Chinese AI Firm DeepSeek Trains Model on Restricted Nvidia Chips, Violating U.S. Export Controls

The event explicitly involves AI system development (training of an AI model) using advanced AI hardware. The potential violation of U.S. export controls and allegations of unauthorized data harvesting indicate breaches of legal and intellectual property rights. However, the article does not describe any realized harm such as injury, disruption, or direct rights violations caused by the AI system's outputs or use. Therefore, it does not meet the threshold for an AI Incident but represents a credible risk of harm and legal breach, qualifying it as an AI Hazard. The geopolitical and regulatory context further supports the classification as a plausible future harm scenario.

The article involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained using advanced AI hardware (Nvidia's Blackwell chip). The event concerns the use and development of AI systems and potential illegal acquisition of AI technology, which could plausibly lead to harms such as unfair competitive advantages, national security risks, or misuse of AI capabilities. However, no direct or indirect harm has been reported as having occurred yet. Therefore, this situation constitutes an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to an AI Incident if the technology is misused or leads to harmful consequences in the future.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips (Nvidia Blackwell) despite export restrictions. Although no direct harm has been reported yet, the unauthorized use of these chips in China could plausibly lead to harms such as military enhancement or strategic disadvantages, which are significant and clearly articulated concerns. The event does not describe an actual incident of harm but highlights a credible risk of future harm due to the breach of export controls and potential misuse. Hence, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips (Nvidia Blackwell) despite U.S. export restrictions, indicating the AI system's development and use in violation of legal frameworks. The potential diversion of these chips to military applications poses a credible risk of harm to national security and geopolitical stability, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard. Since no actual harm has been reported yet but the risk is credible and significant, the classification as an AI Hazard is appropriate rather than an AI Incident. The event is not merely general AI news or a complementary update but highlights a plausible future harm scenario due to the AI system's use and the breach of export controls.

The event explicitly involves AI systems, namely advanced AI chips used to train AI models. The use of banned AI hardware and distillation techniques to replicate U.S. AI models indicates potential violations of intellectual property rights and export laws, which are harms under the AI Incident definition. However, the article does not report any realized harm such as injury, disruption, or direct rights violations occurring yet. Instead, it describes ongoing or imminent activities that could plausibly lead to significant harms, including legal breaches and geopolitical tensions. Thus, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information because the core focus is on the unauthorized use and smuggling of banned AI chips, which is a credible risk scenario.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips (Nvidia Blackwell) despite U.S. export restrictions, indicating AI system development and use. The event centers on a likely violation of export controls, which is a legal and regulatory issue tied to AI technology proliferation. No direct or indirect harm from the AI system's outputs or actions is reported; no injury, rights violation, or disruption has occurred yet. The main concern is the plausible future harm from advanced AI technology being used by a geopolitical competitor, potentially enhancing military capabilities or undermining U.S. technological dominance. This fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as the event could plausibly lead to an AI Incident in the future but has not yet caused harm. Hence, the classification is AI Hazard.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI hardware (Nvidia's Blackwell chip). The use of this chip in violation of U.S. export controls indicates a failure to comply with legal frameworks governing AI technology transfer. Although no direct harm is described, the unauthorized access and use of cutting-edge AI chips by a foreign entity could plausibly lead to significant harms, including national security risks or misuse of AI capabilities. Since the article does not report any realized harm but highlights a credible risk, the event is best classified as an AI Hazard.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI systems (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on restricted Nvidia AI chips, which is a direct violation of U.S. export controls. This breach of legal obligations related to export controls is a harm under the framework's category (c) - violations of obligations under applicable law. The involvement of AI systems is clear, and the harm is realized, not just potential. Hence, the event is classified as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips whose export to China is banned by US law. The use of these chips despite the ban indicates a failure to comply with legal frameworks, constituting a breach of obligations under applicable law. The involvement of AI technology in this violation and the potential implications for intellectual property and national security rights meet the criteria for an AI Incident. Although the article does not describe direct physical harm, the violation of export controls and potential misuse of advanced AI technology for military or competitive advantage is a significant harm under the framework's category (c) regarding violations of legal obligations and rights. Hence, the classification as AI Incident is appropriate.

