Right On Time: Chinese AI DeepSeek Raises National Security Concerns, Officials Say.
- Thread starter Seoul Gleou
- Start date
IIVI
Superstar
I got big military family, probably in comparison to the rest of the country. So while I didn’t serve I hold the military in higher regard than most.
That said, I really wish shyt like this didn’t get broadcasted. It didn’t get used to(?), at least not at this kind of rate.
This is like losing a fair fight and saying someone else was cheating. It only adds to the embarrassment. I’d like to think without all these ridiculous social media accounts (like unusual whales) we wouldn’t have to hear about shyt getting banned because that’s usually a decision made behind closed doors and kept internal. Broadcasting it just makes it embarrassing.
I don’t know if they made that decision, there was a leak or Elon/Zuckerberg/Altman told for them to say it. Whoever made that decision to tell the world needs to step away from the war room.
That said, I really wish shyt like this didn’t get broadcasted. It didn’t get used to(?), at least not at this kind of rate.
This is like losing a fair fight and saying someone else was cheating. It only adds to the embarrassment. I’d like to think without all these ridiculous social media accounts (like unusual whales) we wouldn’t have to hear about shyt getting banned because that’s usually a decision made behind closed doors and kept internal. Broadcasting it just makes it embarrassing.
I don’t know if they made that decision, there was a leak or Elon/Zuckerberg/Altman told for them to say it. Whoever made that decision to tell the world needs to step away from the war room.
ReasonableMatic
................................
Like I said 
US Christofascism is out in the open, but nikkas unaware and in denial because they LUH the Bible and were taught to dislike China and minority groups instead of Massa.
Exactly.
US Christofascism is out in the open, but nikkas unaware and in denial because they LUH the Bible and were taught to dislike China and minority groups instead of Massa.
Scustin Bieburr
Baby baybee baybee UUUGH
You live in a time where right now someone is recording themselves crying on camera and posting it for clout.
You live in the golden age of the grifter and clout addict big dawg. It used to be that people would have to torture certain things out of you, now people proudly speak about the most humiliating Ls they ever took. Naturally this has extended to all of society including government.
It's hard not to laugh at a grift getting exposed. "Give us billions of dollars, it costs a lot of money to make this AI work!"
Now theyre in full juelz mode trying to explain to potential investors why they SHOULDNT use the far cheaper and just as effective model. Silicon valley and much of American industry has been taken over by visionless hacks who don't have any respect for the brand they supposed to be representing or any spirit of competition. Instead of saying "oh it's like that huh?" And clapping back with a better product or service, they run crying like children to hide behind the knees of government.
"Hes cheating it's not faaaiirr theyre beating us on price and quality while we funnel more and more money into pay packages for company leadership and dividends for investors. Don't let the customers have chooooicesss nooo!
"And these people demand respect. Pathetic. The most soft and bytchmade cacs be out here talking about bringing "masculine energy" to the setting while being too p*ssy to compete like men. Only thing worse than them are their boot licking fans
1/1
@FOX26Houston
Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday announced a ban on Chinese social media apps RedNote and Lemon8 and artificial intelligence app DeepSeek. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/g...;utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
@FOX26Houston
Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday announced a ban on Chinese social media apps RedNote and Lemon8 and artificial intelligence app DeepSeek. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/g...;utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
1/1
@Techmeme
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issues a ban on the use of Chinese-backed apps DeepSeek, Lemon8, Moomoo, RedNote, Tiger Brokers, and Webull on government-issued devices (Austin American-Statesman)
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bans DeepSeek, RedNote and other Chinese-backed AI platforms
Texas Governor Greg Abbott bans staff from installing or using Chinese apps DeepSeek, Lemon8, Moomoo, RedNote, Tiger Brokers, and Webull on governmental devices
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
@Techmeme
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issues a ban on the use of Chinese-backed apps DeepSeek, Lemon8, Moomoo, RedNote, Tiger Brokers, and Webull on government-issued devices (Austin American-Statesman)
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bans DeepSeek, RedNote and other Chinese-backed AI platforms
Texas Governor Greg Abbott bans staff from installing or using Chinese apps DeepSeek, Lemon8, Moomoo, RedNote, Tiger Brokers, and Webull on governmental devices
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
Youhadasparkwhenustarted
Superstar
Our politicians are so fukking ASS.
