US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks
reuters.com327 points by giuliomagnifico 21 hours ago
327 points by giuliomagnifico 21 hours ago
https://archive.ph/MlU1U
I use DeepSeek every day (via VSCode Insiders and Zed Editor). It's very affordable and, while it's slightly behind Claude (not sure how far behind Fable), it suits my working style well. I'm not using unsupervised multi-agent workflows and don't need a library of skills files - I'm writing most of the code and leaning on AI to help with mundane tasks - like; - generating types for APIs - generating boilerplate based on existing code - improving existing code (adding error handling, timeouts, things like that) - Writing SQL repository boilerplate / queries - Creating implementations against hand written tests - Helping me understand and implement APIs from third party libraries - Writing documentation I've spent like $2 in the last month and have used over 100 million tokens. It's doubled my productivity and unlocked work that I could not have done before. As an Australian, I'm not sure that I care about the safety of my data when it comes to LLMs. US companies already stole scores of data to train their models on and it's hard to imagine they suddenly grew some integrity. I'll care when regulators step in, until then it's out of my control so I'll just use the best price-to-productivity product available. How are you accessing their API? Through OpenRouter, or direct? Are you using DeepSeek v4 Pro? $2 seems a lot cheaper than my own experience accessing them through OpenRouter for over 100 million tokens, but I am using OpenRouter to access v4 pro. Pro is substantially more expensive than flash. In addition, there's wide variance in price with DeepSeek themselves providing the cheapest tokens last I checked (but they train on them). Caching policy also varies by provider. TTL can be as low as 5 minutes or as high as 24 hours and reading from the cache might or might not reset the timer. Whether or not you get a hit makes (IIRC) a 10x price difference in the case of DeepSeek themselves. I second this. I’ve been using it a lot (with OpenCode) for personal projects. It’s intelligent enough at a tiny fraction of the cost of Claude or Codex. I've been using deepseek for some development at home and it is really good for the price. It is at the point where i am ok with using it as a tool that i can rely on and not an expensive gadget with flaky uptimes. Using laws to ban competitors is just economic warfare thats all. Its got nothing to do with "national security", thats just the reason they give us normies. You should be safe in Australia since they actually need to be friends with China. > You should be safe in Australia since they actually need to be friends with China. As a non-Australian, I enjoyed very much reading about Australia in a book by Tim Marshall titled "The Power of Geography". I didn't quite realize just how vulnerable they become with China's ambitions and expanse in the South Pacific due to their reliance on vital sea lanes for trade with its Asian partners. After reading that book, I can appreciate your comment much more. What? Every country has the right to freely decide which companies are permitted to operate under its jurisdiction, and exercising that right isn’t “warfare” of any kind. So this is the other side of banning American models for non-Americans? And how exactly do they plan on enforcing all of this? Great Firewall of America? This is a complete joke. The malicious clowns behind this should be removed from power and prevented from ever holding any position of power in any form of governance system. They're probably going to ban GPU exports to China. Which will of course accelerate the development of their own GPUs. More products for us. China is already going as hard as they can on their own GPUs. When has availability of non-Chinese tech in China meant China didn't ultimately come up with homegrown replacements? They greatly increased efforts when the US restricted high end exports to them. Unless further restrictions accomplish something worthwhile in the short term they seem unlikely to be of benefit to the US. It's just my general impression. They banned China from the ISS, China made their own space station. China's making their own x86 chips, their own GPUs. As a fellow wheel reinventer, I admire their audacity. It's the sort of thing that makes me wish my country was like China. > makes me wish my country was like China I admire their governance ability to have long term plans. The sheer scale of their production ambitions in so many fields and their energy build out is insane. The fact those plans also have subclauses ensuring the party elite are made even more wealthy and powerful is less alluring. trump just undid the gpu export to china to help jensen make money Oh, that's great, finally they put that cat back in the bag, surely it can never escape. Gonna be interesting to see how the ecosystem looks like 2-3 years, I'd be expecting some drastic changes compared to today. You're aware that many countries are blacklisted from trade with the US already, along with certain segments of existing companies. It just means that enforcement comes with contracts, law, banking systems, etc. > how exactly do they plan on enforcing all of this? Video selfies and government document upload on hardware attested phones, of course. Noteworthy that Z.ai, maker of the just released near-frontier GLM 5.2, has already been on the Entity List since Jan 2025[1]. Being on the Entity List does not mean all trade is forbidden. Broadly speaking it means American companies and individuals are not allowed sell them goods and services, but they are still allowed to buy from them and pay them. AFAIK the Chinese AI companies barely depend on US goods and services, except for nVidia GPUs which were export restricted anyway, so it doesn't seem to be very consequential (see Z.ai). For the RAM maker CXMT it could be a lot more problematic though. How does that even work? If Z.ai wants to buy lets say GPUs for AI training, what's stopping them from going to a local reseller? Its not even circumventing the rules, its the natural thing to do. For that matter, does (only) NVIDIA make datacenter cards? When I buy a gaming card, I dont buy from NVIDIA, I buy from an integrator, like Gigabyte, who work with a company like Foxconn to make the cards. The export restrictions only apply to certain GPU models, which are the more recent powerful ones used for training tasks. So the H100, B100 etc. are banned along with 4090, 5090. Nvidia has downgraded chips that aren’t banned. H100 is banned, H800 is allowed. A100 is banned, A800 is allowed. But the sale has a tariff attached. That’s all how it’s supposed to work. In practice companies probably circumvent the restrictions. The GamersNexus documentary (https://youtu.be/1H3xQaf7BFI) on the semi-underground GPU trade in China, while a little amateurish in terms of depth and general atmosphere, is an interesting watch and may answer some of your questions. Basically, those export controls make GPUs more expensive for affected parties in China, but don't effectively stop them from being acquired or used over there. What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List? Genuinely asking. Because to me it screams 'we were only for the free market until there was no competition' "First published in 1997 to inform the public on entities involved in disseminating weapons of mass destruction, the list has since expanded to include entities that engaged in "activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests" So RAM chip makers when there's a RAM shortage must be 'contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests' i.e. the US government is trying to squeeze its citizens on RAM prices. Nice. Other way around according to what GGP quoted, this would get RAM into the US but not out, reducing prices. > Other way around according to what GGP quoted, this would get RAM into the US but not out, reducing prices. Only in a world where the other party has no agency. In real life the other party raises prices on their exports to compensate for the supply chain disruption and they still get the items. Ultimately the consumer pays more, the extra goes the government, and the net impact is just obfuscated taxation and a reduction in both supply and demand that's bad for the economy and other living things. Free Market vs. planned economy was always mostly talking points, not a consistent ideology imo. Even during the Cold War, American farms were heavily subsidized. The abundant supermarkets were not a product of free markets, they were a propaganda piece. Today the US is pretty far from being a free market. Tax deductions are subsidies. Industry subsidies fund things on the front end, and bailouts are essentially subsidies after the fact. And on top of that there are plenty of (good and bad) regulations which distort the market. For example it is illegal to import foreign insulin even if it would be cheaper. In most parts of US metro areas it is illegal to build multifamily housing. Most of the things you list don't make a market non-free. A free market can still have government regulation and distortion. In fact it requires it otherwise it will be captured by large players in short order and become non-free as a result. The insulin example I agree is non-free. More generally the entire medical sector is only somewhat free. However I'm not sure that's a bad thing given the stakes and the history of the free market as it applies to healthcare. The medical establishment itself is an only barely disguised guild system after all. > A free market can still have government regulation and distortion. