Less stringent export controls are also what he would and should have been arguing for both as a business executive and, paradoxically, probably even even if he was lobbying for US interests. US leadership keeps making the same dumb mistake. When you restrict access to some advanced technology to another technologically advanced country, it's not like the other country just cries and beg you to give it back. Nothing is so advanced that it can't be replicated.

So you going from the other country being fully dependent upon you (putting you at an economic/geopolitical edge) to urgently incentivizing them to make their own advances in the restricted industry, which may eventually surpass your own achievements. For instance the Wolf Amendment [1] is the reason China was never allowed on the 'international' ISS. [1] The idea is that they'd just steal all of our tech or something. So it simply led to the Chinese creating their own space station while the ISS continues to deteriorate with no replacement in sight.

Same thing with chips. Come back to this post in ~15 years.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment

▲

ElProlactin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Less stringent export controls are also what he would and should have been arguing for both as a business executive and, paradoxically, probably even even if he was lobbying for US interests.

You're missing the point, which is that once you've been compromised by a foreign intelligence service, it doesn't matter whether or not what you were lobbying for was logical or "right". What matters is that your relevant actions have been tainted and motivations can no longer be fully trusted, so you lose your credibility.

Nvidia's board is probably going to try to do what it can to look like it's taking this matter seriously without terminating Huang, but that's because there's no succession plan at Nvidia.

Huang's political clout is gone, and he may never get it back.

▲

somenameforme 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not missing that at all and I fully agree with you. I'm just saying his actions don't condemn him in any way which would also mean it was likely a bad play by China. Ostensibly it's understandable wanting to get an inside with him, but if his natural path forward aligns with your interest then there's not much to be gained, and a potentially significant amount to lose, because now it will predictably result in knee-jerk reactions.

▲

ElProlactin an hour ago | parent [-]

> I'm just saying his actions don't condemn him in any way...

He has lost all credibility. He might remain as CEO of Nvidia, especially because the company doesn't have a succession plan, but this is going to be the end of his political clout for a good long time, perhaps forever.

> ...which would also mean it was likely a bad play by China.

I don't really think this is the case. China will continue to smuggle chips and work on its own technology regardless.

The bottom line is China's MSS successfully compromised one of the world's most powerful executives and the price that will be paid is mostly on the US side. Given that this was disclosed to Trump a while back and he sat on it, don't be surprised if this becomes another big problem for Trump, who is in a horribly vulnerable spot right now after the midterms.

	▲	somenameforme 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Let me rephrase that - his business actions don't condemn him. Obviously his indiscretions have ruined him, and those were certainly his actions, so you're right - but I'd classify those as his personal actions. I don't agree this will harm the US in any way, shape, or fashion. It'll be used to justify even more stringent efforts at tech control and greater surveillance efforts of key technological players. All of this fits into US desires to a t. And while none of this will directly harm China, and may even paradoxically benefit them (for reasons mentioned previously), I can't imagine this is something they would directly aim for relative to a more favorable prior status quo.