This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
H1Bs now require a $100k payment per year (I believe, seeing some remarks saying it might be per visa) to the government due to Donald Trump executive order, plus if you are currently overseas and hold a H1B you need to pay $100k effective immediately on your next entry into the USA if you are not within the country by the 20th of September.
As a foreign non-Lawyer I don't know how effective this is going to be/liable to be immediately derailed in the courts, but I do think it's a positive step towards ensuring skilled immigration is used for the genuinely effective instead of ye olde 'I can import a foreigner who I have more power over at a 10% discount rate to domestic workers'. I'm also deeply skeptical of the 'productivity' of the vast majority of tech H1B hires and wish them the best of luck in attempting to offshore the competencies required to make AI-powered Grindr for Daily Fantasy Sports
This is an annual $100k fee, it's basically telling H-1B applicants they aren't welcome in the US as nobody is going to pay that much extra. Plus it's going to destroy the US international student college market as outside the very top schools a big part of the draw is a chance to work and stay in the US after graduation and nobody outside of Citadel etc. will pay $100k per year in fees for a new grad.
Good boon for the UK/Canada though as it means that instead of American companies hiring in the US they'll instead offshore the jobs and hire here instead. The country can generally do with some of the over inflated US salaries coming over here too.
I feel the US will regret this 10 years down the line, much like how they are now regretting limiting Nvidia sales to China forcing them to build their own homegrown system.
What? This is not happening unless there is very new news. China's home grown system is still much worse.
FT article this week: https://www.ft.com/content/8fd79522-e34f-4633-bc87-ef0aae2d9159
Archive link: https://archive.is/UKulo
Good on them for building it, but if you read the article you would see that the DUV tech they are testing is years behind the latest EUV stuff, and it will still be years before it is up and running.
EUV is a whole different beast from DUV and who knows when China will have one ready.
Well this article just also came out: https://www.ft.com/content/db286a0a-ca2d-4791-809e-c9a1ac73b8ad
Archive link: https://archive.is/jSRNH
The whole feeling that China has come out on top here isn't on the basis of a single article or anything but rather a more latent sentiment shared by many that the US through their actions delved too greedily and too deep and now have awoken something best left sleeping.
Hello derail. You specifically posted the previous article arguing about the effects of chip sanctions. And I said that your argument was bs.
The chinese tech sector is doing fine but that's pretty much irrelevant. If you read the exact article you just linked:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, they continue to try and play catch up, what I'm definitely not seeing is the regret for making them do that rather than just giving them the more powerful chips. Lack of access to nvidia chips is demonstrably slowing down their AI progress.
What is the end goal here? Or any goal?
OK, you're slowing them down alright. They will not have as capable models, as quickly or cheaply, in the next 4-6 years. Then what? Is this just banking on an AGI superweapon to make economic dimension irrelevant, or on the windfall from economic growth this is supposed to beget? Huawei is superior in networking equipment, China has an overabundance of energy and skilled labor, if they scale up production of even past-generation compute chips (and mainly HBM), they will have a fully adequate and incompatible domestic ecosystem and Nvidia and others will never reenter their market, and American slice of it will be that much smaller.
If China has the ability to leapfrog Nvidia and other western AI tech, they're gonna do it irregardless of any sanctions on chips. Like of course they are going to try.
What networking equipment? 5g or something else?
5G/6G is not very relevant to this issue, but they have extremely advanced datacenter network architecture and their new systems are based on it. This will allow them to cope with lower performance of individual chips.
This is not true. People act like "China" is a perfectly coordinated single entity, a game of Factorio Xi plays, but it's still a country with different economic actors. If Huawei can't sell their crap because everyone in China who is actually good at AI uses CUDA and Nvidia hardware (like, again, DeepSeek), Huawei will not improve as rapidly. Subsidies in isolation cannot replace organic ecosystem support, they just prolong the agony, and at the current level not even China can subsidize the development of the entire supply chain, it's to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Cool paper but it seems to be a way to achieve similar perf while spending less money on switches. I'm not gonna call it a nothingburger but I don't think it's a huge deal. Also seems to be something that would happen irregardless of the state of compute chips.
China can sell their crap airplane and the airlines don't dare not buy it.
Of course China is not a single entity, but its well within the government's capability and desire to force players to take economically inefficient decisions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the pessimistic view you seem to hold, maybe the horse will sing. In the optimistic view, then nothing and China never catches up to the western SOTA.
Let's turn the question around. We let American companies sell chips to America's geopolitical rival for less than 4-6 years until, apparently, indigenous Chinese capabilities match American capabilities, at which point China tells Nvidia to GTFO. We benefited our rival for... What? A few quarters of sales for a couple of firms?
Your inclination towards China makes it hard to take seriously your opinion on how America should conduct itself with China.
Do you realize that the entire windfall from Trump's tariff nonsense would be an order of magnitude less than those quarters, even as it destroys similar value (hundreds of billions)?
It seems Americans aren't happy with this whole concept of trade anymore. If they buy foreign stuff, that's bad because they're losing dollars, gotta reindustrialize and implement tariffs. If they're selling stuff to foreigners who aren't completely inept and subjugated, that's also bad, because then those foreigners may develop and get richer, and for an American, the world is zero-sum, so the only Deals Americans are now willing to make are that which make the other party poorer, like the humiliation rituals you subject "NATO allies" to. Trump's rhetoric around coercing South Koreans and others to "invest" (he apparently understands FDI in very childish terms, "they give us moneys because they're our bitches") completes the picture.
Yes, I admit this makes me even more sympathetic to China.
