3 ms·

>>Which begs the question, does Nvidia have a responsibility to know exactly what their equipment is being used for, no matter if that activity is legal or not?

>>Which begs the question, does Nvidia have a responsibility to know exactly what their equipment is being used for, no matter if that activity is legal or not? They are being charged not for not knowing, they are being charged for knowing and not disclosing it. The "knowing" part seems to be a forgone conclusion, or at least SEC must have ironclad proof. >> Seems they would have to add a mandatory question asking "What are you gonna use this GPU for?" No, but if they are selling thousands of GPUs to cryptominers, they don't need to ask to know. Same how if the US Airforce purchased 100k GPU chips, you can safely assume they won't be using them to play Fortnite, no questionnaire necessary.

erikerikson 5y ago
The Airforce has flight simulators and other video games for which it must use GPUs. Additionally there are ML models to build and so on. Of the things I would predict, crypto mining would be the least of them.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  I don't think the parent was implying they were.
  - erikerikson 5y ago
    > Same how if the US Airforce purchased 100k GPU chips, you can safely assume they won't be using them to play Fortnite, no questionnaire necessary. My intention was to gently counter this statement. I took Fortnite as a proxy for video games and I meant to add to the conversation that it does use video games. For a while the military was even publishing video games.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Of course, but when you are disclosing your business activities, selling to the military is a pretty major thing to mention, no? You wouldn't just lump it all under "gaming", because your gpus might be used to play video games.
  - erikerikson 5y ago
    I accept lower salaries to never have to care about reporting to the SEC. The lost revenues are offset by doing work that matters.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The "knowing" part seems to be a forgone conclusion, or at least SEC must have ironclad proof. The SEC doesn't need ironclad proof for a civil fine. The standard is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
cjbgkagh 5y ago
I wonder if they’re using the GPUs in radars.

erikerikson 5y ago

The Airforce has flight simulators and other video games for which it must use GPUs. Additionally there are ML models to build and so on. Of the things I would predict, crypto mining would be the least of them.

gpderetta 5y ago
I don't think the parent was implying they were.
- erikerikson 5y ago
  > Same how if the US Airforce purchased 100k GPU chips, you can safely assume they won't be using them to play Fortnite, no questionnaire necessary. My intention was to gently counter this statement. I took Fortnite as a proxy for video games and I meant to add to the conversation that it does use video games. For a while the military was even publishing video games.
gambiting 5y ago
Of course, but when you are disclosing your business activities, selling to the military is a pretty major thing to mention, no? You wouldn't just lump it all under "gaming", because your gpus might be used to play video games.
- erikerikson 5y ago
  I accept lower salaries to never have to care about reporting to the SEC. The lost revenues are offset by doing work that matters.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The "knowing" part seems to be a forgone conclusion, or at least SEC must have ironclad proof. The SEC doesn't need ironclad proof for a civil fine. The standard is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

cjbgkagh 5y ago

I wonder if they’re using the GPUs in radars.