The event involves the use of an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips obtained in violation of US export controls. The involvement of AI is explicit, and the use of these chips despite legal restrictions indicates a failure to comply with applicable law. Although no direct harm has yet been reported, the potential for these chips to enhance military capabilities and threaten US dominance in AI constitutes a plausible future harm. The event does not describe an actual incident causing realized harm but highlights a credible risk stemming from the unauthorized use of AI technology. Thus, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI hardware (Nvidia's Blackwell chips). The use of these chips in China violates US export controls, which is a legal framework intended to prevent certain harms, including military escalation and loss of technological advantage. Although no direct harm or incident is reported, the unauthorized use of these chips could plausibly lead to significant harms, such as enhancing military AI capabilities or undermining US national security. Since the event concerns potential future harms from the AI system's use and does not describe realized harm, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information because the main focus is on the potential violation and risks, not on responses or updates to past incidents.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained using advanced AI chips (Blackwell) whose export to China is banned by US policy. The use of these chips despite the ban represents a misuse of AI technology with potential national security implications. While no direct harm (such as injury or rights violations) has been reported, the plausible future harm includes military enhancement and strategic risks, which align with the definition of an AI Hazard. The event does not describe an actual incident causing harm but a credible risk of harm due to the violation of export controls and potential military use. Hence, it is classified as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips whose export to China is banned, indicating AI system involvement in violation of legal frameworks. While no direct harm has been reported yet, the use of these chips despite export controls plausibly leads to future harms such as military enhancement and strategic disadvantage to the US, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard. The event does not describe an actual realized harm but highlights a credible risk stemming from the AI system's development and use under prohibited conditions.

The event explicitly involves the use of an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model trained on Nvidia Blackwell chips) and concerns about violation of US export controls, which are legal obligations. The confirmed unauthorized use of advanced AI chips in China constitutes a breach of applicable law intended to protect national security and intellectual property rights. While no direct harm such as injury or disruption has been reported, the potential for these AI capabilities to be used for military purposes or to undermine US technological leadership constitutes a plausible future harm. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Hazard due to the credible risk of significant harm stemming from the AI system's use in violation of export controls.

The event involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI hardware (Nvidia's Blackwell chip). The use of this chip in China violates US export controls, indicating misuse or unauthorized use of AI technology. Although no direct harm has been reported yet, policymakers express concern that this could enhance China's military and technological dominance, which is a plausible future harm. The event does not describe an actual incident causing harm but highlights a credible risk of harm due to the circumvention of export controls. Hence, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event involves the use of an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips obtained in violation of U.S. export controls. This constitutes a misuse of AI technology with potential to enhance military capabilities and threaten U.S. dominance in AI, which could plausibly lead to significant harms including disruption of critical infrastructure or geopolitical instability. Since no direct harm has yet been reported, but the risk is credible and serious, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard. It is not merely complementary information because it reveals confirmed unauthorized use of AI technology with potential for harm, nor is it unrelated as it clearly involves AI systems and their misuse.

The event explicitly involves the use of an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI hardware (Nvidia's Blackwell chip). The use of this AI system is linked to a potential violation of export controls, which is a legal framework protecting national security interests. The advanced AI capabilities enabled by the Blackwell chip could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military or strategic threats, which aligns with harm categories such as disruption to critical infrastructure or harm to communities. Although no direct harm is reported yet, the event's nature and context indicate a credible risk of future harm due to the AI system's use and proliferation. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident, as the harm is plausible but not yet realized.

The event explicitly involves the use of an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips (Blackwell) despite a U.S. ban, indicating a violation of legal export controls. The involvement of AI in the development and use of the model is clear, and the U.S. government expresses concerns about the chips potentially being used to enhance China's military AI capabilities, which constitutes a breach of obligations under applicable law and poses a threat to national security. Although direct physical harm is not reported, the event involves violations of legal frameworks and potential harm to national security and geopolitical stability, fitting the definition of an AI Incident due to the realized unauthorized use and associated harms.

