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 -
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.
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.
I have to note: I am undecided on what's better for me. I argue for the sake of argument. I believe the current US policy will end up making everyone poorer and American global standing lesser, as in the long term it will guarantee a separate technological civilization existing and building in and around China. So, given how undesirable your hegemony is, maybe that's overall a good thing and I should shill for export controls. Maybe this mad bet on the AGI race will work and I'm wrong, though.
This made me smile. Very "nationalize SpaceX" energy. You do realize that your Hail Mary attempt at preserving hegemony largely depends on him? For some reason, Loyal Americans run their hardware companies into the ground. I do think he believes that this game will continue for decades, and China is not going anywhere, it's not going to critically fall behind, and so he wants to keep a piece of that market for the US. And that can be done.
Asinine. As it's said, "there is nothing to be learned in matters of faith". If anything, this describes Intel. No, market demand is not irrelevant, PRC corporations actually have incentives beyond 5-year plans, largely because they have slim margins. Americans really have worked themselves up into a frenzy with this doctrine that everything in China is massively subsidized and so can be unprofitable forever. It's not about subsidies, they're just more productive than you and have a more ruthless market, to the extent that the state is trying – and failing! – to arrest "involution".
Just because you hate the CCP really, really hard does not give you the license to spew bullshit. Being very confident doesn't help. It is not, in fact, possible to create a competitive ecosystem by decree, even if it's super-duper maximum pressure. This just takes too many people. I know DeepSeek has been asked to and declined to do serious training runs on Huawei due to immaturity of CANN stack. They have this choice, for a little longer. They're typical. There are maybe 2 Chinese companies doing large-scale training on Ascends, and one is iFlyTek, which has been on entity list since forever and has no choice; they haven't achieved much. Even Huawei themselves are yet to release a single compelling model, they literally can't keep top-tier people interested as they leave to companies like DeepSeek. Huawei has 200K employees, for reference.
On a smaller scale, we've seen this when Microsoft attempted to make Windows Phone a thing. Tremendous effort went into it, a formidable corporation was banging against the wall for years, subsidizing the app marketplace, and it all fizzled out. No developers, no users, no network effects, no future.
One of those "billions" is in China, can you really take credit for it? I call bullshit, mostly it's just post-WWII economic growth the nexus of which was the US for reasons of not being bombed out, not some profoundly benign and productive doctrine or culture or people. India is illustrative: they wanted to latch onto Pax Americana and get something out of it; what have they got so far for India proper? I am in your "sphere of influence", so to speak, and it really doesn't look like you're spreading prosperity around. In fact it looks like you have nothing to spread, you don't invest, your own riches are a speculative bubble and you mainly "supply demand". You're demolishing your nuclear infrastructure, you don't build anything except datacenters, certainly you can't boast of turning Pakistan into a solar-powered economy or something. Outside a few premium items like these very GPUs, your wares are non-competitive trash that people abroad have to be compelled to buy, you're even pathetically forcing third parties to share your tariff regime to cling to some markets (very funny in this context of "market share is useless"). Yes, in theory you could cheat with AGI, but ask yourself, if a cheat on the scale of AGI is needed to redeem your claim to hegemony, what do you, as a people, stand to contribute? Having created the solutions where you've got AGI earlier than others?
This is a very tiresome talking point. They didn't have the benefit of a sane administration until 1978, after which they've consistently had the highest growth rate of all major economies. In any meaningful sense, including consumption spending, general QoL. GDP per capita comparisons are misleading. I've been reading on Taiwan recently and it seems that they're straight up having poorer lives than coastal Mainland Chinese in comparable population centers; like, they have higher costs of living and don't have meaningfully higher salaries. This, too, is Pax Americana; not even the smallest and most important clients can be sure to prosper. What else do we compare to? Singapore, Macao, Hong Kong? Please.
Now, history doesn't start in 1978. But nations change, even under the same regime and slogans. The US of today is not the US of 1960s either.
No. I don't understand. Why? What happens to the US that did not "win"? Unlike the USSR, China doesn't even have a messianic revolutionary project.
I think this is just wounded ego. You're used to hegemony, it's part of your personal identity, and it slipping away, likely forever, is perceived as existential horror, with appropriate rationalizations. This sounds about as compelling as Russian noises about NATO threat and absolute rationality of going all in to "denazify" Ukraine. In reality Russia could well survive Ukrainian integration with the West, it was merely humiliating (and deserved, certainly so after 2014 when we've demonstrated our mettle in managing "people's republics") but not affecting the survivability of the Russian state, and the costs of war have already far exceeded any sane estimate for costs of doing nothing.
