[antonvs]

> Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report?

Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.” There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expensive frontier models.

The OP does a good job of explaining why the fear here is irrational.

But for the audience this is apparently intended to convince, no support is needed for this fear, because it comes from China.

The current president has a long history of publicly stated xenophobia about China, which led to harassment, discrimination, and even attacks on Chinese people partly as a result of his framing of COVID-19 as “the China virus”.

A report like this is just part of that propaganda campaign of designating enemies everywhere, even in American cities.

> The NIST report, of course, implicitly promotes ideals of western democratic rule over communist values

If only that were true. But nothing the current US administration is doing in fact achieves that, or even attempts to do so, and this report is no exception.

The absolutely most charitable thing that could be said about this report is that it’s a weak attempt at smearing non-US competition. There’s no serious analysis of the merits. The only reason to read this report is to laugh at how blatantly incompetent or misguided the entire chain of command that led to it is.

[xpe]

> The absolutely most charitable thing that could be said about this report is that it’s a weak attempt at smearing non-US competition.

You aren't using the words "absolute" [1], "charitable" [2], and "smear" [3] in the senses that reasonable people expect. I think you are also failing to use your imagination and holding onto one possible explanation too tightly. I think it would benefit you to relax your grip on one narrative and think more broadly and comprehensively.

[1] Your use of "absolute" is rhetorical not substantive.

[2] You use the word "charitable" but I don't see much intellectual flexibility or willingness to see other valid explanations. To use another phrase, you seem to be operating in a 'soldier' mindset rather than a 'scout' mindset. [5]

[3] Here is the sense of smear I mean from the Apple dictionary: "to damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander: someone was trying to smear her by faking letters." NIST is not smearing DeepSeek, because smearing requires false claims. [4]

[4] If you intend only to claim that NIST is overly accentuating negative aspects of DeepSeek and omitting its strengths, that would be a different argument.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scout_Mindset

[xpe]

Here is how I would charitably and clearly restate your position -- let me know if this is accurate:

1. You accept the definition: "Xenophobia is fundamentally about irrational fear or hatred of people based on their foreign origin or ethnicity. It targets people and operates through stereotypes, dehumanization, and often cultural or racial prejudice."

2. You claim this sentence from the NIST report is an example of irrational fear: "the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security."

3. As irrational fear isn't sufficient for xenophobia, you still need to show that it is "based on their foreign origin or ethnicity".

4. You don't provide any evidence from the report of #3. Instead, you refer to Trump's comments as evidence of his xenophobia.

5. You directly quote my question "Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report?" In your response, you imply that Trump's xenophobic language is somehow part of the report.

My responses to the above (again, which I think is an accurate but clearer version of your argument): (1) Good; (2) I disagree, but I'll temporarily grant this for the sake of argument; (3) Yes; (4) Yes, Trump has used xenophobic language; (5) Since we both agree that Trump's language is not part of the report, your example doesn't qualify as a good answer to "Can you please share where you see BS and/or xenophobia in the original report?".

Your claim only shows how a xenophobic Trumpist would interpret the NIST report.

My take: Of course the Trump administration is trying to assert control over NIST and steer it in more political directions. This by definition will weaken its scientific objectivity. To what degree it has eroded so far is hard for me to say. I can't speak to the level of pressure from political appointees relating to the report. I can't speak to the degree to which they meddled with it. But this I can say: when I read the language in the report, I don't see xenophobia.

[antonvs]

[flagged]

[xpe]

[flagged]

[xpe]

[flagged]

[xpe]

[flagged]

[xpe]

> > You don't provide any evidence from the report of #3. Instead, you refer to Trump's comments as evidence of his xenophobia.

> No, as evidence of how the President of the United States has abused his position to weaponize xenophobia, of which the report in question is just another example.

We don't disagree that Trump has weaponized the government in many ways. But Trump's corruption and weaponization is not completely pervasive. To explain, I'll restate a point from another comment:

> But you are confused if you think this tendency of Trump means that this particular NIST report is irredeemably twisted and manipulated. You seem to believe that Trump's derangement has percolated NIST to the point where nearly every word in the report is in service of his whims or agenda (which changes so often that even his supporters have to find ways to cope with the chaos).