The event involves the use of an AI system trained on advanced AI chips obtained in violation of US export controls, which is a legal breach and raises national security concerns. While no direct harm has been reported, the unauthorized use of such technology could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military applications and geopolitical risks. The AI system's development and use under these circumstances represent a credible risk of harm, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard. There is no indication that harm has already occurred, so it is not an AI Incident. The article focuses on the potential risks and policy implications rather than on a realized harm or a response to a past incident, so it is not Complementary Information. It is clearly related to AI systems and their development, so it is not Unrelated.

The article explicitly describes the use of AI systems (training an AI model) with restricted AI hardware (Blackwell chips) that are banned for export to China, indicating a violation of legal export controls. Additionally, the use of "distillation" from U.S. AI models suggests unauthorized use of intellectual property. These factors together represent a breach of obligations under applicable law protecting intellectual property and trade controls, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under violation of rights. The involvement of AI system development and use is central to the event, and the harm is realized in the form of legal violations and potential national security risks. Hence, the classification as AI Incident is appropriate.

The event describes the use of AI systems (training AI models) on advanced AI chips obtained in violation of export controls. Although no immediate harm is reported, the unauthorized access to cutting-edge AI hardware could plausibly lead to significant future harms, such as accelerating military AI applications or undermining U.S. technological leadership. This fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to harms related to national security and AI dominance. There is no indication of realized harm yet, so it is not an AI Incident. The article focuses on the implications and risks rather than a realized incident or a response, so it is not Complementary Information. It is clearly related to AI systems and their development, so it is not Unrelated.

The article explicitly mentions an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on Nvidia's advanced Blackwell chips, which are banned from export to China under U.S. law. The alleged violation of export controls and the use of these chips in China could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military risks and geopolitical tensions. Although no direct harm has yet occurred or been reported, the credible risk of future harm from this unauthorized use fits the definition of an AI Hazard. There is no indication of an actual AI Incident (realized harm) or complementary information focused on responses or updates. Hence, the classification as AI Hazard is appropriate.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI systems (advanced AI chips and AI model training) and describes a violation of U.S. export controls, which are legal frameworks intended to protect national security and technological advantages. The unauthorized use of these AI chips by DeepSeek directly breaches these obligations, constituting a violation of applicable law protecting intellectual property and national security interests. The potential for these AI capabilities to be diverted for military use further underscores the harm to critical infrastructure and security. Since the event describes an actual breach and use of AI technology in violation of legal controls, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article involves AI systems in the form of Nvidia's advanced AI chips (H200) which are restricted from sale to China due to concerns that they could enhance military capabilities, posing a security threat. Although no sales have occurred and no direct harm is reported, the potential for these AI chips to be used in military applications that could threaten security constitutes a plausible future harm. The illegal smuggling attempts further underscore the risk. Therefore, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to harms related to security and military conflict, but no incident has yet materialized.

The article describes DeepSeek's use of Nvidia's Blackwell AI chips despite U.S. export restrictions, indicating a breach of trade regulations. Although no direct harm has yet occurred, the advanced AI capabilities enabled by these chips could plausibly lead to significant future harms, such as strengthening military capabilities and accelerating AI development in a geopolitical rival. This fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as the event plausibly leads to an AI Incident in the future. There is no indication of realized harm or incident at this stage, so it is not an AI Incident. The event is more than general AI news or policy discussion, so it is not Complementary Information or Unrelated.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips (Nvidia Blackwell) whose export to China is banned under U.S. law. The event concerns the use of AI hardware in violation of export controls, which is a development and use issue. Although no direct harm is reported, the unauthorized use of such advanced AI technology by a Chinese company could plausibly lead to harms such as military enhancement or strategic disadvantage to the U.S., fitting the definition of an AI Hazard. There is no indication that harm has yet occurred, so it is not an AI Incident. The article is not merely complementary information or unrelated news, as it highlights a credible risk stemming from AI system use and development.

