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

31–40 of 633 posts

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

#31

Post by ArchieScrivener »

CPLX wrote: post #22
jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Unilateral s…

[dead]

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

#32

Post by epolanski »

jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

Chinese have a wider outlook on it.

Politically they believe AI belongs to humanity, which is why they are basically the only ones left publishing research in the open. That's probably part of their socialist nature.

But also a financial one. They believe that models are commodities, that you can swap one for the other and that the only thing that matters are the applications built upon them.

So they want to make sure that the world, and their own companies, are not limited in their business and application by a protected US commodity.

They will keep releasing in the open no matter what for quite some time.

It's quite impressive how the latest years I have found more and more to empathize with China than many of the western counterparts.

But it's increasingly clear that since the last decade protectionism and nationalism is taking the place of globalization, even though globalization has been a terrific success in lifting billions out of poverty and making the US thrive.

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

#33

Post by wagwang »

dakolli wrote: post #29
jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

China does not think llms are a matter of national security, they aren't as brain broken as the west.

That's 100% untrue lmao.

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

#34

Post by [deleted] »

embedding-shape wrote: post #4
_aavaa_ wrote: post #2

> Anthropic said it identified a campaign by DeepSeek and two other Chinese AI labs to illicitly extract capabilities from its Claude AI platform to improve their own models Oh, won’t someone think of the poor mass copyright infringers.

If DeepSeek just would have destroyed the input in the process, it would have been legal and Anthropic should have been fine with it.

[deleted]

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

#35

Post by stickfigure »

CPLX wrote: post #22
jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Unilateral s…

> The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have.

I generally agree with most of what you said but not this. China's chief advantage is having a billion people. On average, they aren't that wealthy or powerful. And their leadership makes plenty of idiotic mistakes - look at their real estate market.

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

#36

Post by CPLX »

ceejayoz wrote: post #28
CPLX wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Unilateral s…

> The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Yeah, that was the argument against Japanese car makers, too. A shitty system needs destroying sometimes. Competition from Toyota/Honda was critical in making US auto makers up their game. It is terrible…

It's not like I don't understand the argument on the other side of this. I've heard it my entire life. It's been dominant since the late 1970s and 1980s.

It's just that it's wrong.

We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but our country has become fucked, overwhelmed by financialization, scams, monopoly rents and extraction, and all of the wealth accumulating to a handful of people, while we've become less resilient and, at this point, almost certainly have lost our place as the most dominant economy and industrial power in the world.

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

#37

Post by Havoc »

dakolli wrote: post #26
Havoc wrote: post #19

The whole thing seems like nonsensical. Their website literally has chinese characters on it even in english mode and everyone under the sun including crappy money talk show hosts know them as the chinese player that undercut western players. It's not exactly a secret. You'd think anyone with two brain cells and confidential data could apply some judgement of their own...

I trust Chinese companies with my data far more than American companies.

Not sure I'd go that far but I do use them almost exclusively for my coding on the basis that it is an acceptable trade-off. Far cheaper and my shitty apps are really not that valuable as training data

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

#38

Post by Elzair »

To give credit where credit is due, it is good that the Trump administration has not avidly played these stupid export control games. They tend to do little except hurt open collaboration; I remember when all open source cryptography had to be developed outside the US due to ITAR.

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

#39

Post by mekdoonggi »

epolanski wrote: post #32
jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

Chinese have a wider outlook on it. Politically they believe AI belongs to humanity, which is why they are basically the only ones left publishing research in the open. That's probably part of their socialist nature. But also a financial one. They believe that models are commodities, that you can swap one for the other and that the only thing that matters are the applications built upon them. So they want to make sur…

Also, the open-weight local models are proving that the commodity can be delivered for most applications at a far lower price than frontier is charging.

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

#40

Post by bijowo1676 »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #21
jmyeet wrote: post #12

The US government exists to defend capital interests. It's why we can't buy BYD cars. It's why we can't import any cars unless they're 25 years old. It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. It's why the US is seeking to block states from banning prediction markets. It's why the federal government is seeking to block states from blocking data center projects. As soon as DeepSeek came out I realized what was going on: China…

The reason why some Capital Interests want to blacklist DeepSeek in the US is so that you are forced to buy Claude/GPT/Gemini, which will feed revenue into an industry that requires revenue (or it’s a big problem). The reason why some Capital Interests don’t want to ban DeepSeek is so companies that utilize AI have more options, and running your own DeepSeek cluster acts as an independent cost comparison for enterpri…

if you look at share of industry profits, currently most of AI profits are captured by NVIDIA and cloud providers

banning deepseek/open weight models will allow Ant/OAI jack up prices and extract more profits for themselves

keeping open weights models available will keep current industry profit distribution where majority is captured by nvidia and cloud providers

Post reply on HN