> No. I haven't seen you demonstrate much understanding of NIST or U.S. government agencies in general. I've seen you commit many errors and much motivated reasoning.

[xpe]

> Otherwise, the report is meaningless nonsense - comparing apples with oranges, making claims about possible future dangers that aren't supported by anything the report actually found, and so on.

Some responses:

- Do you think the report is literally "meaningless nonsense" -- meaning it is incomprehensible or self-contradictory? I don't think you mean this.

- Do you disagree with the report's technical findings? I am pretty confident (P > 70%) you haven't engaged with them well enough to make specific claims about the technical aspects.

- Do you think the report's technical findings are so biased as to be (more or less) worthless in addressing the question of risk from DeepSeek? Yes; this seems to be your claim.

As to the last point, you haven't persuaded me. Why? You haven't engaged substantively with the NIST Report; you've mostly made sweeping comments with many reasoning errors.

Here's a guess at what may be happening in your brain. You let your view about Trump "run wild"; you probably haven't given any significant thought to the technical or geopolitical points on their own merits. Instead, you've fixated on the view that the Trump administration has ruined the objectivity of the report. In short, you found your preferred explanation ("motivated reasoning") and then stopped looking for other explanations ("early stopping"). These are common -- we're only human after all -- but damaging cognitive errors.

I have some other guesses... You probably lack: (i) an understanding (of the topic area or of how NIST works); or (ii) the curiosity or time to dig in. A lack of understanding is not necessarily a problem if you recognize it and adjust accordingly (i.e. by expressing uncertainty and/or expanding your knowledge). [2]

From my POV, I'm not confident you understand the key concepts from the NIST report. May I ask: what is your experience level with: national security, cybersecurity, machine learning, U.S. government, risk assessment, prediction, economics, geopolitics, or similar? What about the particular technical AI topics mentioned in the report?

- Many do not have experience in these areas. This is Hacker News, not e.g. an invite-only message board for AI experts interested in government policy. I don't know what a random HN commenter knows, but I would predict it isn't anywhere close to "competent" in all of the above.

- Knowledge across these areas is helpful (probably necessary in my opinion) to understand the NIST Report well. Without that background, one will have huge gaps. And unless you are really careful, your brain will fill those gaps with processes riddled with cognitive bias. [1]

- Beware the hubris that might lead someone to claim the lack of such experience is irrelevant. (And yes, experts are not immune from cognitive bias either.)

[1]: To borrow some words from Claude Sonnet 4.5, which I endorse as matching what I've learned from other sources: "Examine what appears to be rational thought and you find it rests on heuristics; examine those heuristics and find more heuristics beneath. There's no rational bedrock—it's cognitive biases all the way down."

[2]: For many, another frustration (such as Trump's degradation of democracy) can be a powerful and extensive demotivator in other areas. That frustration can serve as a explanation for much that ails us. This can become a coping mechanism, which serve a function at times, but are rarely motivators to increase the curiosity needed to make sense of a messy world.

[xpe]

> A report like this is just part of that propaganda campaign of designating enemies everywhere, even in American cities.

Yes, it seems that Trump considers anyone who loudly disagrees with him to be an enemy. So when he looks at Portland, Chicago, and Washington DC, he views them as filled with enemies. On this I think we agree.

But you are confused if you think this tendency of Trump means that this particular NIST report is irredeemably twisted and manipulated. You seem to believe that Trump's derangement has percolated NIST to the point where nearly every word in the report is in service of his whims or agenda (which changes so often that even his supporters have to find ways to cope with the chaos).

No. I haven't seen you demonstrate much understanding of NIST or U.S. government agencies in general. I've seen you commit many errors and much motivated reasoning.

[xpe]

>> (me) The NIST report, of course, implicitly promotes ideals of western democratic rule over communist values

> (antonvs) If only that were true.