The Nvidia H200 chip is an AI system component used for training and running AI models. The article does not report any realized harm or incident resulting from the chip's use or sale; rather, it details export restrictions and concerns about potential misuse, especially military applications. Since no harm has occurred but there is a credible risk that the chip's sale and use could lead to significant harms (e.g., enhancing military AI capabilities), this qualifies as an AI Hazard. It is not Complementary Information because the main focus is not on updates or responses to a past incident but on the potential future risk and regulatory context. It is not Unrelated because the event directly involves AI technology and its implications.

The article explicitly mentions AI systems (DeepSeek's V3 and V4 models, Anthropic's Claude model) and their development and use. It details how DeepSeek allegedly used restricted AI chips despite export controls, which is a breach of legal obligations, and how it engaged in large-scale unauthorized extraction of capabilities from another AI model, violating terms of service and intellectual property rights. These actions have directly led to significant harms including national security risks and intellectual property violations. The article also discusses the implications of these harms and regulatory challenges, but the primary focus is on the realized harms and breaches. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (the H200 AI chip) and discusses its export controls and market dynamics. While the article details the strict U.S. export controls and the resulting zero sales to China, it does not report any realized harm such as injury, rights violations, or operational disruption. The harms discussed are potential and relate to economic and strategic impacts, which could plausibly lead to significant harms in the future if the situation evolves negatively. Hence, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information. It is not unrelated because it directly concerns an AI system and its use.

The article describes the use of Nvidia's most advanced AI chips in China despite U.S. export restrictions, which is a breach of export controls. The AI system (DeepSeek's model) was trained using these chips, indicating AI system involvement in the event. Although no direct harm has yet occurred, the unauthorized access to such advanced AI hardware could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military applications or escalation of geopolitical tensions. Therefore, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to an AI Incident in the future. It is not an AI Incident because no actual harm has been reported yet, nor is it Complementary Information or Unrelated.

The article explicitly mentions AI chips (H200) used for AI model training, indicating AI system involvement. The discussion centers on export controls, smuggling risks, and national security concerns, which imply potential future harms if the chips are misused or proliferate uncontrolled. However, no direct or indirect harm from the AI systems has materialized as per the article. The focus is on regulatory and enforcement responses, market demand, and geopolitical tensions, which align with Complementary Information as defined. There is no report of injury, rights violations, infrastructure disruption, or other harms caused by the AI systems themselves at this time.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) trained using advanced AI hardware (Nvidia's Blackwell chip). The event concerns the use of AI technology in a manner that likely violates legal export controls, which is a breach of applicable law. No actual harm has been reported yet, but the unauthorized use of such advanced AI technology could plausibly lead to significant harms, including geopolitical tensions or misuse of AI capabilities. Hence, this is best classified as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident, as the harm is potential and not yet realized.

The article explicitly mentions AI system development using advanced AI chips, indicating AI system involvement. The potential violation of export controls and unauthorized use of AI hardware could plausibly lead to harms related to national security or misuse of AI technology, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard. Since no actual harm or incident is reported, and the focus is on potential regulatory and security risks, the classification as AI Hazard is appropriate.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (AI models and training using advanced AI chips). The event concerns the use and development of AI systems through unauthorized means, including alleged theft of proprietary AI model knowledge via distillation techniques and violation of export controls. These actions constitute a breach of intellectual property rights and legal obligations, which are recognized harms under the OECD AI Incident framework. The harm is realized, not just potential, as the unauthorized use and export control violations are ongoing or imminent. Hence, the event meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article involves the development and use of AI systems (training AI models with advanced AI chips) and highlights a violation of legal frameworks (U.S. export control laws). Although no direct harm has been reported yet, the unauthorized use of restricted AI technology could plausibly lead to significant harms, including breaches of legal obligations and potential national security risks. Therefore, this situation fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to an AI Incident but no harm has yet materialized or been reported.

