[xpe]

Of course there will be some degree of governmental and/or political influence. The question is not if but where and to what extent.

No one should proclaim "bullshit" and wave off this entire report as "biased" or useless. That would be insipid. We live in a complex world where we have to filter and analyze information.

[pk-protect-ai]

This kind of BS is exactly what they targeting at. Tailoring BS into "report" with no evidence or reference and then let the ones like you defend it. Just because you already afraid or want others to be afraid.

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

[xpe]

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

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

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

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

[xpe]

> ... into "report" with no evidence or reference

If one takes a few minutes to review the NIST report [1], one will indeed find evidence and references detailed in the footnotes.

Without judgment, I ask: How did you miss this? I'm certainly not asking you to defend yourself, which would likely trigger rationalization [2]. I am asking you to sincerely try to figure it out for yourself. Under what conditions do you have the ability to admit that you are wrong, even if only to yourself?

[1]: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2025/09/30/CAISI...

[2]: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Rationa...

[xpe]

The comment above is problematic for various reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[garyfirestorm]

did you even read the article? when you download open source deep seek model and run it yourself - zero packets are being transmitted. thereby disproving the fundamental claim in the NIST report (additionally NIST doesn't provide any evidence to support their claim) This is basic science and no amount of politicking should ever challenge something this fundamental!

[nylonstrung]

Meanwhile we know for a fact that Gemini for example uses chat logs to build a social graph and Google is complicit in NSA surveillance

Not to mention Anthropic says Claude will eventually automatically report you to authorities if you ask it to do something "unethical"

[xpe]

> Not to mention Anthropic says Claude will eventually automatically report you to authorities if you ask it to do something "unethical"

Are you referring to the situation described in the May 22, 2025 article by Carl Franzen in VentureBeat [1]? If so, at a minimum, one should recognize the situation is complex enough to warrant a careful look for yourself to wade through the confusion. Speaking for myself, I don't have anything close to a "final take" yet.

[1]: https://venturebeat.com/ai/anthropic-faces-backlash-to-claud...

[xpe]

> Not to mention Anthropic says Claude will eventually automatically report you to authorities if you ask it to do something "unethical"

Citation? Let's see if your claim checks out -- and if it is worded fairly.

[xpe]

> when you download open source deep seek model and run it yourself - zero packets are being transmitted. thereby disproving the fundamental claim in the NIST report (additionally NIST doesn't provide any evidence to support their claim)

You are confused about what the NIST report claimed. Please review the NIST report and try to find a quote that matches up with what you just said. I predict you won’t find it. Prove me wrong?

Please review the claims that the NIST report actually makes. Compare this against Eric Hartford’s article. When I do this, Hartford comes across as confused and/or intellectually dishonest.

[xpe]

> did you even read the article?

I am not going to dignify this with a response.

Please review the hacker news guidelines.

[xpe]

Notice the similarity between the above comment and what the HN Guidelines [1] advise against:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[antonvs]

Have you found any actual value in this report? What, specifically?

It compares a fully open model to two fully closed models - why exactly?

Ironically, it doesn’t even work as an analysis of any real national security threat that might arise from foreign LLMs. It’s purely designed to counter a perceived threat by smearing it. Which is entirely on-brand for the current administration, which operates almost purely at the level of perception and theater, never substance.

If anything, calling it biased bullshit is too kind. Accepting this sort of nonsense from our government is the real security threat.

[xpe]

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

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

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

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

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