ReasonableMatic
................................
1/1
@FOX26Houston
Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday announced a ban on Chinese social media apps RedNote and Lemon8 and artificial intelligence app DeepSeek. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/greg-abbott-bans-rednote-deepseek-texas?taid=679d39f25f775d0001241232&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
1/1
@Techmeme
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issues a ban on the use of Chinese-backed apps DeepSeek, Lemon8, Moomoo, RedNote, Tiger Brokers, and Webull on government-issued devices (Austin American-Statesman)
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bans DeepSeek, RedNote and other Chinese-backed AI platforms
Texas Governor Greg Abbott bans staff from installing or using Chinese apps DeepSeek, Lemon8, Moomoo, RedNote, Tiger Brokers, and Webull on governmental devices
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
China:
1/46
@opensauceAI
Wow. Congress just tabled a bill that would *actually* kill open-source. This is easily the most aggressive legislative action on AI—and it was proposed by the GOP senator who slammed @finkd for Llama.
Here's how it works, and why it's different to anything before it.
2/46
@opensauceAI
1. The bill would ban the import of AI "technology or intellectual property" developed in the PRC. Conceivably, that would include downloading @deepseek_ai R1 / V3 weights. Penalty: up to 20 years imprisonment.
3/46
@opensauceAI
Now, there's an ongoing debate about whether weights are IP, but technology is defined broadly to mean:
> any "information, in tangible or intangible form, necessary for the development...or use of an item" and
> any "software [or] component" to "function AI".
Weights are squarely in scope, and potentially fundamental research too.
4/46
@opensauceAI
2. The bill would also ban the export of AI to an "entity of concern". Export means transmission outside the US, or release to a foreign person in the US.
E.g. Releasing Llama 4. Penalty? Also 20 years for a willful violation.
5/46
@opensauceAI
3. Separately, the bill would prohibit any collaboration with, or transferring research to, an "entity of concern". But entity of concern doesn't just include government agencies or PRC companies...
6/46
@opensauceAI
It includes *any* college, university, or lab organized under PRC law—and any person working on their behalf. E.g. An undergrad RA working on a joint conference paper.
7/46
@opensauceAI
The penalty for violating this provision is civil—$1M for an individual, $100M for a company, plus 3x damages. But the bill also makes it an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes—meaning any noncitizens (e.g. CAN / FR / UK) involved in the "transfer" could be deported.
8/46
@opensauceAI
The bill follows calls from e.g. @committeeonccp, @DarioAmodei and @alexandr_wang for stronger export controls. I don't seriously believe any of them want this outcome, at least for intangible weights, research or data. But something has clearly got lost in translation.
9/46
@opensauceAI
Whether you are pro / anti / indifferent to open models and open research, this bill is terrible signaling. It's an assault on scientific research and open innovation, and it's unprecedented. Here's why:
10/46
@opensauceAI
A. Unlike nearly every legislative / regulatory effort before it, this bill makes no distinction based on risk. No FLOP, capability, or cost thresholds. No open-source exemption. No directive to an agency to determine thresholds. Everything touching AI is swept into scope.
11/46
@opensauceAI
B. It includes "import" too. Not a single bill or rulemaking to date has tried to prohibit the "import" of AI technology from the PRC. My view is this was motivated by fears over @deepseek_ai's chat UI, not models, but the bill would include weights, software, or data.
12/46
@opensauceAI
C. Because a developer cannot reasonably KYC everyone who downloads open weights, and since it's a near-certainty that open weights would be obtained by an "entity of concern" (i.e. an RA in their dorm room), this would be the end of open model releases.
13/46
@opensauceAI
D. As a reminder that tech politics aren't settled, even post-Trump: this bill is a GOP bill. It goes beyond anything pursued by Biden, the EU, or California. Here's my lay of the land—this bill's effects on AI research would blow earlier reforms out of the water.
14/46
@opensauceAI
Indeed, Trump left in place Biden's export controls for model weights (for now) while @DavidSacks finishes his review. It's TBD how export controls will develop in the coming months.
15/46
@opensauceAI
TLDR: I'm a big fan of @HawleyMO's Big Tech scrutiny, but this bill would do untold damage to the little guy. It would require a police state to enforce, set back US research, and promote a global reliance on PRC technology.
