I am not sure if this is implicitly part of the point you meant to make, but I just wanted to point out for those who aren't aware that Chinese EVs and drones are both banned in the US on precisely the (vague) grounds you mention. The drone ban is more recent and nominally only affects new models that haven't yet received FCC certification, but the outcome if nothing changes will be that American consumers lose access to DJI-style videography drones. DIY hobbyists may also find it more difficult or impossible to source parts for their projects.

Routers have now gotten the same treatment. So yes, consumers have been historicaly benefiting from all these things, and those benefits are about to evaporate as we lose access to cheap and high quality Chinese products before any domestic equivalents exist. And IIUC banning the use of Chinese LLMs for consumers and/or businesses in the US is now being discussed at the highest levels of government, with the "encouragement" of US AI firms.

I don't think any of these people care that America consumers are increasingly going to feel like they're living in a sanctioned country. It's all about the defense and b2b segments.

> Aren't consumers benefiting from cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?

Yes?

Not remembering my economic theory here, but it is likely more efficient/expensive to simply have the federal government cut checks to our moribund industrial sector companies and let consumers benefit from modern technology.

Cut GM/Ford/Stellantis a $20B check each, let consumers save (conservatively) $200B annually on new car purchases + downstream benefits. Huge win for consumers & taxpayers.

If it's not worth subsidizing explicitly like this, then we also should not subsidize by banning Chinese imports, which also ensures US drivers have less access to modern vehicles. (And downstream ensures US auto designers are less likely to have had contact with modern vehicles, making it less likely that they will be able to design future generations well.)

Heck yes!

I don't get why USA wants to keep losing money on sustaining failed uncompetitive zombie companies. The companies that decided to lose long term competence for short-term gains need to go bankrupt (you've had EV-1, but decided to drill, baby, drill). The greedy shareholders that rewarded destructive value extraction need to lose money, instead of getting a soft exit at taxpayers' expense.

If you want to give a subsidy, give it to something that will modernize and expand manufacturing, not to prolong death of companies whose entire R&D strategy is inventing new subscriptions for old car components.

> cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?

The banning or effective banning through tariffs of products like EVs is a pretty dumb economic strategy that rarely works out in the long-run.

> Aren't consumers benefiting from cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?

Depends on what country you live in I suppose, but likely a spectrum of yes than any outright no. For example, Chinese EVs are using a different battery chemistry and not putting demand pressure on the more expensive chemistry western manufacturers use

> It’s the same as the patent argument.

The Chinese are open-sourcing these models - meaning they are literally giving them away. That's starkly different behaviour from that which drove patents and copyright.

There are all sorts of other differences too. If you develop a drug or publish a novel (which are respectively areas where patents and copyright have strong justification), you have to kiss a lot of toads before you get a prince. Once you have a potential prince drug, it takes years and billions to get it into the market. But right now, AI labs are seemingly churning out new prince models almost weekly, on hardware that will be obsoleted in a few years by hardware that makes finding princes faster and cheaper. In fact they rent the hardware, as Moonshot apparently did here.

When innovation is happening at that rate, patents and other IP restrictions just slow things down. If AI patents are aggressively granted and enforced in the USA, I suspect the outcome would be the same as batteries. China swept the market with LFP, and one reason was because while the USA developed them, there was no competition forcing the manufacturing price down because in the USA the patents weren't re-licensed cheaply. China had the foresight to secure a deal allowing them to develop and sell LFP domestically royalty-free. Natural competition within the domestic market took care of the rest. It looks like they are using a similar strategy for AI.

To me it looks like they have come up with a better formula for using capitalism to drive innovation than the one the USA is using.

But nobody really pays the 3x (ie. api) rates, except for enterprises. Everyone else are using the consumption plans, which are heavily discounted[1], possibly cheaper than even the chinese models, which don't do consumption plan discounts. Even in your linked reddit thread, the OP agreed with this sentiment.

[1] https://x.com/SemiAnalysis_/status/2064815044085318040