Australia leading the way - our fully informed and highly tech literate (avg age of House of Reps ~=52yo) government banned Deepseek in February last year, including downloadable GGUF's - with some nebulously hand-wavy 'it's just too dangerous' safety claims:
Isn't using age as a proxy for technical literacy rather fraught? It seems to me just as much an abuse of stereotypes as other sexist or racist comments.
I agree that the demographics are probably correct, but we're not supposed to assume that all individuals conform to group stereotypes. And that ought to be doubly true when we're not selecting those individuals at random, but we're (putatively) selecting them for their wisdom and other skills.
While it's certainly a minority of America's Congress, there are lots of people there that clearly have strong skills in technology or the sciences: Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), all of whom are over 50 years old, just to name a few.
No, it's not particularly fraught. There are plenty of old people who love technology and stay current. They are also a tiny minority. It's pretty reasonable to expect that an octogenarian is not going to be technically literate, on average. The reverse is not true, of course. You can't assume that because someone is 30 years old they are technically literate.
USA has age limits for the executive and that isn't considered an issue. We should have age limits at the top end as well. It isn't only technology. I don't think 80+ year olds should be driving a car or even operating a McDonalds much less making sweeping long term decisions across dozens of disciplines with little to no research.
True, but that prevalence is not a constant. In fact, across the broader landscape of human history, that appears to be a relatively recent development, and almost certainly environmental/toxins related. For example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2479344-dementia-cases-...
Until last year (when he was 95), he was operating the world's largest holding company by assets and revenue.
It was also the first non-tech company to reach $1T market cap.
And, its class A stock was by far the most expensive stock in the world at $740,000 per share, more than 100x more expensive than any other US stock.
So, yeah, I think he'd be qualified to operate maybe even two McDonalds. Maybe he could even be driven to them.(Coincidentally, he is a HUGE McDonalds and Coke fan and has eaten there almost every morning for over 50 years.)
Disrespecting older people seems to be a hobby as old as Father Time.
Can you articulate a clear rule that allows me to use age-focused stereotypes, but prevents me from using race- or sex- or gender- focused stereotypes? Why is one OK but not the other? Is it just that you perceive that the age ones are true in a greater proportion of cases, and if so, how do we determine where to draw that line?
These old people started their career when computer use became a job requirement for any office work. A few years more and homes got saturated as well. A 52 yo was 20 thirty years ago, in 1996. Have you heard about Napster, MS Office, Netscape, Windows 95 / NT, Hotmail, AOL, Messenger, ICQ, Doom, C&C, .... hundreds more. And everything else since. They had to live through those every day, keyboard+screen instead of pen+paper.
...aren't you confusing them with the generation above 80?
You're right, and as someone north of that age, and who self-assess as mildly competent with technology, I didn't mean to imply a linear correlated.
I'm aware our (AU) representatives & senate average age is relatively low compared to US / UK, and I think that figure (52 ish) is probably relatively healthy in terms of a spread of younger + experienced minds.
But OTOH, our government has form on this front (of doing as our friends over the pond instruct, and of not really understanding the technology around which they are formulating laws) and I should probably have pointed at that aspect, but it's harder to succinctly convey that track record.
50+ year olds seen and used and made more than 30 years worth of constantly evolving technology, their life was saturated with it for 3 decades. Was this what the poster wanted to say perhaps? ; )
What's (probably) incorrect is drawing conclusions based on A without considering the Bs in the population.
Consider: the leading cause of death for young black men is being killed by other black men. Not all young black men! Lots of them are pretty good! Both of those statements are true. What's incorrect is to use it to draw conclusions like "so police should stop and frisk young black men" or "we should avoid endangering the rest of our employees by hiring young black men".
The top-level comment was using age stereotypes to "prove" that an older legislative body is going to misunderstand technology, and therefore produce bad regulation. Showing that the argument was wrong because stereotypes aren't universal, and because in this case there's reason to believe that the samples are selected in a way that would tend to avoid the stereotype, isn't "tone policing". It's directly attacking the argument itself of that parent comment.
no, you did not prove anything. Boomers are indeed bad in tech in general, and the presence of few tech literate does not change the general population
Nope, both statements are completely wrong because 52 years old, and thereabouts, is GenX not Boomer.