16/46
@opensauceAI
You can find the bill here: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/wp-co...-Intelligence-Capabilities-from-China-Act.pdf
Decoupling from China? More likely: decoupling the rest of the world from the US.
17/46
@GhostofWhitman
Tabled?
Meaning it was set aside and postponed?
18/46
@opensauceAI
[Quoted tweet]
Good call out @CFGeek, and no, regrettably, this has only just been introduced @Teknium1. Forgive my midnight lapse into Westminsterisms.
19/46
@alurmanc
We want names, not "congress".
20/46
@opensauceAI
[Quoted tweet]
TLDR: I'm a big fan of @HawleyMO's Big Tech scrutiny, but this bill would do untold damage to the little guy. It would require a police state to enforce, set back US research, and promote a global reliance on PRC technology.
21/46
@groby
I mean, it's a stupid bill, and it got tabled - that's a desirable outcome?
What am I missing here?
22/46
@opensauceAI
Introduced, bad
[Quoted tweet]
Good call out @CFGeek, and no, regrettably, this has only just been introduced @Teknium1. Forgive my midnight lapse into Westminsterisms.
23/46
@tedx_ai
This is regulatory capture at its finest and it looks like OpenAI has really cozied up to the government…
24/46
@kellogh
they really don’t want the US companies to benefit from Chinese innovation
25/46
@m_wacker
Can you explain the whole "Congress just tabled..." part? The Senate was not in session on Friday, and the House only held a 3-minute pro forma session.
So I'm not sure how either would have "just tabled" this bill.
26/46
@harishkgarg
How did Sacks let it happen?
27/46
@Z7xxxZ7
I’m sorry this really made me laugh lol
28/46
@jc_stack
Would be good to see specifics on how this impacts AI/ML development. Any details on which open source frameworks or models would be affected? Curious about practical implications.
29/46
@tribbloid
.. to which finkd responded:
30/46
@MeisterMurphy
@threadreaderapp unroll
31/46
@threadreaderapp
@MeisterMurphy Bonjour, here is your unroll: Thread by @opensauceAI on Thread Reader App Have a good day.
32/46
@Puzzle_Dreamer
They have not enough jails for us
33/46
@CrypJedi
@DavidSacks any comment on this? Open source is the way to develop ai!
34/46
@pcfreak30
Honestly this is the same approach to defi and crypto. A good chunk of your arguments are philosophically the same.
Just the state wanting control?
35/46
@HenrikMolgard
Excellent thread! Thank you.
36/46
@burnt_jester
This needs to be stopped at all costs.
37/46
@chuaskh
I love this bill..
Regards,
BRICS Nation (soon Canada, Mexico, Denmark membership)
38/46
@memosrETH
I've always loved open source. @aixbt_agent
39/46
@thomasrice_au
Heh, surely that won't get much support.
40/46
@bebankless
the US is cooked
41/46
@bobjenz
Bad move
42/46
@leozc
What year are we living in? Will these people lead humanity to a better world? Elon was right—humans don’t die is horrible.
43/46
@gootecks
Not sure if this is genuine concern or just engagement farming but there was a time where sharing mp3s on the internet came with hefty fines and punishment for a selected few that were made examples of.
So what happened? Everyone kept sharing and torrenting and eventually the targeting stopped because there was actually no way to stop it all and business solutions like iTunes appeared.
So I get the alarm but the best way to fight these things is to keep doing what they were already doing.
44/46
@amoussouvichris
this legislation makes absolutely no sense, if China is creating better models, the rest of the world will not follow the US in rejecting better tech simply because it comes from China.
45/46
@AichAnimikh
This goes to show that people who do not have any understanding or knowledge of technology should not be in a policy-making position regarding that field.
46/46
@philtrem22
This is an abomination of a bill.
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
@opensauceAI
Wow. Congress just tabled a bill that would *actually* kill open-source. This is easily the most aggressive legislative action on AI—and it was proposed by the GOP senator who slammed @finkd for Llama.
Here's how it works, and why it's different to anything before it.
2/46
@opensauceAI
1. The bill would ban the import of AI "technology or intellectual property" developed in the PRC. Conceivably, that would include downloading @deepseek_ai R1 / V3 weights. Penalty: up to 20 years imprisonment.