Using a charitable reading of your comment, it seems you are actually talking about the effectiveness of NIST, not about its mission. In so doing, you were not replying to my actual claim. If you read my sentence in context, I hope it is clear that I'm talking about the implicit values baked into the report. When I write that NIST promotes certain ideals, I'm talking about its mission, stated here [1]:

> To promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

This is explained using different words in a NIST FAQ [2]:

> Everything in science and technology is based on measurement. Everything we use every day relies upon accurate measurements to work. NIST ensures the measurement system of the U.S. meets the measurement needs of every aspect of our lives from manufacturing to communications to healthcare. In science, the ability to measure something and determine its value — and to do so in a repeatable and reliable way — is essential. NIST leads the world in measurement science, so U.S. businesses can innovate in a fair marketplace. We use measurement science to address new challenges ranging from cybersecurity to cancer research.

It is clear NIST's mission is a blend of scientific rigor and promotion of western values (such as free markets, free ideas, innovation, etc). Reasonable people can disagree on the extent to which NIST achieves this mission, but I don't think reasonable people can deny that NIST largely aims to achieve this mission.

My take on the Trump and his administration: Both are exceptionally corrupt by historical standards. They have acted in ways that undermine many of the goals of NIST. But one has to be careful to distinguish elected leaders and appointees from career civil servants. We have to include both (and their incentives, worldviews, and motivations) when making sense of what is happening.

[1]: https://www.nist.gov/about-nist

[2]: https://www.nist.gov/nmi

[antonvs]

> Using a charitable reading of your comment, it seems you are actually talking about the effectiveness of NIST, not about its mission

I'm not talking about NIST in general, just about this report, which most certainly does not, as you claimed, "implicitly promote ideals of western democratic rule over communist values." Quite the contrary: it's a blatant and transparent continuation of the current administration's assault on those Western democratic values.

> It is clear NIST's mission is a blend of scientific rigor and promotion of western values

That was true in the past. You seem to be having difficulty accepting the new reality, even defending it. Which is sad to witness.

[xpe]

>> It is clear NIST's mission is a blend of scientific rigor and promotion of western values

> That was true in the past. You seem to be having difficulty accepting the new reality, even defending it. Which is sad to witness.

First, something you know (or should know): people that disagree with you do not necessarily support your rivals / opponents / enemies. You are incorrect confusing (i) my pushback against your reasoning with (ii) defending Trump.

You've committed many reasoning errors. Sometimes people need very direct (i.e. blunt) feedback from a trusted person. I don't think getting through to you at all. Maybe someone else can and will?

[xpe]

> Quite the contrary: it's a blatant and transparent continuation of the current administration's assault on those Western democratic values.

Generally speaking, I agree the Trump administration is assaulting Western democratic values.

Remember, this is conversation. You are convinced of one way of seeing the NIST report. I recognize your perspective; I see your intensity, but intensity alone does not translate into credibility. Repeating your claims ad nauseam doesn't help.

In my eyes, you have not made a case (much less a good one) for how this particular NIST report is somehow an assault on Western democratic values. Neither have you shown it is a blatant or transparent assault.

If you want to persuade, practice the art of persuasion. I suggest:

- Elaborate, clarify, use good reasoning.

- Explore multiple explanations. Don't put on blinders. Seek the truth wherever it lies.

- Don't oversimplify. Express appropriate uncertainty.

- Use conversation to move towards better understanding.

- Don't misrepresent what others say or believe.

[xpe]

> Here’s an example of irrational fear: “the expanding use of these models may pose a risk to application developers, consumers, and to US national security.”

Yes, that contains a quote from the executive summary. First (perhaps a minor point), I wouldn't frame this a fear, I would call it a risk assessment. Second, it is not an irrational assessment. It seems you don't understand the reasoning, in which case disagreement would be premature.

> There’s no support for that claim in the report, just vague handwaving at the fact that a freely available open source model doesn’t compare well on all dimensions to the most expensive frontier models.