And yes it makes a difference. They would have grown up with the first home computers like the 8 bit C64 or ZX Spectrum, and later the 16 bit Amiga A500 or Atari ST.
>"while the U.S. House is 59 and the Senate is 65."
The average is probably highly misleading. Young folks have started filtering in from the oldest retiring or expiring, but all of the institutional power still lies in the 70+ crowd. Chuck Grassley, 95, is third in line for the presidency right now.
> If u lost ur pet pidgin /it’s dead in front yard my Iowa farm JUST DISCOVERED here r identifiers Right leg Blue 2020/3089/AU2020/SHE ///LEFT LEG GREEN BAND NO PRINTED INFO. Sorry for bad news
It is typical that they conflated the website chat interface to DeepSeek-hosted inference with Amazon and other hyperscaler inference, and self-hosted / on-prem inference. Of course they also confused testing vs production, and left grey what is means when another company re-spins an open weight model (e.g. Cloudflare Clef is Alibaba Qwen derived).
They haven't officially banned Qwen, Kimi etc, but the same risks apply, and I think a ban is coming (certainly is in the USA). It is quite possible for any or all of these models to have a Ken Ritchie style self-propagating back door[1] or a simple phone home baked into the weights[2], and possibly triggerable misalignment in specific circumstances caused by poisoned training data.
Do you mean Ken Thompson?
There is apparently a famous talk named "Reflections on Trusting Trust"by Ken Thompson - the one where he describes how a compiler can be tricked to insert a Trojan horse that reproduces itself even when the source is "clean".
I think K&R (Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie) are very close in my brain's feature space. Reference [1] is the article you are referring to. An AI trojan could conceivably insert itself into the model weights / training data on systems it had access to.
>"government banned Deepseek in February last year, including downloadable GGUF's - with some nebulously hand-wavy 'it's just too dangerous'"
With the latest research on backdoored weights this really isn't tinfoil hat territory at all, and trusting every individual agency to fully vet what they're hosting and not use 3rd party inference is a tall order. I can't blame them.
Other than "it's cheap!", what is there to giving your data to a non-deterministic program written by a geopolitical rival that has a long history of malicious intrusion on Western networks?
You realize the whole reason people use deepseek is that you can download and run it offline where the spooky Chinese people can't get your data, right?
First, the Chinese people aren't spooky. That's not what I'm getting at. I think you know that, too.
Second, you can run it offline, but you aren't going to run the machine completely offline. You're going to have it on the internet. LLMs are probabilistic, not deterministic, programs. Evaluating them for what sort of security vulnerabilities they present - no matter what country made them - is still a fairly young field of information security, and isn't going to be as easy as evaluating a deterministic program.
Do I know for sure that there's some combination of states within a DeepSeek LLM that opens up an internet connection and sends information back to external servers? No. Do I know for sure that there's no combination of states within a DeepSeek LLM that opens up an internet connection and sends information back to external servers? Also no.
What I do know is that the People's Republic of China has an extensive history of offensive cyber operations against American and other Western computer networks. I also know that these efforts are likely ongoing.
Know who I don't have the same concerns about? Mistral.
Given that agentic AIs have shown an ability to exploit known vulnerabilities in software, it probably wouldn't be too far of a stretch to think they could get around firewalls in one way or another.
Which takes us back to the "it's hard to properly secure non-deterministic software" point.
No, it's definitely easy enough to build a container that doesn't let LLMs out. The problem is that these AI companies are building a playpen made of wet noodles and expecting AI to stay out of trouble
The weights contain malware? What security vulnerability do they contain? Is the claim that they will write insecure code? This seems easy enough to test - run a sufficiently large sample through another LLM
IIRC Europe was on this as well e.g. Meloni regarding OpenAI.
Now that governments are banning remote LLMs controlled by authoritarian governments by proxy (CN, USA) it is time for companies to realize they shouldn't do that either.
The alternative? On-prem open models. Performance a little lower? Too bad, it ain't worth the risk. A privacy officer can value the risk, but that would be a case by case scenario and is expensive employee (lawyer), so not worth the effort.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-04/deepseek-banned-from-...
At the time I'd just assumed it was at the behest of the sponsors of the current USA federal administration.