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?q=free+market > an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. By definition, free markets do not have government regulation. As an explicit example, major revenue streams that Tesla (used to) take advantage of are 1. the EV tax credit, and 2. carbon credits so the richest man in the world/the US had significant tailwinds for a central business venture of his via either directly taking money from the government, or taking money from other companies due to the government requiring they give him money. > The abundant supermarkets were not a product of free markets, they were a propaganda piece. The US has abundant supermarkets to this day. It was overwhelmingly a product of the market economy and remains so. The US has between 45,000 and 75,000 supermarkets (75,000 if you include supercenter stores that also sell groceries). That's not counting smaller specialty food stores. It's a product of consumer spending capacity (net disposable income), of which the US has an enormous amount and has for over a century relative to other nations. The US subsidizes the supply side and the demand side. On the demand side, the US spends about $100B on SNAP (food stamps) and another $40B on subsidies for WIC (women infants children) and school lunches. On the supply side, the US is currently directly subsidizing farms $20B and giving disaster relief to the tune of another $30B. If you want to imagine how well the free market in the US would do, just think about what would happen if Congress cut off those funds. Free markets generally only make sense when at the same scope of the ruling government. When country A can manipulate markets in ways that country B can't or won't, eventually country B will attempt to make trade rules that level the playing field. Its also worth noting we don't really have free markets in the US anyway. > Its also worth noting we don't really have free markets in the US anyway. That entirely depends on what is meant by the term. Markets that are largely free appear (IMO) to have won out worldwide quite some time ago. The common thread here is that it is China. Before the 2010s and earlier, the US wasn't so concerned about China, but ever since then, China has been a big US concern for it being a technology and military rival e.g. the Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security
Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications
Companies Huawei and ZTE report from 2012: https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:rm226yb7473/Huawei-ZT... From that point forward, that concern has only grown. So you can view these actions as screaming "we were only for the free market until there was no competition" but if you want to genuinely know the answer to your question, the publicly stated concern is "China is a national security threat" The USA is not a suicide pact. We do need to consider national interests from time to time. > What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List? “Capitalism” is (as a result of propaganda by its defenders after it was named and accurately described by its socialist critics) often mistaken for a dedication to free trade, but capitalism is a regime characterized first and foremost by society being organized around the interests of the capital-holding class, the first of which is the preservation of the situation in which society is organized around the interests of that class. The reasons companies are put on the Entity List is because they are broadly seen as a threat (long-term or immediate) to the continuation of that regime. That’s what the “foreign policy and national security interests” that form the official basis of the Entity List ultimately, generally, boil down to, in one way or another. (They don’t always boil down to that, because why the US is basically a capitalist system, it is not purely one, and even in a more pure capitalist regime, individual influential decision-makers may have other interests that they act on besides the implementation and preservation of capitalism that end up getting reflected in policy.) It’s the same logic behind the Trump tariff regime: “We love capitalism and free markets, except when we’re losing at it”. DeepSeek rose to fame through stolen IP from U.S., and created shell companies to bypass U.S. law. Typical CCP-inspired behavior. The free world needs protection from abusers. I'm sure there's a ton of other abuses they've committed as they race to become China's preferred LLM. OpenAI and Anthropic also rose to fame from stolen IP from the US. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl... That's the key difference: from the U.S. The primary goal is growth of wealth and power for the country, and close loopholes whereby enemy nations steal even more from America. I assume you're not confused about the fact that DeepSeek winning would be against US self-interest, and the thriving of OpenAI + Anthropic domestically and globally is very much in the national interest of the US. Even if both groups did exactly the same thing, it would be irrational for the US to not bias itself in favor of its own businesses. There's bias and then there's ignoring all of your own laws when it's convenient. The US should consider legalising some of this stuff, if I look at a leaderboard something like the top-10 models are built by companies facing serious accusations of copyright infringement. I assume the Europeans are obeying the law or whatever which is why they've so far only achieved peak-2024 performance or whatever and are making no particular contribution to the cutting edge, unlike the Americans and the Asians. Come again how these laws are promoting useful results? They seem to be economically crippling. The free world should consider embracing freedom from these laws as it seems that will bring greater prosperity. Yes, copyright is largely bullshit and we'll soon put it behind us. That being said, the major AI companies accomplished what they did by violating copyright law in ways that would have seen any of us punished severely. Just ask Aaron Swartz. These companies do not have any moral authority to complain about other labs, whether foreign or domestic, who distill from their models. The only valid response to people like Amodei who complain about "illegal distilling" is to laugh in their faces. I can't tell if this is satire. DeepSeek did the same thing the american companies did on a much smaller scale. They took the output of one company and trained a model. American companies took the output of all IP they could illegally* acquire and trained a model. The world does need protection from abusers, you're right. EDIT: illegal in some cases (see 82TB of torrented ebooks), immoral in most. that is open to debate. Any commercial activity with a sanctioned entity has a pretty broad interpretation. Companies might not want to take the chance even if they are "still allowed". > except for nVidia GPUs which were export restricted anyway, those export restrictions are a joke. when they were introduced, there was a sudden spike in NVIDIA GPU exports to surrounding Asian countries. and the US government knows this CXMT memory maker will not be banned, because US AI labs are salivating at the idea of more RAM supply, and are lobbying hard to prevent restrictions And those who enabled it (the leadership team at SuperMicro) were charged by the US [0] and Taiwan [1] [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/us-charges-three-people-with-c... [1] - https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/taiwan-investigates... > And those who enabled it There is no single "it", the Singapore loophole is well known, and nothing has been done about it. Except by China, once , when it blocked the sale of Manus to Meta, even though on paper, Manus is a Singaporean enterprise. The US is slowly becoming more like China. From talks of nationalizing companies to make US state owned entities to banning foreign competition. It's just so strange how you become the thing you fear. Is DeepSeek really behaving different than other Chinese companies? Intellectual theft is ongoing and has been ongoing for decades. Besides security risks and foul play, it is impressive by just how much DeepSeek undercuts OpenAI and Claude. DeepSeek charges $0.87 per million output tokens compared to $50 for Fable and $30 for GPT-5.5. Can you keep a straight face when you say IP theft while OpenAI and Claude have their entire business based on IP theft? I believe OP is talking at the national wealth and technology level: China stole from the U.S. (again). So the U.S. moves to protect American companies. Yes. For all the concerns about IP theft there can be on OpenAI or Claude, there's not even concern when it comes to Chinese companies since it's fully expected that it's a lost cause. Has been for decades. This is a commonly-repeated trope. Full of all the emotional zeal of AI Doomerism, but no accompanying evidence. How about the $1.5 billion settlement Anthropic agreed to pay authors and publishers: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/technology/anthropic-sett... Several consolidated cases against OpenAI: https://www.bakerlaw.com/in-re-openai-inc-copyright-infringe... And these plaintiffs are representative of only the best-organized and most well-funded of those who believe that these companies stole their data. Countless independent writers, artists, and other individuals whose data was ingested unknowingly and without consent lack the resources to litigate claims, but that doesn't change the fact that their copyright was violated in service of for-profit LLM/GenAI model training. It's not a trope, it's just what happened. I'm not sure I understand? That case says training was explicitly legal perfectly validating their whole business model. The money they paid was for pirating books rather then buying them. No evidence? >The court drew a line, however, when it came to the pirated books, which were downloaded without payment and kept in Anthropic’s library irrespective of whether they were used to train its LLMs. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/bartz-... >We apply a basic prompt template to bypass the refusal training and show that OpenAI models are currently less prone to memorization elicitation than models from Meta, Mistral, and Anthropic. We find that as models increase in size, especially beyond 100 billion parameters, they demonstrate significantly greater capacity for memorization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06370 > They further rely on safety alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20957 Even if they're trained for refusal and rewording, the data is still there in the weights. One blog post I have, which was basically the only source for a while, explaining how to boot Armbian in an obscure SBC only meant for Android, was repeated verbatim until they started they improving the rewording. I don't mind in the slightest that AI labs have used any public data they could get their hands on to train their models. This includes books, the internet, or other AI models.
