> Technically, yes. The CCP, though, wants to incentivize Chinese firms to use domestically-manufactured chips.

This couldn’t be playing out better for Xi. Trump is China’s best president.

I used to think Trump was clueless and being outplayed, but now I realize he’s just looting and couldn’t care less about protectionism or the American worker.

Every single action from this administration can be explained by greed and ego.

This recent White House is another animal. It’s just bribes all the way down.

Add the Export Clause to the list of flagrant violations of the Constitution by this despicable regime.

That's Corporatism. It's from the fascist playbook where the state takes partial or complete ownership of private companies. Where does that money go, to some slush fund for the president? The reason for the export controls is to keep our potential adversaries from being on the bleeding edge of frontier AI. It goes against the US's interests to give China a leg up with advanced chips. It's almost laughable, of course, as the Nvidia chips are already manufactured in a country that China claims as their own. If they ever pressed the issue, we could find ourselves without the most advanced chips.

We live under economic conditions created by a government that does intervene. And a greater world order established by a hegemon that does intervene.

It would be interesting to see what life would be like today had that not happened. It might be better, it might be worse. Probably a little of both for different groups of people.

As the world returns to multi-polarity, there are signs of increases in violence.

The last time the world had multi-polarity, we had far more wars. Including the worst wars the world has ever seen.

Do you think countries behave differently than what the parent has said? This has been going on forever, since the first clan of humans fought another, any reasoning other than "might makes right" is a post-hoc rationalization not based in history.

The very first sentence crashes and burns, because there are multiple moral systems and compasses. Using "imperative" in the context of morals is extra spicy, because it reference a very specific, very strict moral code - The Categorical Imperative.

The CI is, in my experience, not a moral system about personal or group advantage, but about rules the can govern everybody.

Slave labour is very inefficient. It was found to be more beneficial to lure non-citizens with temporary working visas.

Correct, this is double-speak at its maximum.

Any other motivation forfeiting citizens' interests are perceived as treason, therefore immoral, so yes.

More like it's okay for one store to steal from another if they can offer you better prices.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The intent is there.

It's an incredibly complex distributed system with millions of actors and interactions, entrenched powers, regulatory capture, Citizens United, etc. It has to be defended and garbage collected.

It's interesting how this sounds like projection to me as well, from the perspective that China does export their ideology. Your post itself seems to be a form of that, whether you're Chinese or not.

China certainly does export their ideologies by telling the world Taiwan is part of China and telling others to not recognize Taiwan as a country. They also have major if not direct influence on Myanmar's civil war. North Korea. Let's not forget the taking land(India, tibet) and extending their borders with man-made islands so they can extend their fishing territories. that's a great track record. you're not biased at all.

Most European countries did awful things during their colonial years, some late into the XX century. Some still do shady things in Africa right now. And they all welcome money siphoned off peripheral countries by crooks.

Nobody can claim moral superiority.

I’ve got one. The US doesn’t mow down its citizens with tanks for protesting, and then perpetually suppress all discussion of the incident.

(Yes, there have been situations that are similar in theme, but they paw in comparison to that incident.)

China doesn't allow people to freely leave the country. How is that ok?

[flagged]

If the importer didn't have the intent of it going to the tourist, then things are fine for that one-off GPU. If they did have that intent we quickly get to smuggling territory, with or without you as a middleman.

And for GPU trips without a country in between, the plausible deniability is close to zero.

Facebook stole copyrighted material well above their own and admitted to it. It's not just "we took our users data", its "we literally downloaded torrent with 81 terabytes of books and used that for training".

Google most likely did something similar, just using books they already had indexed in Google Books, and probably by still seriously violating any reasonable notion of copyright

You accept these terms when you use their services.

I certainly didn't*. I'd love to see litigation testing just how solid those insidious opt-in-by-default schemes are as a basis for "ownership".

If they had users explicitly opt-in with a "Yes, go ahead and train on my stuff and by the way I assert that I have all the rights to grant you the same", I'd have no problem with that, and they'd have a much stronger claim.

(*Before others inevitably disagree: I do opt-out of this stuff aggressively, and further send notice to companies from time to time that I don't agree to certain objectionable clauses of their ToS and they're welcome to close my account).

only necessary under gdpr

It's not that simple. The EU may be the only ones to have codified that, but there's centuries of case law in other jurisdictions dealing with ownership, that once the matter hits litigation might turn out to say something other than these tech companies would like.

Didn’t Anthropic already eat a $1.5 billion lawsuit?

> Until an AI company eats a multi billion dollar lawsuit for unlawful data use they will continue to operate this way

If only. That's my dream, massive copyright lawsuits against all of these AI players and maybe the courts can do something good for a change, put an end to all of this AI bullshit