OpenAI calls DeepSeek “state-controlled” and recommends that the US ban “PRC-produced equipment and models that violate user privacy and create security risks”
https://techcrunch.com/... Threads: Vishvanand Subramanian / @vishvanands : trying hard to steelman this position from openai but unless it's possible to hide malware in the model weights, what exactly is the risk of downloading open source models from china? apart from the obvious risk to openai trying to charge 2000 a month for a product deepseek will put out for free Parker Thompson / @parkert : Presumably they mean the SaaS product, which you definitely shouldn't give any sensitive data to. — The open source product is cool, partially because Chinese censorship and American censorship are very different so they can do complimentary things. And good luck banning that. … X: Zvi Mowshowitz / @thezvi : I cannot overstate how terrible the vibes are in @OpenAI 's submission. Their statement is basically vice signaling throughout. Peter Wildeford / @peterwildeford : The @AnthropicAI and @OpenAI submissions to the US gov have different vibes about the seriousness of risks and how the US government should react to them Anthropic: if there's large biorisk, mandate testing OpenAI: incentivize voluntary testing through offering govt contracts [image] @xlr8harder : Hi OpenAI friends, you should feel bad about this @deliprao : I have never seen a company and a CEO more insecure than this @kalomaze : ah, so when a chinese company publishes their production codebases & models under permissive licenses, only then should you cry about foul play. really provocative technique they are going with here Alexander Doria / @dorialexander : This will fare very well in Europe. Andrew Curran / @andrewcurran_ : They also argue for banning the use of PRC-produced models within Tier 1 countries that ‘violate user privacy and create security risks such as the risk of IP theft.’ This is an anti-Whale harpoon. [image] @josephjacks_ : OpenAI definitely doesn't distill. OpenAI definitely doesn't train on copyrighted data. OpenAI definitely doesn't want to ban competition. OpenAI definitely wants what's best for humanity. OpenAI is the best AI and the most aligned AI and everything is awesome. Norman Mu / @thenormanmu : pretty disingenuous to conflate the R1 model with the web chat app. from the proposal: [image] @kimmonismus : Wow. How the mighty have fallen. LinkedIn: Georg Zoeller : “Capitalism isn't fun when we're not the one winning. We honestly took all subject matter expertise and knowledge from the internet without anyone's consent … Forums: Hacker News : OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules r/stupidpol : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/DeepSeek : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/accelerate : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models. r/ChatGPT : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/China : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/singularity : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/technology : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/artificial : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models r/LocalLLaMA : OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models | TechCrunch Misk To / Beehaw : OpenAI calls for US government to codify ‘fair use’ for AI training See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
DeepSeek had been framed in earlier coverage as a competitive challenge because it shared research and benefited from open-source work, including the open research and open-source ecosystem associated with DeepSeek. OpenAI, meanwhile, had said releasing its own weights was not a current priority in an earlier discussion of open weights and research.
This submission moves that rivalry into policy: OpenAI is asking the White House to treat some PRC-origin models and equipment as privacy and security concerns, while critics question whether the rationale distinguishes hosted services from downloadable weights.
First-order effects
- OpenAI formally aligns its commercial and security arguments with a US restriction on PRC-produced AI equipment and models that meet its stated privacy and security threshold.
- DeepSeek and other Chinese AI providers face greater policy scrutiny in the US market, while customers must more explicitly separate the data exposure of SaaS use from the risks claimed for model distribution.
Second-order effects
- US AI policy debate shifts from model capability and openness toward provenance, data handling, and national-security criteria—areas where domestic labs can seek regulatory advantage.
- The proposal sharpens pressure on US model developers to explain their own openness policies, given OpenAI's earlier reluctance to prioritize releasing weights.
Third-order effects
- If policymakers adopt provenance-based restrictions, access to models could become a tool of trade and security policy rather than a purely technical or licensing decision.
- The key unresolved issue is whether rules can distinguish hosted-data risks from open-weight distribution; that distinction would shape whether regulation favors closed platforms over broadly available models.
The trend: AI competition is increasingly being recast as a contest over trusted model access, data governance, and national alignment rather than performance alone.