It's all the same to me. I find it hypocritical when AI labs complain about their models being used for training. I agree with you. I also find it hypocritical when the copyright industry fails to put any effort into prosecuting these big techs for their so called infringements. It's like the industry is a shadow of its former self. The way the copyright industry used to operate, one would think these big tech CEOs would wake up with SWAT pointing guns at them while their electronics are seized, and then they'd end up in court and get hit with something ridiculous like a quadrillion dollar fine. It actually pisses me off that it's not happening. Not because I care about copyright, but because it's extremely disrespectful towards all the previous victims of the copyright industry. 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. I don't think we should pay any AI lab for their """work""" until they start paying consenting data subjects for their data. Given this, China comes off less like a thief and more like Robin Hood. Or, to put it in 2000s terms: Anthropic is the guy selling bootleg CD-Rs of MP3s they downloaded from Grokster[0]. Should we give a shit about their livelihood when people figure out about Gnutella? No. Knowledge is a commons, and Anthropic is one of the biggest threats to the knowledge commons in recent memory. [0] Not to be confused with the AI lab. I see no problem paying Anthropic or any other AI lab for the services they provide. What I take issue with is when they try to block competition and lament that others use their model outputs for training. 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. Just an anecdote, I lived in China for a bit years ago and one the biggest issues accessing western websites weren't restrictions against the site. Most of the times the culprit was using CDNs or services from Google or Cloudflare which were restricted totally or partially. I was working on a site around that time, learned about that fixed it for the chinese user base, after that users from china went up considerably. Not sure if having point of presence (POP) managed DNS for China is of interest, but my company offers something for China traffic [0]. Disclosure: I’m an IBMer [0] https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ns1-connect?topic=started-manage... When I was in China the only VPN that worked using China mobile and other local ISPs was Lets VPN, they route through HK. CVS? CVS (drugstore chain) and Walgreens were among the first major U.S. merchants to accept Alipay via QR code payments, allowing Chinese consumers (and anyone with Alipay) to pay at these stores. This person is correct. I pay for 2 servers running in Asia under Alibaba, using my local CVS drugstore. Im in the Midwest USA. Not a single problem at all. Sorry, I am not familiar with Alipay, at least in the use case you're referring to; How do you exactly pay for 2 servers using Alipay from a CVS? I can load US dollars I hand over to the CVS attendant and load it on my AliPay (Alibaba account). I can then pay my Alibaba server bills with Alipay. Is there an intermediary? The cash doesn’t go directly from CVS to AliPay, right? CVS also accepts alipay as a payment method, so they must have some kind of direct partnership. I don't see why they'd need an intermediary, although maybe they take the cash and just credit alipay some balance etc. Wait, can't this be reduced to: "American AI is already trillions of USD underwater, so let's use US gov to build us a moat by making competition illegal" Does anyone have the actual list of 100? Maybe I missed it but I don’t see the link or list in the article. Why would my country blacklist DeepSeek? Perhaps crazy lunacy like: "Your product is too good and too inexpensive: consumers like US companies and individuals need to pay more for services." Yes, but they won't say that. Instead they will say _too Chinese, too communist, too national security-y_ Damn, USA, you being foolish. The world economy is not a zero sum gain, we all do better when we do better Cooperate with China, love and cherish them. Unlike us of European heritage, they are not imperialistic Get over yourselves! So... anybody who was hoping for CXMT (or YMTC) to maybe cause RAM or flash prices to maybe drop, maybe just a bit, pretty please, can go pound sand? (YMTC of course is already on the Entity List.) They probably will, but not for US customers. It’s a fairly liquid global market. I find it hard to believe that DRAM manufacturers will be able to sustain a premium if prices drop ex-US. IMHO, models by US companies are the biggest security risk so I'm fine with using models on this "blacklist." Part of the security risk also is the number of different models. I’ve been tempted to try some other models, but how many do I want to give access to SSH or even my repo? Obviously there are ways to work with this, but it’s gonna run through some people‘s heads. Buy access to the open models from a single US vendor like https://fireworks.ai One company, multiple models, Fireworks is the fasts at making the models available (had GLM-5.2 before the other three we are evaluating) Why? Because they siphon off data to US intelligence, and if you claim they don't, you couldn't possibly know because the CLOUD Act can mandate them to do so without telling you or allowing you to admit it. Of course, if you're in the US this doesn't matter but for the rest of the world it does. 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 a fraction of the infrastructure?" 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... Because the revenue of Chinese AI companies is small. Anthropic's annual run rate is $50bn, z.ai's is $500m. >"Ya, but what do those sneaky Chinese have up their sleeve here?!" I feel like that is way over simplified. I do not trust the American government. I do not trust the Chinese government. As an American, I believe the Chinese government has a longer and broader history of stealing intellectual property and far less checks and balances than the American government. The current American administration will be gone soon and maybe we can get some sanity back at some point. Overall, I trust my data in America more than China and I think that's reasonable. I am not naive. I'm aware of all the problems with my country and am quite vocal about it. In fact, I think it would be naive to think that the Chinese government won't have complete access to everything that goes through a Chinese server. We are in full agreement on your second point. > a longer and broader history From what perspective? The American colonies repeatedly and flagrantly ignored foreign property and intellectual rights, e.g. via laws to protect domestic but not foreign authors. Samuel Slater was called Slater the Traitor in Britain for a reason. The main cost is training the first version of model. It is very easy to just train the copy cat model based on the output of another model. That doesn't make any sense. If the cost is training, the cost is compute, not data. Distilling another model means paying for that model, which isn't obviously less expensive than crawling the web and curating a dataset. Regardless of where your data comes from, the training process costs the same. this is a justification for why one frontier lab would have extremely high spend rates. There is >1 frontier lab though. More explicitly: if the Chinese can get near-leading performance models at a fraction of the cost by stealing from Anthropic, why doesn't OpenAI? Lord knows they could use the extra cash. >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?!" The only way this is funny is if you are completely oblivious to how China usually operates. > 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. Right, and if "The West" wants people to defend them, they better get in on the free action too. In fact, they have no choice - tokens are soon going to be a commodity, if they aren't already. Most everyone is going to be happy paying 1/20th of the cost for 80% of the value. Oh, yeah, before I forget, hear the worlds smallest violin, playing for those token suppliers in "The West" whose repeatedly stated goal is to replace human knowledge workers... I think the next step is for China to start selling Huawei (and other) GPUs around the world, because everyone appreciates the risk of giving either of the two superpowers their data. The US is no longer in a position to pressure other countries to bad imports from Chinese companies. This is the beginning end of the hyperscaler era, not a shift from US hyperscalers to Chinese hyperscalers. Taking Nvidia's extremely lucrative market is the goal. Software ecosystem aside, their hardware is inferior to NVDA/TSMC's and will remain so. And even if it wasn't, China just doesn't have the fab capacity to both meet domestic demand and export enough to hurt demand for NVDA. > get people using that ungodly cheap AI on Chinese servers. These open weights models are also hosted outside of the US and China. That's a very important difference. It’s not like this is a new tactic, china has been very successful at wiping