The event involves the development and use of an AI system (the new AI model) trained on Nvidia's Blackwell chips, which are advanced AI hardware subject to U.S. export controls. The reported use of these chips by DeepSeek in China likely violates these controls, representing a breach of legal obligations. While no direct harm or incident has been confirmed, the situation poses a credible risk of legal violations and potential misuse of advanced AI technology for military or strategic purposes. This aligns with the definition of an AI Hazard, as the event plausibly could lead to an AI Incident. The article does not describe actual harm occurring yet, so it is not an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information because the main focus is on the potential violation and risks, not on responses or updates to past incidents. Therefore, the classification is AI Hazard.

The article describes the alleged unauthorized use of restricted AI hardware and AI model distillation techniques that violate service terms and export controls. These actions relate to the development and use of AI systems and involve potential breaches of intellectual property rights and legal obligations. However, the article does not report any realized harm such as injury, disruption, or direct rights violations. The harms are potential and plausible future risks stemming from these violations and unauthorized uses. Therefore, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to AI Incidents involving legal and rights violations but has not yet caused direct harm.

The article describes the use of advanced AI chips to train AI models by DeepSeek, which is likely an AI system. The event involves the use and development of AI systems in a manner that violates export controls, raising credible concerns about future harms including military misuse and geopolitical risks. Since no direct harm or incident has been reported yet, but the potential for significant harm is credible and plausible, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information because the core focus is on the potential violation and risks, not on responses or updates to past incidents.

The event involves the use of AI systems (advanced AI chips used for training AI models) and their development/use in a manner that violates US export control laws, which are legal frameworks protecting intellectual property and national security. The confirmed unauthorized use of these chips by DeepSeek directly breaches these laws, constituting a violation of obligations intended to protect intellectual property and national security (a form of fundamental rights protection). The article also highlights potential risks of military use and accelerated AI capability development, which are significant harms. Therefore, this is an AI Incident due to the realized violation and associated harms.

The article explicitly mentions the development and training of an AI model using advanced AI chips, indicating AI system involvement. The main issue is the possible violation of export control laws, which is a regulatory and geopolitical concern that could plausibly lead to AI-related harms in the future, such as misuse or proliferation of advanced AI technology. Since no direct harm or incident has occurred or been reported, and the focus is on potential risks and regulatory concerns, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event involves the use of AI systems (training AI models with advanced AI chips) in a way that likely violates export control laws, which is a breach of legal obligations. No direct harm has been reported yet, but the unauthorized use of advanced AI technology in China could plausibly lead to future harms such as military applications or strategic disadvantages. Hence, it is an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not Complementary Information because it is not an update or response to a prior incident, nor is it unrelated as it clearly involves AI systems and potential legal and security risks.

The article involves AI systems in the form of advanced AI chips used for training AI models. However, it does not report any direct or indirect harm resulting from their use or malfunction. Instead, it focuses on regulatory controls, export restrictions, and potential unauthorized use, which represent a credible risk of future harm but no harm has yet materialized. Therefore, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as the development, use, or malfunction of these AI systems could plausibly lead to an AI Incident in the future, especially considering the geopolitical and security implications.

The article involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model trained on advanced AI chips) and discusses the potential misuse or unauthorized use of AI technology that could lead to significant harm, such as military enhancement and national security threats. Since no actual harm or incident has been reported yet, but there is a credible risk of future harm due to violation of export controls and possible military applications, this qualifies as an AI Hazard. The event does not describe a realized AI Incident, nor is it merely complementary information or unrelated news.

The article involves the use of AI systems (training AI models with advanced AI chips) and discusses potential violations of export control laws, which could plausibly lead to legal and geopolitical harms. Since no actual harm or incident is reported, but a credible risk exists due to possible non-compliance and ensuing consequences, this qualifies as an AI Hazard. The diplomatic responses and statements are complementary context but do not themselves constitute an incident or hazard.