Like what, using AI to design floor maps? They're doing it already, it doesn't take a lot of compute. A rather contrived concern.
The thing is, chips are very, very hard and ensuring the supply chain is all outside China has been one of the few truly great American political successes (not that it was hard, this chain was mostly complete when China was around $2000 GDP per capita) . The trifecta of ASML-TSMC-NVDIA (nevermind their multiple one-of-a-kind suppliers like ZEISS, and EDA software) will genuinely take China a decade or more to even approach. They will not have competitive chips. They will have (already have announced for Q1 2026) competitive systems, but those only exist because NVDIA is prevented from exporting the good stuff.
Again, I don't know what I should "rationally" shill for here. And anyway this might be too late. The US has clearly stated its hostility, burned the bridges, and will have to "lose", in a war of its own creation.
Certainly we can agree trade restrictions as an end result make everyone poorer. My position is that these are like trade restrictions on nuclear missiles or military drones where there is special interest to weigh against efficient markets.
This is just kind of silly to me. It's like a concern that opposing arms exports to a rival nation might mean they might adopt a gun with a different caliber and that'll make sales in the future more complicated. Except GPUs are even more interchangeable than other weapons systems. China isn't making chips out of Gallium or something exotic. They're using slightly more primitive DUV tech instead of EUV similar to the direction intel went down. They're not exactly hot swappable but this system lock in concern just doesn't appear to be real. These are pieces of specialized hardware that do linear algebra. The american domestic market leaders in AI don't even all use nvdia hardware to run inference. Openai uses nvdia, Google has their TPUs and anthropic uses Amazon Trainium.
For strategic initiatives? Yes, obviously the CCP is interested in accelerating this development and would be whether or not they had access to nvdia chips. I don't think Xi is playing factorio but the CCP does obviously practice extensive industrial policy. Making it kind of ironic to go this hard against one piece of American industrial policy. Like criticizing America for banning tik tok, which is hasn't actually even managed to do, from a country that bans all American social media companies. I don't mean to go total whataboutism but at some point if you trade extensively with an entity doing industrial policy you're effective just accepting the inverse of their policy.
It's kind of incredible to point out how China is willing to force some of their largest companies to supply demand for their domestic chip industry while being this confident that allowing Nvdia chips in will be able to suppress that development enough to give America a permanent foothold into the market. It's not going to happen, china is not going to play fair with their internal market and will crush out the foreign competition if able.
If the united states demanded every fortune 500 company issue windows phones then the demand would be induced and the app ecosystem would have come into existence. This would have made everyone poorer of course, but the CCP often has autarkic goals over pure pie growing. Incidentally I actually owned a windows phone my senior year of high school, it was pretty near, had a slide out keyboard but the lack of apps was a killer.
Absolutely. China has found its success through world trade on sea lanes policed by American military might in an environment built by American diplomats. That's what Pax Americana is. Of course some nations like India made worse use of it but even India has improved under the regime if less starkly than China.
This is an ironically Trumpist take on things for as much as you rightly excoriate his team's perspectives elsewhere. America has moved and focuses on services, research, design ect. It's a transition China would quite like to make. Even NVDIA doesn't actually produce the physical chips itself. Demand is also a pretty important part of this all as well as much as people like to denigrate it, China does suffer for a lack of domestic demand.
Growthrate is great and all but it's a bit cooked in favor of starting from behind. But this whole topic is a different rabbit hole than what we were talking about.
Really depends on how transformative you think AI is going to be. multipolarity doesn't seem very stable in any case.
NVDIA uses things like ChipNeMo which is only going to get better. The whole point of AI is to eventually accelerate all labor efforts and chip manufacturing is no different except that is has recursive returns. That's the kind of thing that keeps you permanently ahead.
Then I return to being very confused as to why we're going to regret this. The argument about whether we should want to weaken a geopolitical rival or whether we should even have geopolitical rivals is complicated and has some merit but this certain does hurt our geopolitical rivals.
This is just prolonged "nuh-uh". CUDA and CANN will continue to evolve divergently, Chinese models will likely be built around extreme sparsity and multi-tier memory (like ByteDance's UltraMem), scheduled Huawei systems are increasingly different from Nvidia's lineup (vaguely like Google's pods but Google doesn't yet sell those). We see that American providers took almost a year to implement DeepSeek and it's been just slightly unconventional, actually trained on H800s; SiliconFlow rolled it out on CloudMatrix 384s weeks after they were delivered. Lock-in happens on the software and hyperscaler level.
