Accusation without evidence

That is the path I saw today on the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqxgxx9nrqo), now hear me out. Even as we are being told ‘White House memo claims mass AI theft by Chinese firms’ we have to acknowledge that it comes from that same place that gave us that “‘someone’ claimed “$18 trillion” in new investments”, “prices are down” and “Ukraine for starting the war with Russia, suggesting they should have surrendered territory to avoid it” as such I am willing to disbelief this. Also China has DeepSeek and it does so (it’s speculations) at a fraction of the cost.

And whilst we are getting “The White House has said it will work more closely with US artificial intelligence (AI) firms to combat “industrial-scale campaigns” by foreign actors to steal advances in the technology. Michael Kratsios, Director of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in an internal memo that the administration had new information indicating “foreign entities, principally based in China” were exploiting American firms.” My mind goes not different directions. The first being:

If you have shattering IP valued at billions of dollars you have proper cyber security installed. That is merely my thought, others might have another opinion. 

My mind is racing towards a different setting. You see, OpenAI and its ‘co-conspirators’ are not delivering on the premise that gave too many people well over half a trillion dollars want to see return on investment and none is coming and now (not unlike the concept sellers in the 90’s) they need a blamable party. So what is easier than to blame China? Now, I am not saying that China is innocent, but in all this one might need evidence to make a case and none of it seems to be coming. As such we are given ““foreign entities, principally based in China” were exploiting American firms. Through a process called “distilling”, such firms are essentially copying AI technology developed by US companies, he said.” OK, I’ll bite, so where is the evidence? Why, if this distilling is a problem are these outputs not better protected, so there is no ‘distilling’? Simple question, perhaps when Oracle was needed, the cheapskates decided to rely on Azure? I have no idea, I am merely offering options as the evidence is clearly lacking. 

So whilst the article ens with “While Kratsios did not name any foreign entities, leading AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have said they are dealing with such distillation activity.” I reckon that the distillation culprits like House Spirits Distillery and Angostura Distillery were made exempt? 

You think that I am making a funny and I was, but this has been going on for months and these so called high priced (fake) AI corporations have been absent in their cyber security? How does this distilling happen? All things missing from the BBC article and are unlikely on the mind of the White House as the article seems to imply it comes from the very beginning where we saw “it will work more closely with US artificial intelligence (AI) firms to combat “industrial-scale campaigns” by foreign actors to steal advances in the technology” you see, the first part would be ‘How did they achieve this?’ Which we do not see and the state of cyber security we don’t see either, both seem rather obvious in that setting. 

So as I said China might not be innocent, but in that same setting we see that the United States and their (fake) AI firms are apparently clueless. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the scraps on this table and see where the crumbs aren’t dealt with and I see no part in all this that shouts ‘China is guilty’ that would require actual evidence. So if that is seemingly is not required counter the idea of this AI scheme to be the part of a scam to wipe out trillions on the exchange, which might be the case, but the setting of ‘no evidence’ is apparently in effect and that goes both ways. As I see it, someone wants to see evidence of AI and whilst they invested billions, there is a greed driven setting that the profits all go to China as they stole the plans, but is that really so? Even distilled plans need refinement and the source data is missing. So, how would they proceed? The setting does not make complete sense to me. Any innovation requires a foundation, even DeepSeek would like to have one, or it is simply a sifting solution and the power remains with these innovative wannabe’s (sorry, a paraphrased term).

So have a great day and wonder why the accusation was made, because that setting is likely to be in dollar numbers and where is that money now? Have a great day.