3/46
@opensauceAI
Now, there's an ongoing debate about whether weights are IP, but technology is defined broadly to mean:
> any "information, in tangible or intangible form, necessary for the development...or use of an item" and
> any "software [or] component" to "function AI".
Weights are squarely in scope, and potentially fundamental research too.
4/46
@opensauceAI
2. The bill would also ban the export of AI to an "entity of concern". Export means transmission outside the US, or release to a foreign person in the US.
E.g. Releasing Llama 4. Penalty? Also 20 years for a willful violation.
5/46
@opensauceAI
3. Separately, the bill would prohibit any collaboration with, or transferring research to, an "entity of concern". But entity of concern doesn't just include government agencies or PRC companies...
6/46
@opensauceAI
It includes *any* college, university, or lab organized under PRC law—and any person working on their behalf. E.g. An undergrad RA working on a joint conference paper.
7/46
@opensauceAI
The penalty for violating this provision is civil—$1M for an individual, $100M for a company, plus 3x damages. But the bill also makes it an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes—meaning any noncitizens (e.g. CAN / FR / UK) involved in the "transfer" could be deported.
8/46
@opensauceAI
The bill follows calls from e.g. @committeeonccp, @DarioAmodei and @alexandr_wang for stronger export controls. I don't seriously believe any of them want this outcome, at least for intangible weights, research or data. But something has clearly got lost in translation.
9/46
@opensauceAI
Whether you are pro / anti / indifferent to open models and open research, this bill is terrible signaling. It's an assault on scientific research and open innovation, and it's unprecedented. Here's why:
10/46
@opensauceAI
A. Unlike nearly every legislative / regulatory effort before it, this bill makes no distinction based on risk. No FLOP, capability, or cost thresholds. No open-source exemption. No directive to an agency to determine thresholds. Everything touching AI is swept into scope.
11/46
@opensauceAI
B. It includes "import" too. Not a single bill or rulemaking to date has tried to prohibit the "import" of AI technology from the PRC. My view is this was motivated by fears over @deepseek_ai's chat UI, not models, but the bill would include weights, software, or data.
12/46
@opensauceAI
C. Because a developer cannot reasonably KYC everyone who downloads open weights, and since it's a near-certainty that open weights would be obtained by an "entity of concern" (i.e. an RA in their dorm room), this would be the end of open model releases.
13/46
@opensauceAI
D. As a reminder that tech politics aren't settled, even post-Trump: this bill is a GOP bill. It goes beyond anything pursued by Biden, the EU, or California. Here's my lay of the land—this bill's effects on AI research would blow earlier reforms out of the water.
14/46
@opensauceAI
Indeed, Trump left in place Biden's export controls for model weights (for now) while @DavidSacks finishes his review. It's TBD how export controls will develop in the coming months.
15/46
@opensauceAI
TLDR: I'm a big fan of @HawleyMO's Big Tech scrutiny, but this bill would do untold damage to the little guy. It would require a police state to enforce, set back US research, and promote a global reliance on PRC technology.
16/46
@opensauceAI
You can find the bill here: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/wp-co...-Intelligence-Capabilities-from-China-Act.pdf
Decoupling from China? More likely: decoupling the rest of the world from the US.
17/46
@GhostofWhitman
Tabled?
Meaning it was set aside and postponed?
18/46
@opensauceAI
[Quoted tweet]
Good call out @CFGeek, and no, regrettably, this has only just been introduced @Teknium1. Forgive my midnight lapse into Westminsterisms.
19/46
@alurmanc
We want names, not "congress".
20/46
@opensauceAI
[Quoted tweet]
TLDR: I'm a big fan of @HawleyMO's Big Tech scrutiny, but this bill would do untold damage to the little guy. It would require a police state to enforce, set back US research, and promote a global reliance on PRC technology.
21/46
@groby
I mean, it's a stupid bill, and it got tabled - that's a desirable outcome?
What am I missing here?
22/46
@opensauceAI
Introduced, bad
[Quoted tweet]
Good call out @CFGeek, and no, regrettably, this has only just been introduced @Teknium1. Forgive my midnight lapse into Westminsterisms.
