Hacker News Reader

Comment by garyfirestorm | Hacker News Reader

did you even read the article? when you download open source deep seek model and run it yourself - zero packets are being transmitted. thereby disproving the fundamental claim in the NIST report (additionally NIST doesn't provide any evidence to support their claim) This is basic science and no amount of politicking should ever challenge something this fundamental!

View on HN

Meanwhile we know for a fact that Gemini for example uses chat logs to build a social graph and Google is complicit in NSA surveillance

Not to mention Anthropic says Claude will eventually automatically report you to authorities if you ask it to do something "unethical"

> Not to mention Anthropic says Claude will eventually automatically report you to authorities if you ask it to do something "unethical"

Citation? Let's see if your claim checks out -- and if it is worded fairly.

> Not to mention Anthropic says Claude will eventually automatically report you to authorities if you ask it to do something "unethical"

Are you referring to the situation described in the May 22, 2025 article by Carl Franzen in VentureBeat [1]? If so, at a minimum, one should recognize the situation is complex enough to warrant a careful look for yourself to wade through the confusion. Speaking for myself, I don't have anything close to a "final take" yet.

[1]: https://venturebeat.com/ai/anthropic-faces-backlash-to-claud...

> when you download open source deep seek model and run it yourself - zero packets are being transmitted. thereby disproving the fundamental claim in the NIST report (additionally NIST doesn't provide any evidence to support their claim)

You are confused about what the NIST report claimed. Please review the NIST report and try to find a quote that matches up with what you just said. I predict you won’t find it. Prove me wrong?

Please review the claims that the NIST report actually makes. Compare this against Eric Hartford’s article. When I do this, Hartford comes across as confused and/or intellectually dishonest.

> did you even read the article?

I am not going to dignify this with a response.

Please review the hacker news guidelines.

Notice the similarity between the above comment and what the HN Guidelines [1] advise against:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com