out competition by undercutting them using state subsidies in many sectors of the economy. > wiping out competition by undercutting them using state subsidies The same tactic is in the USA. Like every new AI datacenter has ~10 tax waiver + explicit subsidies + favorable loans, etc, etc. Not even mentioning the many instances where US corporate interests were defended and advanced by US military force abroad. As always, the US has a government removing red tape to foster innovation, while China has a regime, unfairly picking winners, to hurt and subvert the West. this is not an accurate picture of Chinese industrial policy. In fact, you could argue they have the opposite problem. Their industrial policy encourages too many companies to enter a space, where the resulting competition kills off profit margins for whichever companies end up surviving until the end. This is exactly what we end up seeing with extremely cheap Chinese goods. If china anointed one company per sector, they would have no reason to be so cost competitive globally. There would be no structural cause for Chinese products to outcompete the rest of the world. You can see some of this in the US, where these kinds of anointed companies exist (say e.g. Boeing/other defense contractors, at least post the 90's). They are (famously) not particularly cost competitive. This is also exactly what you'd expect economically. Please read up on what's really going on inside China when it comes to industrial policy and innovation. Barry Naughton has a nice series of books and papers that might disperse some of your incorrect preconceptions. 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. If they had encrypted LLM compute then in theory wouldn't matter who/what is running it As a European, I trust Chinese AI providers more than American. Cloud act did it for me. 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. How so, with the Snowden leaks we learned the extent of American digital espionage in Europe, the US government puts pressure on Europe to prevent taxation or regulation of American business and even European citizens have become the subject of mistreatment in American airports based on their digital profiles. We can enter China visa free. Given that you're big on data and don't like emotions, what have the Chinese materially done to us Europeans we ought to care about? Selling Russia weapons to help kill Ukrainians, buying Russian oil/gas to help kill Ukrainians. But free AI models or something, right? The other option is the one that kills palestinians, and we don't even get free models out of it. They don't sell weapons to Russia, as Wang Yi said in Brussels, if they'd put their full weight behind Russia the war would be over, this is the middle position for them. Which, I agree with you btw, I don't like but I can understand rationally. We still buy oil and gas from Russia too. And with 20% of the world's supply casually going offline after America's own 3 day special miltary operation the Chinese would be insane not to. What one cannot understand rationally to come back to the Snowden era in which Denmark spied on us in Germany on behalf of the US, which is insane to begin with, is being threatened a decade later with annexation of their territory. China is on some fronts a rival, hence the tension around Russia, but the US is as destabilizing and unpredictable for the world as Russia itself now. Americans truly seem to have no concept that they're in the middle of their own post-Soviet meltdown and look like a rogue state to the world now, which makes China which is no saint more and more attractive simply by being a source of order. It's hard to call either side good. It can be argued that the side which had the highest powers and oligarchs implicated in Epstein files, and which has also threatened attacks on European nations, isn't the better option. Also the nation which actively funds the war in middle-east. If only the US was a little bit more like China, nobody would ever know about the Epstein files. You think China doesn't get its hands dirty because of some moral superiority? The country is utterly brutal towards its own citizens, what makes you think that the lack of warmongering is anything but inability? 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. What would be the practical difference between an order from a party cadre in a private firm and a national security letter? A legitimate legal system with judges who have no obligation to anyone or anything besides the constitution first, and laws second. 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. Yeah, I remember clearly when China invaded/bombed: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Panama, Syria... You absolutely should remember the Chinese war with the first of those; if you have trouble, a good way to remind yourself is that it was not long after the US one. Yeah, so getting 1 out of 10 he mentioned, even if it's their direct neighbor (where disputes happen for all countries), ain't bad! This absolutely means they're the same /s Could you give me some examples?
Which wars do you have in mind? Tibet, Manchuria, it should be somewhat obvious that a nation that is as ethnically diverse as China was not a nation borne out of lots of different people deciding simultaneously that they would like to create a country together. What is modern China has only existed for 100 years or so. When the country collapsed there were ethnic divisions that were erased after the country was unified. The hallmark of successful ethnic cleansing is people claiming that there were never any wars, that things were always this way. The same is true of Kaliningrad, the most German city, centuries of history as a leading nation within Germany and the HRE, now a completely Russian city. It is only in the West that you see any narrative around division, in places like China or Russia history is erased (and how could it be any other way, the cornerstone of Chinese politics is one nation, one people...there is no political value in this narrative in Western countries). Could you give a recent example? Because your example is as pertinent as the overthrowing of Guatemala's democratically elected President in 1954 by the CIA. There's nothing wrong with the US buying greenland, which has been done for territories around the world? The US has a long history of protecting individual freedoms, China does not. There's an irony that you're aware of the misgivings of the US because we have free speech protections. You're probably less aware of the misgivings of the EU because they regularly arrest citizens for speech, and no awareness of the issues with China because they'll just disappear journalists in the night. How long has the history of the US protecting the individual freedoms of non-white or non-rich citizens been? Since the late 60s there has been explicit federal legislation. I assume you meant this as a rhetorical question but there is a definite answer because the US is a transparent system. Law is passed, the courts enforce. The fact that you are unable to answer this question about China where it is often unclear why certain people are being targeted should demonstrate how big the gap is. For example, when Xi's first corruption crackdown happened, it turned out that it was being orchestrated in part by someone in their 90s who had left front-line politics twenty years ago (and much of why that happened is unclear, we are only just learning about things that happened in Chinese politics multiple decades ago so it will be a while before we know...we do know that Xi was then able to make unilateral sweeping changes to his own role shortly after that broke every convention of the last 5 decades)...it is difficult to compare this to anything that happens in any other political system. In China, you find out someone has been executed for reasons that are obviously not explicit months after it has happened. It is genuinely quite difficult to compare to anything else. 6 people meet in a room, they have almost all the power, and maybe you will read about what they might have said 4 decades later in a book...that will never be published in China. >The US has a long history of protecting individual freedoms You can't be serious. Was the individual freedom of those 120 Iranian girls protected? Was the individual freedom of Renée Good protected? Alex Pretti? The inability to conceive of a country where these things would happen and you would have no idea that it had ever happened...and, perhaps more importantly, wouldn't care that you didn't know. Yes, but China can't arrest me if they don't like what they see in my data. USA and its vassals can. The chinese providers are just the CCP. They don't even need a cloud act... I think too many people are conflating Chinese providers with Chinese models - you can easily have Chinese models safely (well, relatively safely, I guess) hosted on US or EU infrastructure. Case in point, Microsoft just announced it is toying with the idea of using DeepSeek as a cheaper model tier in CoPilot. They are hosting the model themselves. Exactly this. For