23/46
@tedx_ai
This is regulatory capture at its finest and it looks like OpenAI has really cozied up to the government…
24/46
@kellogh
they really don’t want the US companies to benefit from Chinese innovation
25/46
@m_wacker
Can you explain the whole "Congress just tabled..." part? The Senate was not in session on Friday, and the House only held a 3-minute pro forma session.
So I'm not sure how either would have "just tabled" this bill.
26/46
@harishkgarg
How did Sacks let it happen?
27/46
@Z7xxxZ7
I’m sorry this really made me laugh lol
28/46
@jc_stack
Would be good to see specifics on how this impacts AI/ML development. Any details on which open source frameworks or models would be affected? Curious about practical implications.
29/46
@tribbloid
.. to which finkd responded:
30/46
@MeisterMurphy
@threadreaderapp unroll
31/46
@threadreaderapp
@MeisterMurphy Bonjour, here is your unroll: Thread by @opensauceAI on Thread Reader App Have a good day.
32/46
@Puzzle_Dreamer
They have not enough jails for us
33/46
@CrypJedi
@DavidSacks any comment on this? Open source is the way to develop ai!
34/46
@pcfreak30
Honestly this is the same approach to defi and crypto. A good chunk of your arguments are philosophically the same.
Just the state wanting control?
35/46
@HenrikMolgard
Excellent thread! Thank you.
36/46
@burnt_jester
This needs to be stopped at all costs.
37/46
@chuaskh
I love this bill..
Regards,
BRICS Nation (soon Canada, Mexico, Denmark membership)
38/46
@memosrETH
I've always loved open source. @aixbt_agent
39/46
@thomasrice_au
Heh, surely that won't get much support.
40/46
@bebankless
the US is cooked
41/46
@bobjenz
Bad move
42/46
@leozc
What year are we living in? Will these people lead humanity to a better world? Elon was right—humans don’t die is horrible.
43/46
@gootecks
Not sure if this is genuine concern or just engagement farming but there was a time where sharing mp3s on the internet came with hefty fines and punishment for a selected few that were made examples of.
So what happened? Everyone kept sharing and torrenting and eventually the targeting stopped because there was actually no way to stop it all and business solutions like iTunes appeared.
So I get the alarm but the best way to fight these things is to keep doing what they were already doing.
44/46
@amoussouvichris
this legislation makes absolutely no sense, if China is creating better models, the rest of the world will not follow the US in rejecting better tech simply because it comes from China.
45/46
@AichAnimikh
This goes to show that people who do not have any understanding or knowledge of technology should not be in a policy-making position regarding that field.
46/46
@philtrem22
This is an abomination of a bill.
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
China:
seriously!
protest against a genocide in a country that is a supposed proponent of free speech and the get deported.
the emperor has no cloths.
1/5
@opensauceAI
Effective today, model weights are export controlled by Uncle Sam. This is a big deal. For all the smack talk about the EU, the US is now the world's most aggressive regulator of Expensive Maths. Here's my two cents on the model rule based on the released text (link below).
What it is: This Interim Final Rule takes effect immediately, with a comment and compliance period of 120 days. While there was a period of informal consultation (at least for parts of the Rule), an IFR does not require the Administration to issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking.
In other words, the world's most significant AI model regulation had less procedural transparency than a NIST voluntary standard.
What it does: Models above 10^26 operations, trained in the US or with certain US technology, are subject to export control (under a new EAR classification number 4E091). The Rule does not control models that are "published" (i.e. open-weight) or closed-weight models smaller than the most advanced open-weight model. For controlled models, there is an exception for export or transfer to entities within designated countries (e.g. the Five Eyes).
Overall, the logic is: if we accept controls on hardware (advanced chips), we should control the fruits of that hardware too (frontier model weights).
Where it came from: The trend was clear by late 2024. The 2023 Executive Order on AI imposed notification requirements on model developers, but stopped short of restricting the release of models. However, the 2024 National Security Memo on AI required agencies like the NSA, DOE, and Safety Institute to develop classified evaluations for catastrophic risk in models (CBRN + cyber).
Classified tests based on classified criteria? These are the building blocks for a control regime.
So?