Yes? You'll never catch me defending the tariff retardation.
The world is positive sum. Abetting your enemies, however, is likely negative sum. At any rate, it's negative for you.
Yes, this is also retarded. Two retards don't make a right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do I really need some kind of special reasoning to oppose sending scarce resource that already sells out in western markets to a geopolitical rival to not only not direct gain but very straightforward direct losses to domestic firms? To sell our opposition the rope it needs to hang us is something a particularly short sighted firm might advocate for, but to do so below market rate? This is madness.
This lock-in effect is just nonsense and has not worked for literally a single firm that has sold out to china. China is not going to forego building their own echo-system and hasn't for any other sector they've found strategically important.
It's banking on the certainty that surrendering our major advantage in the AI race to china for no reason or gain will turn out badly for us, obviously. I can't even fathom how a thinking person could convince themselves otherwise. You've already highlighted their advantages, is your position that the race is already over despite us currently being ahead?
This has always been the goal and the chips would only be used to push towards this goal faster. Our one chance at dominance in this sector is remaining ahead in AI and reaping compound interest on that lead whether it's AGI or simply accelerated AI and chip development. If it's not enough then I just don't buy this fantasy that selling out now is going to give us a better seat in the future.
This is pretty asinine. You're defending export controls with the claim that their absence would… distort markets? Do you think that's what Nvidia is trying to do, sell GPUs below market rate, despite having an unsaturated domestic market that would generate higher margins? Why do you imagine they would hurt themselves like that? Might it be time to install some loyal apparatchiks on board, or do a little witch hunt for Communist agents?
As I've said before, "China" is not omnipotent and cannot create an ecosystem solely through political will and subsidies, they've been trying for decades and it hasn't been working so long as Nvidia was the obvious superior choice. Even now, nobody wants to use CANN if afforded the chance. I think this is how Jensen views this: he's straightforwardly fighting as the CEO of American company Nvidia, not just for line going up in quarterly reports but for enduring global dominance of his stack.
Are you avoiding the question, or does it not parse for you?
I think that to discuss whether "the race" is over, it's important to establish whether a race is happening and what it is that you are racing towards. The US is ahead in AI. Again, without American chips, China will be developing AI slower for the next few years. Is that a "race"? What happens when you reach the finish line? Don't huff and puff, say concretely. Do you build an AGI superweapon that disables their nukes with nanobots? Or what? What's the end goal, in the face of which every thinking person would deem hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of profits a mere short-sighted distraction? Can you spell it out?
Not enough for what? Like, what's the theory of victory here? Repeating the Great Divergence, now with automation, relatively growing so quickly that China is forever left in the dust? Lights-out factories spawning across the US, producing ungodly goods optimized by AGI, incomprehensibly advanced weapons systems, Pax Americana becoming permanent?
How likely do you think that is? And what happens if this doesn't work out?
I think the answers are basically "yes/likely/better not to think of this", and personally, I believe this is all deluded and very much in the spirit of last days of Nazi Germany. Both sides will have adequate AI to increase productivity, both will have "AGI" at around the same time, you're not going to have some dramatic inflection point, you will not leave them in the dust as a military or economic power, you'll just slow down global economic growth somewhat, and in the long run end up poorer and have a smaller slice of the global market. That's all.
You'd have to ask Jensen Huang why he's so hungry for demand despite not saturating the domestic market. The traitor, the treasonous little worm, is fighting bills that merely demand he offer the chips to domestic buyers for the same price. His public logic is the same short sighted nonsense of a "toehold" that you propose. This is a man who lies through his teeth at every opportunity. He claims that selling chips to China won't reduce chips available for western markets, this is a lie, in his earning report he very clearly says they already sell out of the chips.
China is already exerting the maximum amount of demand and political pressure it can to try and compete on chips. The internal market demand is irrelevant. The government will guarantee every chip is sold and prop up all the companies making them. Whether or not AI labs can use NVDIA hardware has zero actual influence on the development of their ecosystem. Hardware "lock-in" on these labs is an entirely made up concept.
Specifics could shake out a number of ways depending on where, whether and how you think AI will Plateau. In all cases besides it basically capping out at gpt-5 level dominance in this field is critical. If it is powerful enough to actually do high level engineering work then it instantly obviates China's other major advantage in having a big workforce. If it scales all the way to AGI then forget about it, winning that race is all that matters.
Winner gets to be the center of commerce and yes some latitude that comes along with having the most powerful military. These things come with social and political influence. Social and political influence that I think is better in the hands of democratic powers, as flawed as they are, than the autocratic CCP. We know what PAX Americana looks like and it looks pretty good actually. Billions rising up out of poverty. General spread of democratic institutions. And we know who Xi is allied with, nations like North Korea and Russia.
I'm happy that the Chinese people are prospering. I certainly don't want to take that away from them. But CCP dominance hasn't even been particularly good for them. China is host to the poorest and least prosperous Chinese people in the world. It's not a regime I would like to see replicated and given strength and more than Soviet Russia was a regime I would have liked to see replicated and given strength. surely you understand the "equals across the sea" isn't an option on the table. That isn't what is in store if we give up all our advantages in this sector.
China will take the chips, use them to accelerate their position, including in advancing their own semiconductor industry. I don't know how you could actually believe giving them the chips now would actually guarantee a slice of this market. As soon as China has even slightly competitive chips they will crumple up NVDIA and toss it out like so much garbage. It's what happens with every firm that tries to compete in China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
AFAIK last week or so the homegrown system seems to have taken a leap but I'm not sure if it's huge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link