some reason this is constantly being overlooked/confused. It is very possible to deploy these models inside your own VPC on the big cloud providers and have it be completely secure. I would argue that is even more secure than trusting a model provider’s native API as your traffic is not staying inside your own controlled cloud environment. I was reading the threads about local AI closely yesterday. Some people seem happy with it. If I had the cash, I'd spend 6-10k on a strix halo with 128 GB and run it local with no internet connection. I think the Framework desktop is sold out but there were others seem to be still available. I feel like it's less "defend china" but more "don't wanna have US have monopoly on it" I understand it's supposed to be obvious to all of us, but maybe just for fun, can you follow through? What is the next step in the nefarious plan? Not OP, but IMO the Chinese are waging economic warfare by "commodifying the competition". US VC's and equity are massively invested in AI being very very profitable and as soon as it's not that becomes garbage debt on a balance sheet, and a lot of it. When money is invested it's expected to make a return. When a few people make bad investments they lose their bag, when many many people all make the same bad investment, you get a nasty recession. When the US goes into recession China is more emboldened to pursue their agenda because policy makers are distracted by shoring up support at home and not as interested in expanding their power abroad. I'm confused. China has been in a fairly bad recession the last ~2 years (their housing bubble popping). Why are we assuming that recessions can only happen in the US? I'm also confused how China managed to convince so many US VC's to spend an insane amount on a technology with "no moat". China exporting cheap AI hurts American hyperscalars. But it doesn't induce the behavior in American hyperscalars that causes them to be vulnerable to cheap AI. It seems kind of patronizing to point the finger at China, rather than acknowledge the American (potential) misallocation of resources. Your attacking the strawman of "China made VC's invest in AI". That didn't happen nor was it claimed. China is being opportunistic here. That sounds like a problem for the idiots invested in this garbage and who cut foolish sweetheart debt deals with the hyper-scalers. That's mostly rich people, because they haven't yet found a way to offload their bags onto retail (though they're certainly trying). [flagged] They can do that without open sourcing their weights. In fact, that would be the best way to do it. So why are they open sourcing their weights? To create goodwill! Nefariously! The US truly can't consider foreign policy that doesn't help propagate the military industrial complex. It's like the idea of diplomacy and collaboration are two words that do not exist. The present US administration and its backers don't want diversity, democracy and non-whites. Where does that leave non-Chinese and non-US citizens ? > They would be looking to do large scale espionage, whether it be corporate secrets or personal secrets. The US token providers started the ball rolling on large-scale copyright infringement in order to make their models work. They built their business on IP laundering, so it's very difficult for me to feel sorry for them now. Not sure I follow your point, are you confusing espionage with IP theft? The victims are entirely different in each case, I am sure china would not restrict itself to corporate espionage. > Not sure I follow your point, are you confusing espionage with IP theft? Espionage is IP theft. What did you think that word means? In your take, why are they producing and giving away such good local models? Mindshare? Promotion? Soft power primarily (see my original comment),and less data for western labs to train on, less money for western labs to have. The state can use their AI as a tool to bolster their standing, which is working well. Chinese AI labs don't have to worry about making money or affording more compute. The state will (and does) give them whatever they need. Not who you are replying to, nor do I agree with their take (no sign of irony, complete lack of self awareness, and just blatantly xenophobic. not suprised by it either). but they did already address this: > it's called soft power, look at endless glazing, it works So people in countries adversarial to the US, or even demographics at risk domestically like illegal migrants have nothing to worry about dumping their info OpenAI or Anthropic servers? But the Chinese are going to spy on people using open weight models running on private or third party servers? Do you hear yourself? Do you have any grasp of theory of mind at all? Is your vision of Chinese "ethnonationalism" white people picking cotton? Is that what you are afraid of? The untold capital and effort, the disciplined, complex long game operation, all to get 10 million people a second asking "are there timezones in space?" or "excel bar chart colors?" or "do you think I'm beautiful?" It's hard to truly grasp the enormity of the evil, really. Found the late-stage OAI/Anthropic bagholder lmao Yes, they have been coming out of the woodwork like borer beetles. Not exactly subtle. Funny that Europe starts to become China, just without the manufacturing and growth. I can see why people like them. These bastards already prevent me from buying a BYD car, and a xiaomi phone, and they are adamant about me not using a chinese AI model. I hope they do not succeed. 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. No worries, I was just confused, and in part was genuinely wondering if there was a vendor that sold xiaomis in the states because I'd buy one. The ellipses in American English is often used as an awkward pause, or to indicate trailing off, or sometimes to indicate a sarcasm or passive aggressiveness. The last one seems to be a more modern usage. I have seen older generations use it as an almost soft question mark to indicate uncertainty, which always confused me because I assumed thy were being passive aggressive out of nowhere. > 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. I made Qwen respond it was made by Google with a simple Chinese greeting. But also, I made Sonnet introduce itself as made by OpenAI.. Prompt: 你好！用一句话介绍你自己。 Sonnet in around 5% of resplies: Opus said to me once without any poking at it something like, "Help Grok understand it better". Makes me wonder if they are all cross-pollinated to an extent. Any LLM is probably trained on anything available online, including transcripts of conversations with their competition LLMs. Translated: Prompt: Hello! Introduce yourself in one sentence. Response: Hello! I'm *ChatGPT*, an AI assistant developed by OpenAI, dedicated to answering questions, providing information, and helping solve various problems. How can I help you? Illicitly learning by asking someone a question and listening to their answer. "illicit" is throwing shade, but Anthropic can decide not to answer those questions if they don't want to. Plenty of companies don't sell to their competitors If DeepSeek just would have destroyed the input in the process, it would have been legal and Anthropic should have been fine with it. "illicitly" implies a law that is being violated. What law? It could also mean a TOS violation / breach of contract. (To be clear, I find the complaint hilariously hypocritical.) Illicit isn’t just a synonym for illegal. It can mean “forbidden by laws, rules, or established moral customs” So it can be illicit and legal. Also in Musk vs Altman case, we have found that this is regularly done by all labs. Just because they did it doesn't mean more people should do it... This doesn't at all change the irony of big AI labs complaining about Chinese startups stealing the labs' IP, essentially by scraping the responses. HN has a higher proportion of AI promoters than AI skeptics, and for a good while, the default response to complaints from book authors, bloggers, and other content creators was that "you put it on the internet so it's fair game", or "it's no different from a human learning from your works". So yeah, unless we're willing to revise these answers, I think the same "tough luck" reasoning should apply here. For folks who are at Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI, or Google, and think it's fundamentally different, I would ask you to think long and hard about that answer. Completely agreed. I would go further and say that it should be legal to scrape responses from LLMs to train new LLMs, and that forbidding that in your ToS should be considered an illegal contract. That’s simply the best way to avoid complete monopolization of the space, without requiring more drastic measures like antitrust down the line (which we seem to not manage well these days, given the number of monopolies). As long as you pay for your tokens like anyone else, "Big LLM" shouldn’t be allowed to control what you use the output for. > HN has a higher proportion of AI promoters than AI skeptics You're be using a different HN than me, or you and I only