The article explicitly mentions AI systems (DeepSeek's AI model trained on Nvidia's Blackwell chip, and the use of distillation techniques to extract outputs from Anthropic's Claude model). The event involves the use and development of AI systems in ways that allegedly violate export control regulations and intellectual property rights, which are breaches of applicable law protecting fundamental and intellectual property rights. The allegations of illegal extraction of AI model results and unauthorized use of advanced AI hardware directly relate to harms under the AI Incident definition (c). Hence, this is classified as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves AI systems (Nvidia AI chips used for training AI models) and their unauthorized use in violation of export controls, which is a breach of legal obligations. The involvement of AI system development and use (training AI models with prohibited chips) directly leads to a violation of applicable law intended to protect national security and intellectual property rights. Although no physical harm is reported, the breach of legal frameworks and potential national security risks meet the criteria for an AI Incident under violation of obligations under applicable law. The event is not merely a potential risk but an actual violation confirmed by the U.S. Commerce Department, thus qualifying as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly mentions AI systems (DeepSeek's AI model trained on Blackwell chips and unauthorized use of Anthropic's Claude model capabilities). The unauthorized extraction and use of AI model outputs without permission is a direct violation of intellectual property rights, which is a recognized harm under the AI Incident definition. The use of restricted AI chips in violation of export controls also indicates non-compliance with legal frameworks. These factors combined demonstrate direct harm related to AI system development and use, qualifying this event as an AI Incident.

The event involves AI system development and use, with possible violations of export control laws and intellectual property rights. These constitute potential legal and rights-related harms. However, the article does not report any actual harm or incident resulting from these actions, only allegations and potential regulatory breaches. Therefore, this situation represents a plausible risk or concern rather than a realized harm. It fits the definition of an AI Hazard because the use of restricted hardware and unauthorized research could plausibly lead to incidents involving legal violations or other harms if unaddressed. It is not Complementary Information because the article focuses on the potential violation and allegations, not on responses or updates to prior incidents. It is not unrelated because AI systems and their development are central to the report.

The event involves the use and development of AI systems (generative AI models and model distillation) that have directly led to violations of intellectual property rights and pose national security risks. The article details actual unauthorized use and theft of AI technology, not just potential risks. Therefore, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident due to realized harm from misuse of AI systems in infringement and security threats.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (training AI models using advanced AI chips). The event concerns the use and development of AI systems with potential violation of export controls, which is a legal and regulatory issue. No direct harm (such as injury, rights violations, or operational disruption) caused by the AI system is reported, so it does not qualify as an AI Incident. However, the potential for future harm or regulatory breach due to unauthorized use of restricted AI hardware makes it an AI Hazard. The article does not focus on responses or updates to prior incidents, so it is not Complementary Information. It is not unrelated because it clearly involves AI systems and their development/use.

The event involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) and concerns about its use of advanced AI chips potentially violating export control laws. This suggests a plausible risk of legal and geopolitical harm related to AI system development and use. However, the article does not report any realized harm such as injury, rights violations, or operational disruption. The Chinese side denies knowledge of the specific case, and no direct harm is described. Therefore, this situation fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to an AI Incident (e.g., legal or geopolitical consequences) but no incident has occurred yet.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model trained with Nvidia's Blackwell chip). The concern is about the potential violation of export control laws, which could lead to future harms such as unauthorized AI development or deployment with security or legal implications. No actual harm or incident is reported, only a plausible risk due to the unauthorized use of restricted AI hardware. Hence, it is classified as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event involves an AI system (Nvidia's H200 AI chip) and discusses its export status and potential military use, which could plausibly lead to harm (e.g., strengthening military capabilities and threatening US AI leadership). Since no harm has yet occurred and the article focuses on the potential risk and regulatory controls, this qualifies as an AI Hazard rather than an Incident or Complementary Information.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (advanced AI models trained on Nvidia's Blackwell chips) and their use by DeepSeek. The event concerns the possible illegal acquisition and use of AI hardware and technology, which is a development and use issue. Although no direct harm has been reported yet, the violation of export controls and unauthorized use of advanced AI technology pose credible risks of future harms, including legal violations and potential national security threats. Therefore, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident, as the harm is plausible but not yet realized.

