> You're clearly very unwilling to acknowledge the obvious flaws with this report. Why?

First, I reject the premise, so the why question does not apply.

Second, this is the conclusion you draw? [1]

Third, please step back. In general, look for other explanations. [2]

[1]: Here's another explanation for you to consider: What if I am willing to acknowledge valid flaws in the report? Turns out that I am. So why haven't I? Because you haven't put forth a compelling criticism. You've consistently overreached.

[2] There seems to be a frequent pattern in your writing: overconfidence and a lack of curiosity about alternative explanations. As a counterbalance, consider posing these questions to yourself:

- Did I clearly state my point without exaggeration?

- Am I embracing uncertainty and expressing it clearly?

- Am I practicing intellectual honesty?

- Is my ego getting in the way?

- Am I primarily seeking the truth or might I be seeking confirmation of a narrative?

- Am I feeling defensive? How can I move towards curiosity?

- What assumptions am I making?

- Can I rephrase more statements as questions?

- What other explanations exist?

- What would have to change for my beliefs to be wrong?

> No, I'm pointing out that the only interpretation of the report that makes sense...

Where is your imagination? Your ability to see other perspectives? Your ability to recognize that your criteria for "the best fit" explanation is not universal? Your ability to recognize that your evaluation of even your own criteria is imperfect?

What is your level of life experience, if I may ask? Some questions for you to ponder: Have you had the experience of thinking you had it all figured out -- where you really felt that confidence? What happened after? Have you ever had your world really turned upside down?

My point? When people go through these kinds of experiences, it can be formative. There is a lot of variation; I'll only mention two things here. Some people become more certain. Some people become more curious.

> What's your angle here?

I'm trying to show and promote clear thinking and writing.

Have you noticed that I've put in a lot of effort to be charitable to your points? What has happened in response? In my opinion, you've mostly dug in your heals. You appear fixated on your narrative. From my point of view, you have been "fighting" for one idea more than trying to learn.

> > You don't provide any evidence from the report of #3. Instead, you refer to Trump's comments as evidence of his xenophobia.

> No, as evidence of how the President of the United States has abused his position to weaponize xenophobia, of which the report in question is just another example.

We don't disagree that Trump has weaponized the government in many ways. But Trump's corruption and weaponization is not completely pervasive. To explain, I'll restate a point from another comment:

> But you are confused if you think this tendency of Trump means that this particular NIST report is irredeemably twisted and manipulated. You seem to believe that Trump's derangement has percolated NIST to the point where nearly every word in the report is in service of his whims or agenda (which changes so often that even his supporters have to find ways to cope with the chaos).

> No. I haven't seen you demonstrate much understanding of NIST or U.S. government agencies in general. I've seen you commit many errors and much motivated reasoning.

> Otherwise, the report is meaningless nonsense - comparing apples with oranges, making claims about possible future dangers that aren't supported by anything the report actually found, and so on.

Some responses:

- Do you think the report is literally "meaningless nonsense" -- meaning it is incomprehensible or self-contradictory? I don't think you mean this.

- Do you disagree with the report's technical findings? I am pretty confident (P > 70%) you haven't engaged with them well enough to make specific claims about the technical aspects.

- Do you think the report's technical findings are so biased as to be (more or less) worthless in addressing the question of risk from DeepSeek? Yes; this seems to be your claim.

As to the last point, you haven't persuaded me. Why? You haven't engaged substantively with the NIST Report; you've mostly made sweeping comments with many reasoning errors.

Here's a guess at what may be happening in your brain. You let your view about Trump "run wild"; you probably haven't given any significant thought to the technical or geopolitical points on their own merits. Instead, you've fixated on the view that the Trump administration has ruined the objectivity of the report. In short, you found your preferred explanation ("motivated reasoning") and then stopped looking for other explanations ("early stopping"). These are common -- we're only human after all -- but damaging cognitive errors.

I have some other guesses... You probably lack: (i) an understanding (of the topic area or of how NIST works); or (ii) the curiosity or time to dig in. A lack of understanding is not necessarily a problem if you recognize it and adjust accordingly (i.e. by expressing uncertainty and/or expanding your knowledge). [2]

From my POV, I'm not confident you understand the key concepts from the NIST report. May I ask: what is your experience level with: national security, cybersecurity, machine learning, U.S. government, risk assessment, prediction, economics, geopolitics, or similar? What about the particular technical AI topics mentioned in the report?

- Many do not have experience in these areas. This is Hacker News, not e.g. an invite-only message board for AI experts interested in government policy. I don't know what a random HN commenter knows, but I would predict it isn't anywhere close to "competent" in all of the above.

- Knowledge across these areas is helpful (probably necessary in my opinion) to understand the NIST Report well. Without that background, one will have huge gaps. And unless you are really careful, your brain will fill those gaps with processes riddled with cognitive bias. [1]

- Beware the hubris that might lead someone to claim the lack of such experience is irrelevant. (And yes, experts are not immune from cognitive bias either.)

[1]: To borrow some words from Claude Sonnet 4.5, which I endorse as matching what I've learned from other sources: "Examine what appears to be rational thought and you find it rests on heuristics; examine those heuristics and find more heuristics beneath. There's no rational bedrock—it's cognitive biases all the way down."

[2]: For many, another frustration (such as Trump's degradation of democracy) can be a powerful and extensive demotivator in other areas. That frustration can serve as a explanation for much that ails us. This can become a coping mechanism, which serve a function at times, but are rarely motivators to increase the curiosity needed to make sense of a messy world.