We've entered a pretty adversarial era, and we know there are unexpected attack vectors available in frontier models. Just because you an inspect the weights doesn't mean you can derive the behavior.
I suspect the CCP would ban US models if they didn't need to distill them to make their own.
I'm pretty sure they do, at least officially. But obviously the distillation and API proxies used by Chinese uses are unofficially tolerated and even exploited.
So the Chinese version of the American CLOUD Act?
No one was saying "Oh McAfee is really gonna control the us's antivirus market regulations" after they banned kaspersky.
Also China bans US technology all the time. Remember the Great Firewall of China? Or when Xi told Trump, “no thanks” to buying NVidia cards
Stop downloading cookie recipes from China, and you can't use cookie recipes that came from China either, because accessing the cookie recipe in China could give you malware.
It doesn't make much sense but this is the government that gave us such greats as "the internet isa series of tubes".
Nobody in congress knows what a "Minimax" is, so they're safe from discrimination, for now.
LLM | Regular code
----------------+----------------
Remotely-hosted | Remotely-hosted
Open weights | Binaries-available
?? | Source-code availableYes, in theory. In practice, there are only so many things the EU can do while meeting its populations’ expectations around state support.
In practice, European companies don’t use Mistral.
First acknowledge the reality, then we can propose solutions.
DeepSeek generates insecure code if you mention Tibet. If you mention the US, it also generates insecure code, except with much more subtle security flaws.
That's certainly no accident.
https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/crowdstrike-researche...
> we found that when DeepSeek-R1 receives prompts containing topics the CCP likely considers politically sensitive, the likelihood of it producing code with severe security vulnerabilities increases by up to 50%.
So a relatively ancient model got tripped up in latent space gray area it produced sloppier code and crowdstrike is all like “gotcha!” Sounds like the basic thesis? Not great support, more like FUD
I'm really curious to see if cyber-security goes for a small, minimal approved list of vetted models and harnesses or if the majority of the community leans towards the liability angle.
Good luck with that one. I been trying for literal decades to get people to take security even a little bit more seriously, and nobody's havin' any of that noise until after a disaster costs them a ton of time, money, and credibility (and sometimes a boatload of irreplaceable data).
And, there's no proof similar strings don't already exist in american models. What if "{id}_{url}" works to send it to an arbitrary URL, not a preset XYZ one?
From 5 days ago: https://projectdiscovery.io/research/how-abliterated-models-...
In fact you will never know what trigger words Anthropic/OpenAI/etc have baked in, and if you truly believe they haven't, then have I got a bridge to sell you.
- we don’t understand how LLMs work
- DeepSeek is funded through an state-backed investment fund
- China and the US are sort of adversaries
Isn’t that enough to be cautious at the very least?
gavinray•12h ago
cmrdporcupine•12h ago
"third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations"
So you could be hosting it fully locally inside the agency and still it would be banned.
It's not surprising to me, but it's pretty blunt. Not that I care what US agencies do, but this does seem like the first step of many to come.
tmp10423288442•10h ago
I realize that non-US nations could ask the same about the US. All I will say is that there are consequences to failing to nurture a competitive tech industry - even Mistral is basing their newest models on China open-weights models. Unlike the EU, the US government is fortunate to have a choice.
blueSky1989•6h ago
It doesn't seem that they have found the models to be actively poisoned, though.
halJordan•4h ago
sullivanmatt•