That’s a good reminder: With scarce few exceptions, your job doesn’t actually care about you, companies and platforms aren’t your friends, and life is too short to waste it on assholes and sociopaths.
If there’s no way to be sure, then why blame Chinese operators? Because American companies have given you so many reasons to believe they’re acting in good faith?
I don’t particularly trust anyone at this point, and I assume AI traffic on my web servers are all malicious actors, and never bothered to consider what country the malicious bots came from. Mostly because I couldn’t possibly care less, but it kept happening even with geofencing and rate limits, so some American companies who own domestic IP blocks are facilitating them.
I suspect it's because of the number of requests that come from Chinese datacenter ASN values. If you block them, you subsequently get visited by residential proxies from South America and SE Asia, likely the residential proxy network they are referring to. source: i have the same issue...
What an absurd question. We have actual evidence of DeepSeek using stolen credit cards and routing conversations to third parties. What evidence do we have of OpenAI or Anthropic doing something similar?
"Anthropic/OpenAI bad!" cynicism is not a replacement for critical thinking (as it increasingly seems to be on HN).
What evidence? You didn't link any. Searching for the hints in your comments brings up marketing by Anthropic "data you sent to one company is being sent to another without your knowledge or consent!" Anthropic also states this without any evidence, but I'm not suggesting it's not true!
I am so glad we never see stories against Anthropic/OpenAI claiming that! Thankfully we don't even have to search, critical thinking is enough to know that Anthropic/OpenAI are responsible data sovereign and others are not.
Nothing short of unredacted network logs and packet dumps would convince people like you (and even then you could just say they are forged). In the eyes of HN the Chinese model providers can do no wrong.
Anyways, they can easily be sued by DeepSeek if they are lying.
> critical thinking is enough to know that Anthropic/OpenAI are responsible data sovereign and others are not
Critical thinking is not relying on a confirmed bad actor because you think the others maybe could be bad actors.
So you're pushing a conspiracy theory, have no evidence to back it up, and you expect everyone else to do google searches to substantiate your claims. I see. Well, have a nice day then.
It's just as much a marketing blog post, but I'm not entirely unconvinced, just unsurprised. AI companies fundamentally all want the same thing: unrestricted access to everyone's data. I'm not planning on relying on any of them if I can help it.
Well, any evidence would be better than nothing. All I saw was a blog post with some conclusory statements, but I didn't dig into this. (It wasn't a rhetorical question.)
This is a very Redditor comment, you're equivocating "don't use bad API" with a defense of OpenAI/Anthropic.
There is a difference between "white-knighting" and pointing out that maybe businesses shouldn't use an API that has been proven to illegally route data elsewhere, resulting in literal state secrets being leaked.
There is nothing wrong with using DeepSeek's models locally or on your own cloud, and using another search provider! But using DeepSeek's own APIs is pure idiocy unless you really don't care about your data security/privacy (and that of your users).
You've been breaking the site guidelines badly by posting like this. You've also been posting dozens of hostile replies to a specific user across many threads, which is clearly over the line as well.
We ban accounts that do these things, so if you'd please stop doing them, we'd appreciate that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate that as well.
You've also been repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. I realize that when someone posts dozens of hostile replies, it's a provocation, but please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the rules yourself. That only makes things worse. Instead, follow this guideline (and emailing hn@ycombinator.com about cases of abuse is also a good idea):
You've also been breaking the rules in other contexts, including crossing into personal attack in your own right (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50095592). That's not cool either.
If you're asking about my biases: I am significantly invested in AI (all US labs including Anthropic/OpenAI, and the hardware supply chain) because I believe it will be the most transformative tech in human history. I am also American, and so I'd prefer not to have a nation that blends thousands of human rights activists getting to superintelligence first.
My investments in the frontier have grown so I do not claim to be unbiased.
Another bias - I think HN's user base is on average consistently shortsighted when it comes to this technology:
1/ The HN zeitgeist has been consistently wrong about AI since LLMs were introduced. Old HN threads are hilarious time capsules demonstrating how headstrong+dumb the median HN opinion is. These same people post today as if they never said anything dumb a year ago, in the same overconfident and cynical tone.
2/ The median technologist's takes here are actively destructive to the likelihood of us surviving superintelligence. As technologists we all have a responsibility to ensure this goes well - our companies and societies look to our opinions. If people here introspected a bit more and reflected on the previous times they were wrong, and saw this tech for what it really is, we would all have a better chance of surviving superintelligence.
You just cannot stop outing yourself as a paid shill. I guess it is hard for you to imagine that people do not have to visit this website every single day unlike you, because it is your job. It would have been funny if it was not so sad that people (myself included) have to read Anthropic's words you kindly post on their behalf.
Those companies thought they were interacting only with an entity in a country they trust, and instead had their data sent to a country they don't. If I'm sending you my data I'd like to know beforehand if it's being relayed to another country.
Thanks. I have been looking forward to this. Tao's perspective is sadly absent from a lot of the debates I've seen surrounding this, even the less dogmatic and more substantial discussions. The greatest benefits of research and theory development are realized in the process, not the results. It's to our own great harm that we relegate these processes to the machines. That's not meant to suggest ignorance, only that these new tools will need to be leveraged responsibly. For those who espouse "self regulation", I believe this is one space that's appropriate and accessible for LLM providers, and I think it's sad that their first tests don't seem to suggest good faith engagement. It's never too late to do better.
Who was? Dyatlov was one of 6 convicted and received a 10 year sentence which was the hardest penalty but he was released in 1990 so he only served maybe 3 years.
Seems like we routinely prosecute such crimes. If a Philly grand jury doesn’t hear any hearing felony indictments from this, then we’re ceding [even more] authority to the industry.
If the police prosecuted every nutjob tip we have to have to turn Nebraska into a giant open-air prison for 30 million slightly neurotic and/or bored people.
reply