We're in new territory. If "weights are speech", the Administration will need to meet a high bar to show this Rule is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive alternative to achieving its aim. (Incidentally: the formal justification for the restriction on model weights is promoting "regional stability" not ensuring national security).
What does it mean for open source?
The Administration is at pains to emphasize that open models are not controlled under the Rule. As always, credit where it's due—they have drafted a sweeping rule with sensitivity to open innovation.
But the Administration is exempting open models because they are smaller and less capable than frontier models. So what happens when an open model is too capable? It's not a technical law that open models lag closed models: it's just an economic reality.
It's unclear what might happen, but the Rule offers a clue: the most advanced models should only be "in the hands of validated entities operating under secure conditions... Allowing access to the most advanced AI models through application programming interfaces can unlock the beneficial uses of AI... while mitigating national security and public safety risks".
That view of risk mitigation—access restrictions based on precautionary thresholds—is troubling. If open models are eventually brought within this framework (say, if Commerce decides to include nearly-frontier models, or if the Llama license isn't actually "open" enough to attract the open weight exemption), the Rule would put an end to open innovation in capable models.
In short—IMO, we should be *extremely* cautious of normalizing this approach to regulation, especially when the evidence for precautionary restrictions is neither concrete nor compelling, and when there is so little consensus about defining acceptable / unacceptable risk. Let's see how the Trump Administration responds.
It's a timely reminder to check out our piece in @thehill earlier today: US Leadership in AI Requires Open Source Diplomacy. "The US must refocus policy around AI diffusion and adoption, not just AI safety".
2/5
@opensauceAI
The unpublished IFR text is here via the Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00636.pdf
3/5
@VenshiKibes
"Effective today"
i thought it goes into effect well after trump takes office?
4/5
@opensauceAI
No, January 13
5/5
@GozukaraFurkan
China gonna dominate AI
Already doing in many areas
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
@opensauceAI
Effective today, model weights are export controlled by Uncle Sam. This is a big deal. For all the smack talk about the EU, the US is now the world's most aggressive regulator of Expensive Maths. Here's my two cents on the model rule based on the released text (link below).
What it is: This Interim Final Rule takes effect immediately, with a comment and compliance period of 120 days. While there was a period of informal consultation (at least for parts of the Rule), an IFR does not require the Administration to issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking.
In other words, the world's most significant AI model regulation had less procedural transparency than a NIST voluntary standard.
What it does: Models above 10^26 operations, trained in the US or with certain US technology, are subject to export control (under a new EAR classification number 4E091). The Rule does not control models that are "published" (i.e. open-weight) or closed-weight models smaller than the most advanced open-weight model. For controlled models, there is an exception for export or transfer to entities within designated countries (e.g. the Five Eyes).
Overall, the logic is: if we accept controls on hardware (advanced chips), we should control the fruits of that hardware too (frontier model weights).
Where it came from: The trend was clear by late 2024. The 2023 Executive Order on AI imposed notification requirements on model developers, but stopped short of restricting the release of models. However, the 2024 National Security Memo on AI required agencies like the NSA, DOE, and Safety Institute to develop classified evaluations for catastrophic risk in models (CBRN + cyber).
Classified tests based on classified criteria? These are the building blocks for a control regime.
So?
We're in new territory. If "weights are speech", the Administration will need to meet a high bar to show this Rule is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive alternative to achieving its aim. (Incidentally: the formal justification for the restriction on model weights is promoting "regional stability" not ensuring national security).
What does it mean for open source?
The Administration is at pains to emphasize that open models are not controlled under the Rule. As always, credit where it's due—they have drafted a sweeping rule with sensitivity to open innovation.
But the Administration is exempting open models because they are smaller and less capable than frontier models. So what happens when an open model is too capable? It's not a technical law that open models lag closed models: it's just an economic reality.
It's unclear what might happen, but the Rule offers a clue: the most advanced models should only be "in the hands of validated entities operating under secure conditions... Allowing access to the most advanced AI models through application programming interfaces can unlock the beneficial uses of AI... while mitigating national security and public safety risks".
That view of risk mitigation—access restrictions based on precautionary thresholds—is troubling. If open models are eventually brought within this framework (say, if Commerce decides to include nearly-frontier models, or if the Llama license isn't actually "open" enough to attract the open weight exemption), the Rule would put an end to open innovation in capable models.