That said, all of this is beside the point because your idea is "hopefully we'll leave them so far behind their market won't matter much".
Industrial policy is about advancing domestic capability, protectionism and targeted subsidies – CHIPS act, banning Huawei in the US, not Nvidia in China. You're just calling any policy that has something to do with industry "industrial policy" I guess, but your argument is purely geostrategic and has no direct bearing on industry development in the US.
Incredible propaganda, yes. DeepSeek has maybe 300 people. And they weren't forced to do shit. If you mean that story, I've checked with the reporter and the report is basically unsourced rumor. This isn't happening, you're working purely from assumptions. There is now, indeed, effort to subsidize the adoption of domestic compute, but that's inevitable when Americans are deliberating on whether they can afford to sell even obsolete inference capacity.
You mean, it's a self-congratulatory, narcissistic Zeihanite myth? You're not protecting shit. You've just lost to Houthis, the first nontrivial challenge to sea lanes in forever. Your navy is designed around offensive operations against nation states and deterrence in nuclear war, not patrolling sea lanes, and its crown jewels are aircraft carriers and submarines. Maybe it would do great to block sea trade, at least that's the plan for Malacca. The global trade will certainly go on fine if it's scrapped.
Trump generally campaigns on real if exaggerated problems and popular frustrations, it's just his solutions are often hare-brained. China would definitely like to increase value-add, of course, but it wouldn't mean canceling "industrial policy" and shedding dominance in stuff like photovoltaics, they'll simply make factories more automated. Interestingly, in this case I even agree with Trump on selling GPUs to China, for once his mercantile instincts are appropriate.
Demand as such has zero value because it is easily produced at infinite scale and, for the purpose of this conversation, it's a malign concept. People don't sell to the US because the US pays back with some demandium, they just trade their work for a piece of liquid and appreciating American assets (insofar as those descriptions apply). Also, we've seen that as trade with the US fell due to tariffs, Chinese exports to ASEAN increased (and no it's not transshipping, the composition of goods is totally different) and fully canceled the drop in trade surplus. The world can produce plenty of "demand". You aren't that big anymore.
I think it's pretty stable (dysfunctional shitholes like Russia and even Iran stand strong), AI is likely to make it more so. Cybernetic superweapons are unlikely because hardening systems when you have unlimited time and root access is easier than pen testing; we'll get to verified kernels for everything much sooner than AIs become expert hackers. Material science and engineering advances promoting lasers, drones etc. are great for defense. Panopticon angle is obvious enough. I strongly doubt AI will enable some sort of super-nukes. This of course is a matter of opinion.
Selective quotation is a hell of a drug. On a single chip basis, even Huawei admits they can't compete and won't be able to in the foreseeable future (EUV breakthroughs may change that). They can make do with better systems integration and produce competitive (also due to more electric power, better grid) systems and that'd suffice to serve domestic demand, for lack of better alternative.. For the end product (AI), they'll be slowed down relative to the world of uncontested Nvidia dominance. I posit this is not critical. The critical thing is that this market will keep growing exponentially, and before too long you're forfeiting not tens but hundreds of billions, on not selling one of your few truly unparalleled products. Is the idea to make up for that with Singularity stuffa nd extorting allies in the meantime? This is a Hail Mary.
I guess this is the crux. In your world, where unipolarity is the default trajectory, it makes perfect sense to cling to Pax Americana and play negative-sum games hoping to outlast the opposition. Like, what is the alternative, capitulation, suicide? In my world, China is basically guaranteed to not only exist in 30 years but have comprehensively stronger economy than the US plus closest allies, no matter what you sell or don't sell, buy or don't buy. And the US will have to figure out how to exist, and exist well, without boons of global strategic superiority, in a bipolar world, and hopefully remaining a hegemon in its own backyard. That figuring out has got to begin now.
It's getting a little late on a Sunday to go point by point again but if memory serves correct, I briefly looked for the post can couldn't find it, you've acknowledged China's demographic issues and your solution to it was essentially ai enabled robotics to handle elderly care in order to keep the ratio of dependents to workers manageable correct? The happy case for China multipolar strength seems to rely on a pretty narrow outcome where AI is powerful enough to do a huge amount of menial labor but not powerful enough to where being ahead a couple years differentiates world power standings. And I just don't really see that as very likely. If AI doesn't get all that much better than it is now then I foresee china having another decade, maybe fifteen years of exceptional output before a lot of trouble handling a rapidly shrinking population. If AI does take off in a big way I think the couple years head start on chips will be pivotal and giving that up would be foolish. I can't really think of any reason to expect we'd fall between those two points.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link