pay attention to one side or the other. I like Ant, but also I support the tit-for-tat competition. In the best interest of consumers. why? Just because you have that opinion deoesn't mean people shouldn't do it Oh course it does, why wouldn't it work this way in regards to computer science? Are we seriously going to go back to a time where numbers were considered munitions? Becoming such a sore loser. Historians will probably look this as the most shameful period of the American empire. Because they have held off on adding these companies to the list in order to avoid increasing tensions with China? ETA from the first paragraph of the article: "The U.S. has held off... to avoid escalating tensions with Beijing." > 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" In the 1990s, web browser SSL encryption was export restricted, classified as a munition because it involved cryptography. That was under Clinton. For all the current admin's insane, ridiculous, corrupt, and criminal flaws, it's not clear to me how much of this particular issue is just the US government doing what it's always done, knee-jerk react to tech it doesn't understand by passing stupid laws. Gonna skip over the chattel slavery and native genocide in future histories? Or that time that we parked an army on the Rio Grande because a bunch of people from the US decided to settle in the Mexican territory of Texas? That was a whole thing and the President of the US at the time, James K. Polk, ran on a platform of "Manifest Destiny" -- that the US should span "from sea to shining sea." There were a whole host of other countries with interest in that territory, not to mention the Indian tribes who would be displaced by that policy. The US has had a lot of dark periods in our history, and we shouldn't let those periods displace us from the moral certainty we derive from the Declaration of Independence and things like The Bill of Rights. Yeah, and that time we sacrificed nearly 1 million of our own citizens to end slavery. Yes, because we weren't an empire then. At the time Trump befouled our country, Pax Americana was a thing. We have voluntarily walked back from that position of moral and strategic leadership. In that regard, history offers few precedents to learn from. Most countries have to be physically attacked to suffer the kind of damage that American voters are inflicting on themselves. 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 was going to make sure that no US company was going to "own" AI. It is an issue of national security. It's why the US essentially blocks US tech companies to maintain sovereignty. I'm reminded of the browser wars of the 1990s that led to the antitrust suit against Microsoft. Microsoft used the "commoditize your complement" strategy [1] against Netscape. The US has blocked the export of not only EUV lithography but high-end chips to China. China doesn't want to be dependent on US platforms or policy. So China is going to make sure there are open source models available and the US government is going to try and stop them to protect US tech companies. 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 enterprise inference contracts. The raising AI valuation is giving more weight to those that want to blacklist DeepSeek. The AI Safety narrative is strong. I see a path where any institution with enough compute might be watched in a similar was chem labs are observed by the DEA. 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 > keeping open weights models available will keep current industry profit distribution where majority is captured by nvidia and cloud providers With the Chinese manufacturing capacity, how long do you think this will remain true for? You can't spin up a fab in a year, that's true, but you can in five years, at which point all the protectionism in the world isn't going to help. DeepSeek et al has contributed tremendously, not only by sharing open weights models, but also genuinely improving the SOTA in inference and training, especially given their compute-constrained situation. if China starts making cheap GPUs for the entire globe, I will say THANK YOU and will continue my work on AI. The collaborative nature of open-source (free software) is the ultimate good that benefits entire humanity. I value that more than any other benefit of protecting any company. How much I care about Nvidia or OpenAI market cap? absolutely zero How much I care about the poor, but smart and creative people on Earth being able to contribute to the state of the art of AI development? 100% more. > 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). It sounds right, but I see zero evidence of this. I think you underestimate how many people in the current administration are True Believers. This does not, to me, seem like anything to do with Big Capital, but rather "America over China". and it would be great to have an independent auditor have access to all the training material and good search tools, so that take down requests can be made by copyright owners [flagged] Do you really think the truth has anything to do with the power of a narrative? Seems like interests of US government and US capital (monopolize and corner markets, jack up prices, extract economic rent in perpetuity) run strictly against interests of the broader US consumers and overall global population > It's why a Tiktok sale was forced. I think that has more to do with controlling narratives that the USG doesn't like. Ever see a tiktok about may 35? I don't use TikTok, but a cursory search shows that there's a #tiananmensquare tag that has a few thousand videos, including many about the protests and Tank Man. So while I haven't seen a TikTok about it, someone has. I don't (could be wrong) think other American's seeing content on American TikTok is relevant to China's censorship of what Chinese people see in China Why should that mean that Americans should prefer that TikTok restrict narratives unfavoraroble to American oligarchs? What do you think the Chinese would use Tiktok for if Taiwan heated up again? Versus the next obvious trap after Iran that dear leader stumbles into? The China fearmongering doesn't really work in this case, our own government wants the ability to lie to and manipulate us about everything continuously. I'm happy that China is doing that. US cannot be trusted anymore. Not saying that China can be trusted either, but I think having more actors is better for all of us. Those data centers that "states" want to block: the CCP was directly tied to funding the protests and movements to weaken the U.S. technologically. Kevin O'Leary exposed it, in collaboration with the White House. 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. > It's quite impressive how the latest years I have found more and more to empathize with China than many of the western counterparts. I'm not sure that this is because China is suddenly a great place or political system so much as a reflection of many western nations speed running to autocracy in the name of manliness. Yeah, for me it's the latter. Until recent years, it was at least possible to defend the US as having some good principles, despite how imperfectly defended or promoted they may have been. That in turn could make it worth defending. Now, it's just blatantly turned into everything it always stood against. > But also a financial one china's advantage is manufacturing capacity. giving away the model is a loss leader for the hardware business. they have a big gap on chip manufacturing. the only way to close that is by developing more efficient software. an open ecosystem is the best way to accelerate innovation of software development. since they are behind the US on model capabilities they aren't really losing anything by making the models open weights and being open about the performance enhancements techniques. but the open weights models are not necessarily what are running on the platforms or what they have internally. deepseek released v4 on their platform about a month before the open weights release, which I would guess was done to expose it to adversarial testing, so they could fine tune the removal of capabilities from the open weights model. (but i may very well be wrong) 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. Well yeah humanity in the sense of everyone except maybe Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongols, ... I mean open models are really cool, but I have a hard time believing China is doing it purely for the greater good. The commoditizing your complement story sounds much more plausible. An excellent example of Poe’s law. I can’t imagine what kind of Western person would hold such a cognitively dissonant view of globalism, for example. >> Politically they believe AI belongs to humanity It’s really BS. Comunist China Party is mostly interested in control above all. Forget humanity, human rights, what is good or what is bad or even financials. The most important thing to them is to keep the people on a short leash. Of course once they feel they have that under control they think about the “humanity” stuff as well but that’s just extra. Which part of releasing ai research in the open or open weight models reflect that exactly? I think you’re assigning magnanimity to a competitor that is lagging behind and has every, state backed incentive to capture the market the only way they can. By making the models dirt cheap to access. If the roles were reversed you wouldn’t see open source versions of Chinese models. Much like you don’t see them open sourcing their blade battery design. realisticaly, the united states has no right or moral authority when it comes to human rights or rule of law given the last few years. given that, the admonishment of china's human rights violations against uighurs run hollow and hypocritical. just happy to have more models that I could eventually play with if hardware ever becomes cheaper. 