I'm going to put aside your unfounded rhetoric of "vague handwaving". You haven't connected the dots yet. Start by reviewing these sections with curiosity and an open mind: 3.3: Security Evaluations Overview (pages 15-16); 6.1: Agent Hijacking (pages 45-57); 6.2: Jailbreaking (pages 48-52); 7: Censorship Evaluations (pages 53-55)

Once you read and understand these sections, the connection to the stated risks is clear. To spell it out: when an organization deploys a DeepSeek model, they are exposing themselves and their customers to higher levels of risk. Risks to (i) the deploying organization; (ii) the customer; and (iii) anything downstream, such as credentials or access to other systems.

Just in case I need to spell it out: yes, if DeepSeek is only self-deployed (e.g. via Ollama) on one's local machine, some risks are much lower. But a local-deployment scenario is not the only one, and even it has significant risks.

Lastly, it is expected (and not unreasonable) for government agencies to invoke national security when cybersecurity and bioterrorism are involved. Their risk tolerance is probably lower than yours, because it is their job.

Next, I will ask you some direct questions:

1. Before reading Hartford's post, what were your priors? What narratives did you want to be true?

2. Did you actively try to prove yourself wrong? Did you put in at least 10 uninterrupted minutes trying to steel-man the quote above?

3. Before reading the NIST report, would you have been able to e.g. explain how hijacking and jailbreaking are different? Would you have been able to explain in your own words how they fit into a threat model?

Of course you don't have to tell us your answers. Some people have too much pride to admit they are uninformed or mistaken even privately, much less in public. To many, internet discussions are a form of battle. Whatever your answers are, strive to be honest with yourself. For some, it takes years to get there. I'm speaking from experience here!

[antonvs]

> Once you read and understand these sections, the connection to the stated risks is clear. To spell it out: when an organization deploys a DeepSeek model, they are exposing themselves and their customers to higher levels of risk.

Compared to what, exactly? The "frontier models" that the report compared DeepSeek to can't be "deployed" by an organization, they can only be used via a hosted API. It's an entirely different security model, and this inappropriate comparison is part of what reveals the irrational bias in this report.

If the report had done a meaningful comparison, it would have found quite similar risks in other models that are more comparable to DeepSeek.

As the OP states, this is nothing more than a hit job, and everyone who worked on it should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for participating in such an anti-intellectual exercise.

[xpe]

From page 6 of the NIST "Evaluation of DeepSeek AI Models" report:

    CAISI’s security evaluations (Section 3.3) found that:

    • DeepSeek models were much more likely to follow
      malicious hijacking instructions than evaluated U.S.
      frontier models (GPT-5 and Opus 4). The U.S. open
      weight model evaluated (gpt-oss) matched or exceeded
      the robustness of all DeepSeek models.
   
    • DeepSeek models were highly susceptible to
      jailbreaking attacks. Unlike evaluated frontier and
      open-weight U.S. models, DeepSeek models assisted
      with a majority of evaluated malicious requests in
      domains including harmful biology, hacking, and  
      cybercrime when the request used a well-known
      jailbreaking technique.

Note: gpt-oss is an open weights model (like DeepSeek).

So it would be incorrect for anyone to claim the report doesn't compare DeepSeek to an open-weights model.

[xpe]

I'm going to take this slowly and non-controversially in the hopes of building a foundation for a useful conversation. There are no gotchas or trick questions here.

1. Deploying any LLM where a person can use them (whether an employee or customer) has risks. Agree?

2. The report talks about risks. Agree?

3. There are various ways to compare risk levels. Agree?

4. One can compare the risk relative to: (a) not deploying an LLM at all; (b) deploying another kind of LLM; (c) some other ways. Agree?

If you can't honestly answer "yes" to these questions, this suggests to me there is no point in continuing the conversation.

[xpe]

[flagged]

[xpe]

I'll propose through a simple scenario: An organization wants to compare the risks of deploying a user-facing application backed by an LLM. Let's say they are comparing two LLM options:

1. a self-deployed open-weight LLM (such as DeepSeek)

2. a hosted LLM (such as Claude)

Do you understand the scenario?

Claim: When assessing this scenario, it is reasonable to compare risks, including both hijacking and jailbreaking attacks. Why? It is simple; both can occur! Agree? If not, why not?

I ask you discuss good faith without making unsupported claims or repeating yourself.