What if the gov tolerated gpu exports on purpose?

Black & grey market devices marked up many times cost buyers heavily, while still suppressing motivation to develop sovereignty.

If nvidia selling to China tolerated for the realpolitik and gets undone by incoming powers to create an appearance of change, is it really the right thing to do? Is it the smart thing to do?

It's an interesting thought experiment, though, we will probably never know.

▲

schainks a day ago | parent | next [-]

> What if the gov tolerated gpu exports on purpose?

Given the track record of this administration, they were probably paid to tolerate said exports.

	▲	taylorfinley a day ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed, Jensen 'gifted' $25m to the ballroom after Trump was briefed on the matter. Many sources, here's one: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-jensen-huang-spy-claim-nvidia...

▲

kspacewalk2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why on earth would that be suppressing motivation to develop sovereignty? The whole thing makes developing sovereignty an existential priority. When one critical part of your AI technology stack is subject to whims of your adversary, it's not really fully your AI technology stack. Today they turn the tap partially on, but only unofficially, tomorrow they'll shut it off. Time to buy your own tap.

▲

cowlevel 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know the exact reason, but all empirical evidence shows that it does. E.g. the whole of Europe still using Microsoft because they can, even though bits and pieces get cut off (like the ICC). If Microsoft cut off the whole of Europe, then Microsoft wouldn't have power over them any more.

▲

kspacewalk2 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Microsoft's days in many EU countries' government departments are numbered regardless of what Microsoft does. The understanding is there: a critical dependence on a product coming from a now-unreliable ally is a problem. It will, however, take many years for this to actually happen, because it's much easier said than done.

	▲	cowlevel 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's what they say. What they actually do betrays otherwise.

▲

stale2002 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would suppress it because investing in this stuff is a very large short/mid term cost for long term gain.

This, providing access to the gpus but at a large markup plays into that dynamic.

Entities being myopic shouldn't be surprising.

▲

kspacewalk2 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Does the Chinese government strike you as an organization that's strapped for cash or infected by short-term thinking?

	▲	stale2002 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah actually, they have engaged in tons of short term thinking to their detriment. Look at their demographics issue, as well as things like the real estate bubble. Their economy is below what it was supposed to be by a real margin.

▲

humanlity a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Post-Trained To Reinforce Western Values

▲

layoric a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yup, I think the same applies to traffic of arms regulations.. Private firms sell to countries they are 'allowed' to, passing it between organisations in a chain until they get to the original customer they couldn't sell to directly.. Cuts are taken along the way, and people making money look the other way..

▲

epistasis a day ago | parent | prev [-]

When Xi visited, Trump offered to sell him US made weapons.

What's the chance that these GPUs got to China without Trump getting a cut somehow?

Pretty much zero. Trump sat on knowledge of the affair for an entire year. That's extremely guilty behavior, he was either extorting Huang or covering g for him.

The whole thing is the most corrupt thing we have ever seen at the presidential level.

▲

esseph a day ago | parent [-]

> The whole thing is the most corrupt thing we have ever seen at the presidential level.

Bigger than Watergate by far

	▲	whynotmaybe a day ago \| parent [-]
		... So far