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

261–270 of 633 posts

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

#261

Post by dryarzeg »

cwel wrote: post #210
dryarzeg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I guess you can use a third-party provider, maybe even the US-based one. At least, you can do this at the moment of this writing...

Ok I'll bite: what is the obvious thing I'm supposed to be getting from your ellipses? are you implying there is a US-based, third-party provider of xiaomi devices, BYD cars? or are you just referring to hosted providers of those AI models?

> what is the obvious thing I'm supposed to be getting from your ellipses?

Well, I'm unsure if it's a correct form of expression in English, but in my native language ellipses can often serve to express speaker/writer feeling of uncertainty about something or some kind of sadness/apathy/similar towards the situation being discussed. It's not about some "obvious thing you should get", sorry for misunderstanding.

> or are you just referring to hosted providers of those AI models?

Yes I am. I was not talking about BYD or Xiaomi; I think I focused too much on AI because that's the main topic in discussion here. That was my mistake and I apologize for that.

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

#262

Post by gg80 »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #199
theplumber wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you keep a straight face when you say IP theft while OpenAI and Claude have their entire business based on IP theft?

This is a commonly-repeated trope. Full of all the emotional zeal of AI Doomerism, but no accompanying evidence.

Mine is anecdotal evidence at best: I co-authored a fairly obscure book about the application of category theory to an extremely niche subject. There's basically no mention of the stuff in the book anywhere on the internet, nor in any academic publication I'm aware of. If you want to have an idea about what's in the book you have to have access to it. I couldn't remember some details of it and being lazy and slightly curious I tried asking a couple of models (one by OpenAI and one by Google): they both managed to give me extremely detailed answers based on the contents of the book. Nobody has ever asked me or any other person involved in the publication for permission to use the book in any kind of training (they may have bought the book but not the rights to reproduce it).

The funny thing is what happened when I told one of the models (the Google one) I was one of the authors and that I had never given any consent to use the book for its training and that given that it was so willing to provide any user with the contents of the book nobody would have had any reason to buy the book. The thing told me that it had done it just because I was the author of the book (apparently me asking it about the content of an obscure academic book was sufficient to make it statistically plausible that I was one of the two people who had read the book, me and my co-author, excluding the editor a priori). It swore it would have never given that information to any other user.

I doubt that anyone could ever deny that LLMs are incredible tools that have incredible value. But denying that they have being made possible only thanks to egregious acts of piracy is disingenuous.

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

#263

Post by toasty228 »

rib3ye wrote: post #223
Vasbarlog wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And when it comes to the US, every accusation is a confession.

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

#264

Post by Terr_ »

winwang wrote: post #257
gypsy_boots wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how you can look at obscenely overvalued Western AI companies, with capex's that are unsustainable, and along comes a system which pokes a gaping hole in this model, and the response is "Ya, but what do those sneaky Chinese have up their sleeve here?!" Perhaps the question should instead be "Why are these Western AI companies getting insane valuations on dubious ROI, and how can these Chinese models run on…

Not saying you're doing this specifically, but I'd be careful with thinking that "company" in China means the same as "company" in America (or in the West more generally).

True, "Industrial Policy" [0] is much bigger over in China, and has been for a long time.

Although that might become "was" given the recent shift in US politics, where the Republican party of big-government has been heavily taxing Americans with tariffs [1], nationalizing US companies [2][3], and commanding the manufacture of specific goods [4].

______

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy

[1] https://thinkinthemorning.com/trumps-great-leap-backward/

[2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-trump-just-nationalized-...

[3] https://time.com/7313446/trump-seizing-private-companies/

[4] https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics/trump-weapons-iran-d...

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

#265

Post by NicoJuicy »

14u2c wrote: post #180
tranceylc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian, and I also agree. It’s hard to avoid but I try not to use any American service or data storage.

And that's fine of course, but it's worth noting that you're making a decision driven by emotion rather than data.

The threats made by Trump are in my dataset

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

#266

Post by toasty228 »

MaxPock wrote: post #73

Becoming such a sore loser. Historians will probably look this as the most shameful period of the American empire.

> the American empire.

When the dust settles it won't even be a single page in history books, my local bakery is older than the "american empire"

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

#267

Post by skippyboxedhero »

gypsy_boots wrote: post #236
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".

It's funny how you can look at obscenely overvalued Western AI companies, with capex's that are unsustainable, and along comes a system which pokes a gaping hole in this model, and the response is "Ya, but what do those sneaky Chinese have up their sleeve here?!" Perhaps the question should instead be "Why are these Western AI companies getting insane valuations on dubious ROI, and how can these Chinese models run on…

Because the revenue of Chinese AI companies is small. Anthropic's annual run rate is $50bn, z.ai's is $500m.

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

#268

Post by petercooper »

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".

The next step of course will be to get people using that ungodly cheap AI on Chinese servers.

Step one of this was perhaps DeepSeek's incredibly low cache hit pricing ($0.0036/M) which no-one else seems to be able to match.

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

#269

Post by lossolo »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #50
mystraline wrote: post #8

Hmm, my VPN provider explicitly has Chinese exit points. And whats funny is I can load AliPay from any CVS. (Like, seriously) You can try to pry Qwen and Deepseek from my Graphene/Linux hands.

What VPN provider is this? I could use it because Chinese users of my apps often complain about not being able to download things from my western hosted servers.

When I was in China the only VPN that worked using China mobile and other local ISPs was Lets VPN, they route through HK.

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

#270

Post by skippyboxedhero »

villish wrote: post #168
miroljub wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European, I trust Chinese AI providers more than American. Cloud act did it for me.

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.

Compel? I am confused, all data in China is held in datacentres which the state has full access to, that is the terms of their operation and why some big tech US companies didn't want to operate in China. They don't need to "compel" anyone, the CCP has people at every large company supervising employees, and they already have full access to your data.

I am always completely baffled by these comments that not only get basic facts wrong but appear unable to conceive of a situation where the everything is subordinate to the state.

There is no negotiation, there is no due process, you give access to everything before you start or you can't operate.

Post reply on HN