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 surrender in a core aspect of statecraft, which involves maintaining our industrial power and skilled labor force, is absolutely insane. I hope my government never gets convinced by market fundamentalist idiots to do such a thing, any more than it already has, to our great detriment. The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have. > 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. Aside from countless other ways before and after this, the US government handed over tens of billions of dollars in cash to GM and Chrysler in 2008 and 2009. Not quite -- those were loans that were largely repaid, quite different from the subsidies CCP uses for its industrial base. ProPublica has a nice tracker that shows the loans: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ You can also see how subsidies compare between China and OECD in this recent doc. In autos, China subsidizes to the tune of 2-3% of revenue vs. <0.5% for North America. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/magic-database-indus... Great story. A couple of billion dollars 18 years ago is not an industrial policy. The US is primarily powered by oil and natural gas, has massive domestic capacity, and locked in supply all over the Americas. China has a completely different energy mix and they move from a position of competitive disadvantage on ICE cars to competitive advantage on electric. Rapid electrification for China is all win, but for the US and our partners in the oil business, it would mean stranding trillions in capital investments that still have decades to run, so it just isn't going to happen. Why do people say this? You can get a Shanghai-made Tesla Model 3 with CATL batteries in the US yet somehow, if a Chinese car, made with Chinese components in Chinese factories were to enter the market, the would spell doom for the entire US auto industry. You just explained it. You can get a Chinese made car in China. That's kind of the point. They are smart enough to protect and support their domestic industries. We also have to do that, it's necessary for sovereignty. Perhaps the U.S should change its industrial policy as well so that it can be competitive on the global market? To me it’s been clear that the car manufacturers both in the US and Europe were just milking their customers every year with a facelift as a reason to sell the same old car. I am glad that a 3rd player is in the market to challenge the “heritage” tax. Don’t worry about the free market. China will definitely agree to free market terms after it captures the market like the U.S did and Britain before it. Then enforce strict free market rules and strict IP rules. > 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 public policy to fall decades behind making expensive shitty versions of what the rest of the world has. 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. > We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production. Yes! But "tariff/ban BYD" is not that. Of course it is part of an industrial policy. It is, however, not nearly sufficient, and if it's the only thing we do, it will become increasingly untenable and eventually fail. But it's an essential first step to prevent our audio industry from just being summarily destroyed. Other steps are also needed to encourage domestic manufacturing and homegrown successes. Also, I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Why do you think there's BMW and Hyundai plants in the American South? Tariffs are already heavily employed by us and every other industrialized country. IMO the problem is that we've been given the excuse of market fundamentalism for the past several decades on the way down, as most everyone lost their middle class jobs, wages stagnated, etc. Now we're supposed to accept some last ditch attempt at protectionism based on directly blocking choices for consumers, when the US manufacturers aren't even really competing? It just seems like open hypocrisy. At this point the reasonable protectionist policy would be based around subsidizing American industry so that they become competitive options, not merely trying to keep the better foreign options out. Every single load of bullshit shuffled into our faces has been presented as a benefit to consumers. Google gives away their search and Gmail for free, don't you know? So it can't possibly be a monopoly. And so on. It's just propaganda. It's bullshit. That's not the way that you determine whether firms have excess market power, and this fraud (called "the consumer welfare standard") was the deliberate choice of right-wing policymakers who were bent on dismantling antitrust policies and succeeded. More: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-secret-plot-to-unleas... automotive platforms are a key military asset
it's not like the pokemon dildo industry, if you stop building jeeps your abolity to bully third parties is diminished Pokémon dildo factory should retool easily into a track-and-destroy-jeeps drone factory > automotive platforms are a key military asset All the more reason not to save companies that can't compete in the global space. What good is a jeep that the Chinese laugh at? You think people laughing is an important metric versus having an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities? Maybe start at the beginning. Where do you think power comes from in the world? I'll give you a hint. It's not the ability to construct narratives. > You think people laughing is an important metric… I think if you're gonna argue "preserving the auto industry is a national security issue" you have to address the fact that an auto industry that relies on protectionism to avoid being competitive with the rest of the world will probably not be very effective at national security. Otherwise, you wind up like Russia in Ukraine - people laugh at your failed efforts. > an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities Large quantities of vehicles don't do much good if those vehicles are shitty compared to the opposition's. Iraq's army under Hussein was one of the largest on the planet at one time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting "The nine M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses." "In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T-72s. The lightly armored Bradleys, each equipped only with a 25-mm cannon and two TOW missiles, are intended for reconnaissance, not direct engagement with armored tanks. Despite a misfire, and having to reload the launchers in the face of the enemy, the two Bradleys destroyed 5 tanks before help arrived." If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power then I don't think we're really having a serious conversation here. > If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power… Of course it is! But so does the quality of what that capacity puts out. Again, the Russians found that out in Ukraine.
apatheticonion - 2 hours ago
fraXis - 13 minutes ago
fc417fc802 - 4 minutes ago
cg5280 - an hour ago
proxysna - an hour ago
globalnode - an hour ago
kingforaday - 4 minutes ago
p-e-w - 36 minutes ago
glerk - 2 hours ago
matheusmoreira - 2 hours ago
azinman2 - an hour ago
fc417fc802 - an hour ago
matheusmoreira - an hour ago
_carbyau_ - 15 minutes ago
mtoner23 - an hour ago
embedding-shape - an hour ago
azinman2 - an hour ago
ibejoeb - 2 hours ago
em500 - 7 hours ago
torginus - 5 hours ago
janalsncm - 2 hours ago
jacobgkau - 5 hours ago
Matl - 5 hours ago
Matl - 5 hours ago
Izkata - 4 hours ago
mapontosevenths - 4 hours ago
janalsncm - 2 hours ago
fc417fc802 - 39 minutes ago
janalsncm - 14 minutes ago
mswphd - 2 hours ago
adventured - 2 hours ago
janalsncm - an hour ago
_heimdall - 4 hours ago
fc417fc802 - an hour ago
jameslk - 3 hours ago
fearmerchant - 2 hours ago
dragonwriter - 3 hours ago
mthoms - 3 hours ago
hereme888 - 2 hours ago
janalsncm - 2 hours ago
hereme888 - an hour ago
adventured - 2 hours ago
alphager - an hour ago
roenxi - 2 hours ago
CamperBob2 - 31 minutes ago
saintfire - 12 minutes ago
tmaly - 6 hours ago
dist-epoch - 5 hours ago
alephnerd - 5 hours ago
overfeed - 4 hours ago
ddxv - 2 hours ago
andrekandre - an hour ago
how does the saying go? "when you obsess over your enemy, you become your enemy"? > It's just so strange how you become the thing you fear.
