| > 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 |