Comment by jacquesm

8 days ago

The models may well contain malware or security vulnerabilities. But they are at least open to inspection because the weights are available, the same can not be said about US providers of inference such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

I don't know if inspection would be practical. How do you inspect the weights for an intentionally hidden trigger that writes malware?

  • You don't. You handle it the same way you handle security holes which every LLM (including "safe" American ones) will put in your software sooner or later -- by understanding and reviewing the output.

    • Glad someone is pointing this out here on this community. I keep reading about people "solving" the problem of LLMs outputting too much code that's hard to review by not doing human review at all!

      1 reply →

  • I don't have the answer to that, my simple solution to this problem is not to trust anything a model ever writes and so far that strategy has worked very well.

It's also odd for them to single out DeepSeek in particular, and not just any model from the PRC?

  • DeepSeek is the one that is the most visible, and probably the most cited in the departure messages to US providers.

Because it is DeepSeek in China, they must have open weight models to be even partially acceptable to the world. I am sure many would balk at using a Chinese company if its products were not open source

  • - Sent from my device containing a bunch of closed source products from a Chinese company

  • Look around you.

    You'll have a hard time finding electronic devices not made in China. And all of them have software which is harder to monitor and debug than LLMs.

    So I don't think distrust for Chinese LLMs will hold.

Not only open to inspection, you can also post train it to get exactly what you need from it, both in terms of capabilities and alignment.

Model weights being open to inspection means absolutely nothing. What are you going to inspect in a bunch of numbers?