241–250 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
> No, as evidence of how the President of the United States has abused his position to weaponize xenophobia, of which the report in question is just another example.
We don't disagree that Trump has weaponized the government in many ways. But Trump's corruption and weaponization is not completely pervasive. To explain, I'll restate a point from another comment:
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
Some responses:
- Do you think the report is literally "meaningless nonsense" -- meaning it is incomprehensible or self-contradictory? I don't think you mean this.
- Do you disagree with the report's technical findings? I am pretty confident (P > 70%) you haven't engaged with them well enough to make specific claims about the technical aspects.
- Do you think the report's technical findings are so biased as to be (more or less) worthless in addressing the question of risk from DeepSeek? Yes; this seems to be your claim.
As to the last point, you haven't persuaded me. Why? You haven't engaged substantively with the NIST Report; you've mostly made sweeping comments with many reasoning errors.
Here's a guess at what may be happening in your brain. You let your view about Trump "run wild"; you probably haven't given any significant thought to the technical or geopolitical points on their own merits. Instead, you've fixated on the view that the Trump administration has ruined the objectivity of the report. In short, you found your preferred explanation ("motivated reasoning") and then stopped looking for other explanations ("early stopping"). These are common -- we're only human after all -- but damaging cognitive errors.
I have some other guesses... You probably lack: (i) an understanding (of the topic area or of how NIST works); or (ii) the curiosity or time to dig in. A lack of understanding is not necessarily a problem if you recognize it and adjust accordingly (i.e. by expressing uncertainty and/or expanding your knowledge). [2]
From my POV, I'm not confident you understand the key concepts from the NIST report. May I ask: what is your experience level with: national security, cybersecurity, machine learning, U.S. government, risk assessment, prediction, economics, geopolitics, or similar? What about the particular technical AI topics mentioned in the report?
- Many do not have experience in these areas. This is Hacker News, not e.g. an invite-only message board for AI experts interested in government policy. I don't know what a random HN commenter knows, but I would predict it isn't anywhere close to "competent" in all of the above.
- Knowledge across these areas is helpful (probably necessary in my opinion) to understand the NIST Report well. Without that background, one will have huge gaps. And unless you are really careful, your brain will fill those gaps with processes riddled with cognitive bias. [1]
- Beware the hubris that might lead someone to claim the lack of such experience is irrelevant. (And yes, experts are not immune from cognitive bias either.)
[1]: To borrow some words from Claude Sonnet 4.5, which I endorse as matching what I've learned from other sources: "Examine what appears to be rational thought and you find it rests on heuristics; examine those heuristics and find more heuristics beneath. There's no rational bedrock—it's cognitive biases all the way down."
[2]: For many, another frustration (such as Trump's degradation of democracy) can be a powerful and extensive demotivator in other areas. That frustration can serve as a explanation for much that ails us. This can become a coping mechanism, which serve a function at times, but are rarely motivators to increase the curiosity needed to make sense of a messy world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> (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…
> That was true in the past. You seem to be having difficulty accepting the new reality, even defending it. Which is sad to witness.
First, something you know (or should know): people that disagree with you do not necessarily support your rivals / opponents / enemies. You are incorrect confusing (i) my pushback against your reasoning with (ii) defending Trump.
You've committed many reasoning errors. Sometimes people need very direct (i.e. blunt) feedback from a trusted person. I don't think getting through to you at all. Maybe someone else can and will?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> (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…
Generally speaking, I agree the Trump administration is assaulting Western democratic values.
Remember, this is conversation. You are convinced of one way of seeing the NIST report. I recognize your perspective; I see your intensity, but intensity alone does not translate into credibility. Repeating your claims ad nauseam doesn't help.
In my eyes, you have not made a case (much less a good one) for how this particular NIST report is somehow an assault on Western democratic values. Neither have you shown it is a blatant or transparent assault.
If you want to persuade, practice the art of persuasion. I suggest:
- Elaborate, clarify, use good reasoning.
- Explore multiple explanations. Don't put on blinders. Seek the truth wherever it lies.
- Don't oversimplify. Express appropriate uncertainty.
- Use conversation to move towards better understanding.
- Don't misrepresent what others say or believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 differ…
1. Deploying any LLM where a person can use them (whether an employee or customer) has risks. Agree?
2. The report talks about risks. Agree?
3. There are various ways to compare risk levels. Agree?
4. One can compare the risk relative to: (a) not deploying an LLM at all; (b) deploying another kind of LLM; (c) some other ways. Agree?
If you can't honestly answer "yes" to these questions, this suggests to me there is no point in continuing the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 differ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 differ…
CAISI’s security evaluations (Section 3.3) found that:
• DeepSeek models were much more likely to follow
malicious hijacking instructions than evaluated U.S.
frontier models (GPT-5 and Opus 4). The U.S. open
weight model evaluated (gpt-oss) matched or exceeded
the robustness of all DeepSeek models.
• DeepSeek models were highly susceptible to
jailbreaking attacks. Unlike evaluated frontier and
open-weight U.S. models, DeepSeek models assisted
with a majority of evaluated malicious requests in
domains including harmful biology, hacking, and
cybercrime when the request used a well-known
jailbreaking technique.
So it would be incorrect for anyone to claim the report doesn't compare DeepSeek to an open-weights model.