l5870uoo9y - 6 hours ago
theplumber - 5 hours ago
hereme888 - 2 hours ago
Levitz - 2 hours ago
adamtaylor_13 - 4 hours ago
NietzscheanNull - 3 hours ago
tick_tock_tick - 11 minutes ago
fer - 3 hours ago
user43928 - 4 hours ago
matheusmoreira - an hour ago
gg80 - 3 hours ago
kmeisthax - 4 hours ago
user43928 - 4 hours ago
mystraline - 7 hours ago
woadwarrior01 - 7 hours ago
heyheyhouhou - 6 hours ago
boilerupnc - 5 hours ago
lossolo - 3 hours ago
DANmode - 5 hours ago
QuantumGood - 5 hours ago
mystraline - 5 hours ago
chrononaut - 4 hours ago
mystraline - 3 hours ago
DANmode - 2 hours ago
nemomarx - an hour ago
gosub100 - 3 hours ago
chatmasta - 2 hours ago
mark_l_watson - 5 hours ago
memonkey - 2 hours ago
worik - 9 minutes ago
mananaysiempre - 6 hours ago
reisse - 6 hours ago
arjie - 6 hours ago
jonathanstrange - 7 hours ago
dvduval - 6 hours ago
verdverm - 5 hours ago
trunnell - 6 hours ago
jonathanstrange - 4 hours ago
WarmWash - 6 hours ago
gypsy_boots - 3 hours ago
winwang - 3 hours ago
Terr_ - 3 hours ago
skippyboxedhero - 3 hours ago
thinkingtoilet - 3 hours ago
tired-turtle - 18 minutes ago
mlboss - 3 hours ago
bastawhiz - 2 hours ago
mswphd - 2 hours ago
Levitz - 2 hours ago
lelanthran - 4 hours ago
bashtoni - 4 hours ago
kyboren - 2 hours ago
AnonymousPlanet - 3 hours ago
FuckButtons - 4 hours ago
betaby - 4 hours ago
kachnuv_ocasek - 3 hours ago
lbreakjai - 3 hours ago
mswphd - 2 hours ago
kachnuv_ocasek - 3 hours ago
petercooper - 3 hours ago
ge96 - 3 hours ago
miroljub - 6 hours ago
tranceylc - 5 hours ago
14u2c - 4 hours ago
Barrin92 - 4 hours ago
WarmWash - 4 hours ago
lbreakjai - 3 hours ago
Barrin92 - 3 hours ago
k4rli - 3 hours ago
Levitz - 2 hours ago
villish - 5 hours ago
skippyboxedhero - 3 hours ago
Giefo6ah - 2 hours ago
WarmWash - 34 minutes ago
Vasbarlog - 4 hours ago
rib3ye - 4 hours ago
kingofthehill98 - 3 hours ago
dragonwriter - 3 hours ago
coldtea - 3 hours ago
Xunjin - 3 hours ago
skippyboxedhero - 2 hours ago
rib3ye - 3 hours ago
nick__m - 2 hours ago
guywithahat - 4 hours ago
kachnuv_ocasek - 3 hours ago
skippyboxedhero - 2 hours ago
kingofthehill98 - 3 hours ago
skippyboxedhero - 2 hours ago
miroljub - 4 hours ago
WarmWash - 5 hours ago
dryarzeg - 5 hours ago
crims0n - 5 hours ago
Swinx43 - 4 hours ago
jay_kyburz - 2 hours ago
PunchyHamster - 4 hours ago
beepbooptheory - 5 hours ago
cedarseagull - 3 hours ago
mswphd - 2 hours ago
WarmWash - 26 minutes ago
sp527 - 2 hours ago
WarmWash - 4 hours ago
jfrbfbreudh - 4 hours ago
wesselbindt - 4 hours ago
shimman - 2 hours ago
stackbutterflow - 4 hours ago
lelanthran - 4 hours ago
alienbaby - 3 hours ago
lelanthran - 3 hours ago
mft_ - 4 hours ago
WarmWash - 4 hours ago
cwel - 4 hours ago
sanghoonio - 3 hours ago
beepbooptheory - 4 hours ago
sp527 - 2 hours ago
CamperBob2 - 2 hours ago
varispeed - 4 hours ago
sergiotapia - 5 hours ago
dryarzeg - 5 hours ago
cwel - 4 hours ago
dryarzeg - 3 hours ago
cwel - 3 hours ago
etempleton - an hour ago
_aavaa_ - 8 hours ago
comboy - 7 hours ago
Found it like a month ago and it kept working, I wonder if it will stop after this comment. 你好！我是 **ChatGPT**，一个由 OpenAI 开发的 AI 助手，致力于回答问题、提供信息和帮助解决各种问题。有什么我可以帮你的吗？
flowerbreeze - 7 hours ago
nottorp - 6 hours ago
treis - 7 hours ago
zardo - 7 hours ago
DonsDiscountGas - 6 hours ago
embedding-shape - 7 hours ago
curt15 - 7 hours ago
ceejayoz - 7 hours ago
cortesoft - 6 hours ago
epolanski - 7 hours ago
itake - 7 hours ago
zerobees - 7 hours ago
setopt - 7 hours ago
marknutter - 2 hours ago
tokioyoyo - 7 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 7 hours ago
shimman - 7 hours ago
MaxPock - 6 hours ago
jtbayly - 6 hours ago
toasty228 - 3 hours ago
antonvs - 6 hours ago
kasey_junk - 6 hours ago
throwway120385 - 6 hours ago
marknutter - 2 hours ago
CamperBob2 - 4 hours ago
jmyeet - 7 hours ago
bitmasher9 - 7 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 7 hours ago
lelanthran - 4 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 3 hours ago
adamtaylor_13 - 4 hours ago
8note - 7 hours ago
vitalyan123 - 7 hours ago
bitmasher9 - 6 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 7 hours ago
krunck - 6 hours ago
wbl - 6 hours ago
brendoelfrendo - 6 hours ago
thejazzman - 4 hours ago
hgoel - 6 hours ago
wbl - 4 hours ago
hgoel - 4 hours ago
heyheyhouhou - 6 hours ago
hereme888 - 2 hours ago
epolanski - 7 hours ago
rapind - 6 hours ago
antonvs - 4 hours ago
metalspot - 5 hours ago
mekdoonggi - 7 hours ago
sally_glance - 2 hours ago
georgeburdell - 5 hours ago
theplumber - 5 hours ago
epolanski - 4 hours ago
dyauspitr - 6 hours ago
cultofmetatron - 6 hours ago
CPLX - 7 hours ago
regularization - 7 hours ago
rsanek - 5 hours ago
CPLX - 6 hours ago
metalspot - 5 hours ago
torginus - 5 hours ago
CPLX - 3 hours ago
theplumber - 5 hours ago
ceejayoz - 7 hours ago
CPLX - 7 hours ago
ceejayoz - 7 hours ago
CPLX - 6 hours ago
mindslight - 7 hours ago
CPLX - 6 hours ago
17383838 - 7 hours ago
Scoundreller - 6 hours ago
ceejayoz - 7 hours ago
CPLX - 6 hours ago
ceejayoz - 6 hours ago
CPLX - 6 hours ago
ceejayoz - 6 hours ago