The event involves the use of AI systems (DeepSeek's AI models) trained on restricted Nvidia Blackwell GPUs obtained through illicit means, which is a direct violation of U.S. export controls. Although no physical harm or direct injury is reported, the circumvention of export controls and potential theft of AI technology constitute a breach of legal obligations and pose significant risks to national security and international technology governance. This fits the definition of an AI Hazard because it plausibly leads to significant harms related to violations of legal frameworks and potential geopolitical and technological disruptions. Since no actual harm has yet been reported but the risk is credible and serious, the event is best classified as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (advanced AI chips and AI model distillation techniques) and discusses their use and development. The key issue is the potential violation of U.S. export control laws and unauthorized use of AI models, which constitutes a breach of legal obligations and intellectual property rights. Since no direct harm or incident has been reported yet, but there is a credible risk of legal and competitive harms, this situation fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information because the focus is on the potential for harm due to regulatory violations and unauthorized AI use, not just updates or responses to past events. Therefore, the classification is AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) and its development and deployment. However, the article focuses on strategic withholding of model access and potential regulatory violations related to export controls, without any direct or indirect harm resulting from the AI system's use or malfunction. There is no indication of injury, rights violations, infrastructure disruption, or other harms caused by the AI system. The potential violation of export controls is a legal/regulatory issue but does not itself constitute an AI Incident under the definitions. The article thus describes a situation that could plausibly lead to future harms or regulatory concerns but does not report any actual harm or incident. Therefore, it is best classified as Complementary Information, providing context on AI ecosystem developments and governance challenges rather than reporting an AI Incident or Hazard.

The article describes a situation where an AI system is being developed using advanced AI chips potentially obtained in violation of export controls. This constitutes a plausible risk (hazard) because unauthorized access to such technology could lead to harms related to national security or other significant impacts. However, since no actual harm or incident resulting from the AI system's use is reported, and the focus is on potential regulatory violations and risks, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The article involves AI systems in the context of Chinese AI development and alleged misuse (stealing models, using banned chips), which relates to intellectual property rights and legal compliance. However, it does not describe any direct or indirect harm that has occurred due to these AI systems, nor does it present a credible imminent risk of harm. Instead, it critiques claims and provides analysis of the situation, which fits the definition of Complementary Information as it enhances understanding of the AI ecosystem and related governance issues without reporting a new incident or hazard.

The article discusses AI chip production expansion and export controls affecting AI technology transfer to China, including the use of advanced AI chips for model training. While these developments have implications for AI capabilities and geopolitical risk, there is no indication of any realized harm or incident caused by AI system development or use. The mention of export restrictions and potential unauthorized use of banned chips suggests possible future risks but does not describe a concrete AI Hazard event with plausible imminent harm. The focus is on reporting developments, government statements, and enforcement status, which aligns with the definition of Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (advanced AI chips used for AI model training) and discusses their export controls and enforcement. While there is no direct report of harm caused by the AI chips themselves, the enforcement focus on smuggling and potential violations indicates a credible risk of future harm (e.g., violations of export laws, potential misuse of AI technology). The lack of actual sales and the active enforcement efforts mean no realized harm has occurred yet, so it is not an AI Incident. The article is not merely complementary information because it reports on enforcement actions and risks, not just updates or responses. Hence, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard.

The article centers on the export control process and national security reviews related to AI chips, which are AI systems. While there is a clear concern about potential misuse or harm (e.g., chips being used by the Chinese military), no direct or indirect harm has occurred yet. The situation represents a plausible risk of harm in the future if the chips are misused, but currently, it is about regulatory caution and potential future risks. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard, as the development and export of AI chips could plausibly lead to incidents involving national security or other harms if misused, but no incident has yet materialized.

The article centers on the export control and enforcement issues related to AI chips, including potential smuggling and national security risks, which represent plausible future harms but no realized harm or incident is described. The involvement of AI systems (H200 chips) is clear, but the harms are potential and regulatory in nature, not actualized incidents. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard due to the plausible risk of harm from unauthorized use or smuggling of advanced AI chips, but not an AI Incident since no direct harm has occurred yet. It is not Complementary Information because it is not an update or response to a past incident, nor is it unrelated as it clearly involves AI systems and potential harms.

