administration's assault on those Western democratic values.

> It is clear NIST's mission is a blend of scientific rigor and promotion of western values

That was true in the past. You seem to be having difficulty accepting the new reality, even defending it. Which is sad to witness.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#235

Post by antonvs »

xpe wrote: post #209
antonvs wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report? Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.” There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expen…

> Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.” Yes, that contains a quote from the executive summary. First (perhaps a minor point), I wouldn't frame this a fear , I would call it a risk assessment . Second, it is not an irrational assessment. It seems you don't understand the reasoning, in which case disag…

> Once you read and understand these sections, the connection to the stated risks is clear. To spell it out: when an organization deploys a DeepSeek model, they are exposing themselves and their customers to higher levels of risk.

Compared to what, exactly? The "frontier models" that the report compared DeepSeek to can't be "deployed" by an organization, they can only be used via a hosted API. It's an entirely different security model, and this inappropriate comparison is part of what reveals the irrational bias in this report.

If the report had done a meaningful comparison, it would have found quite similar risks in other models that are more comparable to DeepSeek.

As the OP states, this is nothing more than a hit job, and everyone who worked on it should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for participating in such an anti-intellectual exercise.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#236

Post by xpe »

antonvs wrote: post #192
xpe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there will be some degree of governmental and/or political influence. The question is not if but where and to what extent. No one should proclaim "bullshit" and wave off this entire report as "biased" or useless. That would be insipid. We live in a complex world where we have to filter and analyze information.

Have you found any actual value in this report? What, specifically? It compares a fully open model to two fully closed models - why exactly? Ironically, it doesn’t even work as an analysis of any real national security threat that might arise from foreign LLMs. It’s purely designed to counter a perceived threat by smearing it. Which is entirely on-brand for the current administration, which operates almost purely at…

> It’s purely designed to counter a perceived threat by smearing it.

"smear" as understood by most people, means "to damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander: someone was trying to smear her by faking letters." (Apple dictionary)

If there are no false accusations, there is no smearing. Are you claiming the report makes false accusations? Where?

Disagreeing with emphasis or prioritization isn't sufficient. Not engaging with the reasoning (or not understanding it) isn't a valid basis for claiming "false accusations". I reply more fully at [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45493266

In case people will feel better knowing that I'm not on the team of their enemies, I can assure you I'm opposed to corrupt and authoritarian behavior anywhere. I'm sickened by who Trump is, what he has done, how he has confused so many Americans, and how he is a conduit for some of the worst beliefs and impulses of Americans. Some of these tendencies are rooted in confused ethics and bad reasoning.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#237

Post by xpe »

antonvs wrote: post #194
xpe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I agree this report is BS and xenophobic Examples please? Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report? Or are you basing your take only on Hartford's analysis? But not even Hartford make any claims of "BS" or xenophobia. It is common throughout history for a nation-state to worry about military and economic competitiveness. Doing so isn't necessarily isn't necessarily xenoph…

> Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report? Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.” There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expen…

> A report like this is just part of that propaganda campaign of designating enemies everywhere, even in American cities.

Yes, it seems that Trump considers anyone who loudly disagrees with him to be an enemy. So when he looks at Portland, Chicago, and Washington DC, he views them as filled with enemies. On this I think we agree.

But you are confused if you think this tendency of Trump means that this particular NIST report is irredeemably twisted and manipulated. You seem to believe that Trump's derangement has percolated NIST to the point where nearly every word in the report is in service of his whims or agenda (which changes so often that even his supporters have to find ways to cope with the chaos).

No. I haven't seen you demonstrate much understanding of NIST or U.S. government agencies in general. I've seen you commit many errors and much motivated reasoning.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#238

Post by bobxmax »

UltraSane wrote: post #225
bobxmax wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is defending their behavior. You're just proving the brainwashing point I made by instinctively going into attack dog mode making silly arguments. And no, China's oppression of Tibet is nothing close to a million dead Iraqis and an ancient country turned into a failed state. The fact you'd even make such a goofy comparison shows how deep American indoctrination runs. Your tax dollars are still torturing brown…

"Nobody is defending their behavior" You are by minimizing it. "China's oppression of Tibet is nothing close to a million dead Iraqis" At least the US got rid of Saddam. China is still oppressing the hell out of Tibet. "The fact you'd even make such a goofy comparison shows how deep American indoctrination runs." The fact that you consider this to BE a "goofy comparison" shows how deep your pro-CCP indoctrination run…

I'm not going to debate someone who compares Tibetan political opression with a million dead Iraqis and the brutal carpet bombing and turning an ancient country and people into a failed state. Or who thinks the Uyghur re-education camps, however terrible, are in any way comparable to 20,000 dead Gazan children.

You have psychological problems and are beyond reasoning with. Like I said, brainwashed.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#239

Post by UltraSane »

bobxmax wrote: post #238
UltraSane wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody is defending their behavior" You are by minimizing it. "China's oppression of Tibet is nothing close to a million dead Iraqis" At least the US got rid of Saddam. China is still oppressing the hell out of Tibet. "The fact you'd even make such a goofy comparison shows how deep American indoctrination runs." The fact that you consider this to BE a "goofy comparison" shows how deep your pro-CCP indoctrination run…

I'm not going to debate someone who compares Tibetan political opression with a million dead Iraqis and the brutal carpet bombing and turning an ancient country and people into a failed state. Or who thinks the Uyghur re-education camps, however terrible, are in any way comparable to 20,000 dead Gazan children. You have psychological problems and are beyond reasoning with. Like I said, brainwashed.

Why don't you ask some Tibetans how they feel about being taken over and ruled by China.

Re: NIST's DeepSeek "evaluation" is a hit piece

#240

Post by bobxmax »

UltraSane wrote: post #239
bobxmax wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to debate someone who compares Tibetan political opression with a million dead Iraqis and the brutal carpet bombing and turning an ancient country and people into a failed state. Or who thinks the Uyghur re-education camps, however terrible, are in any way comparable to 20,000 dead Gazan children. You have psychological problems and are beyond reasoning with. Like I said, brainwashed.

Why don't you ask some Tibetans how they feel about being taken over and ruled by China.

Tibetan freedom of religion, language and movement being restricted is terrible. It's like what your government is doing to Gaza, except without all of the murder and ethnic cleansing.

Like I said, you have psychological issues if you think it's remotely comparable to millions of Iraqis getting senselessly tortured and slaughtered.

Like a Nazi who thinks they're not so bad because the Americans have racial segregation.

Post reply on HN