In short—IMO, we should be *extremely* cautious of normalizing this approach to regulation, especially when the evidence for precautionary restrictions is neither concrete nor compelling, and when there is so little consensus about defining acceptable / unacceptable risk. Let's see how the Trump Administration responds.
It's a timely reminder to check out our piece in @thehill earlier today: US Leadership in AI Requires Open Source Diplomacy. "The US must refocus policy around AI diffusion and adoption, not just AI safety".
2/5
@opensauceAI
The unpublished IFR text is here via the Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00636.pdf
3/5
@VenshiKibes
"Effective today"
i thought it goes into effect well after trump takes office?
4/5
@opensauceAI
No, January 13
5/5
@GozukaraFurkan
China gonna dominate AI
Already doing in many areas
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
You encouraged folks to put these people in power. 
reuters.com
Karen Freifeld
March 17, 20257:23 PM EDT
Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. Commerce department bureaus informed staffers in recent weeks that Chinese artificial intelligence model DeepSeek is banned on their government devices, according to a message seen by Reuters and two people familiar with the matter.
"To help keep Department of Commerce information systems safe, access to the new Chinese based AI DeepSeek is broadly prohibited on all GFE," said one mass email to staffers about their government-furnished equipment.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
"Do not download, view, access any applications, desktop apps or websites related to DeepSeek."
The Commerce department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reuters could not immediately determine the extent of the ban throughout the U.S. government.
DeepSeek's low-cost AI models sparked a major selloff in global equity markets in January, as investors worried about the threat to the United States' lead in AI.
U.S. officials and members of Congress have expressed concerns about the threat of DeepSeek to data privacy and sensitive government information.
Congressmen Josh Gottheimer and Darin LaHood, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in February introduced legislation to ban DeepSeek on government devices. Earlier this month, they sent letters to U.S. governors urging them to ban the Chinese AI app on government-issued equipment.
“By using DeepSeek, users are unknowingly sharing highly sensitive, proprietary information with the CCP — such as contracts, documents, and financial records,” the lawmakers wrote in a March 3 letter, referring to the Chinese Communist Party. “In the wrong hands, this data is an enormous asset to the CCP, a known foreign adversary.”
Numerous states have banned the model from government devices, including Virginia, Texas and New York, and a coalition of 21 state attorneys general has urged Congress to pass legislation.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab, opens new tab
US Commerce department bureaus ban China's DeepSeek on government devices, sources say
Karen Freifeld
March 17, 20257:23 PM EDT
Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. Commerce department bureaus informed staffers in recent weeks that Chinese artificial intelligence model DeepSeek is banned on their government devices, according to a message seen by Reuters and two people familiar with the matter.
"To help keep Department of Commerce information systems safe, access to the new Chinese based AI DeepSeek is broadly prohibited on all GFE," said one mass email to staffers about their government-furnished equipment.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
"Do not download, view, access any applications, desktop apps or websites related to DeepSeek."
The Commerce department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reuters could not immediately determine the extent of the ban throughout the U.S. government.
DeepSeek's low-cost AI models sparked a major selloff in global equity markets in January, as investors worried about the threat to the United States' lead in AI.
U.S. officials and members of Congress have expressed concerns about the threat of DeepSeek to data privacy and sensitive government information.
Congressmen Josh Gottheimer and Darin LaHood, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in February introduced legislation to ban DeepSeek on government devices. Earlier this month, they sent letters to U.S. governors urging them to ban the Chinese AI app on government-issued equipment.
“By using DeepSeek, users are unknowingly sharing highly sensitive, proprietary information with the CCP — such as contracts, documents, and financial records,” the lawmakers wrote in a March 3 letter, referring to the Chinese Communist Party. “In the wrong hands, this data is an enormous asset to the CCP, a known foreign adversary.”
Numerous states have banned the model from government devices, including Virginia, Texas and New York, and a coalition of 21 state attorneys general has urged Congress to pass legislation.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab, opens new tab
TheAnointedOne
Superstar
Everyones talking about USA and China....but what about Japan? Japan is pretty advanced. I always figured they would be the first ones to roll out advanced AI.
Japan has stagnated since their bubble burst in the 90s and into the 2000s. China is making bigger moves at this point.
Similar threads