The article mentions an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) and its use of advanced AI chips, which is relevant to AI system development and use. However, there is no indication that this has directly or indirectly caused any harm such as injury, rights violations, or disruption. The issue is about compliance with export controls, which is a governance and regulatory matter. Since no harm or plausible future harm is described, and the main focus is on the diplomatic and regulatory stance, this fits best as Complementary Information, providing context on governance and international relations related to AI technology.

While the article involves an AI system (DeepSeek's AI model) and its training using advanced AI chips, the main issue is a regulatory and political dispute over export controls. There is no indication that the AI system's development or use has directly or indirectly caused harm as defined by the AI Incident criteria. Nor does the article describe a plausible future harm scenario caused by the AI system itself. Therefore, this event does not meet the criteria for AI Incident or AI Hazard. It is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides context on geopolitical tensions and regulatory responses related to AI technology without describing a specific harm or credible risk of harm.

The article centers on the regulatory and commercial status of an AI chip export, with no mention of any harm, malfunction, or misuse of the AI system. There is no indication of injury, rights violations, disruption, or other harms caused or plausibly caused by the AI system. The content is primarily an update on export approvals and market conditions, which fits the definition of Complementary Information rather than an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (DeepSea's AI model) developed and trained using advanced AI chips (Blackwell) from Nvidia, which are subject to U.S. export controls. The unauthorized acquisition and use of these chips by a Chinese company could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military enhancement and geopolitical risks. Although no direct harm has yet materialized, the credible risk of future harm related to national security and AI military applications fits the definition of an AI Hazard. There is no indication of realized harm or incident, so it is not an AI Incident. The article is not merely complementary information as it focuses on the potential risks and policy implications rather than updates or responses to past incidents.

The event involves the use and development of an AI system with advanced AI chips obtained in violation of US export controls. While no direct harm or incident is reported, the situation plausibly leads to future risks related to military or strategic AI capabilities, which aligns with the definition of an AI Hazard. There is no indication of an actual AI Incident or realized harm yet, nor is this merely complementary information or unrelated news. Therefore, the classification is AI Hazard.

The article does not report any realized harm or incident caused by the AI system itself but highlights a credible risk that the unauthorized possession and use of advanced AI chips by a Chinese company could lead to significant harms, including military enhancement and geopolitical tensions. This fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as the development and use of the AI system with these chips could plausibly lead to harms such as violations of legal export controls and threats to security. There is no indication of an actual AI Incident or complementary information about responses or mitigations, nor is it unrelated to AI.

The event involves the use and development of an AI system (DeepSea's AI model trained on Nvidia Blackwell chips). The US export ban aims to prevent such technology transfer due to plausible future harms, including military enhancement and strategic threats. Since no actual harm has been reported yet, but there is a credible risk that this could lead to significant harms, this qualifies as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. The event does not describe realized harm but highlights a credible potential for harm due to the AI system's development and use with restricted hardware.

The event involves the development and use of an AI system (DeepSeek's advanced AI model trained on Nvidia Blackwell chips). The U.S. export controls prohibit the sale of these chips to China, so the acquisition represents a breach of legal frameworks. Although no direct harm has been reported yet, the unauthorized possession and use of advanced AI chips by a Chinese company could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military enhancement and geopolitical risks. Therefore, this situation fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to AI incidents involving harm to national security or geopolitical stability. There is no indication of actual harm or incident yet, so it is not an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information or unrelated news, as the core issue is the plausible risk arising from the AI system's use and the breach of export controls.

The event involves an AI system (DeepSea's AI model) trained on advanced AI chips (Blackwell) that are subject to U.S. export restrictions. The unauthorized acquisition and use of these chips could plausibly lead to significant harms, including military enhancement and geopolitical risks, which align with potential harm to critical infrastructure or national security interests. Since no actual harm or incident has been reported yet, but the risk is credible and significant, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard. It is not Complementary Information because the main focus is on the potential violation and risk, not on responses or updates to past incidents. It is not unrelated because AI systems and their hardware are central to the event.