3 ms·

Blocked or not blocked from china's market, hindering US companies from developing and becoming leaders in emerging new technologies will not help the US stay a

Blocked or not blocked from china's market, hindering US companies from developing and becoming leaders in emerging new technologies will not help the US stay ahead. China wants to catch up, and they will with or without US help. The only question is whether the USA will work to remain competitive by mastering new domains, or whether it will sit back on it's laurels and the technology it's already mastered. The development of cheap and ubiquitous RISC-V processors has major implications for the economics of putting software into devices. When modern military and civilian tech relies on doing that? This is one of the areas you need to be pushing into to stay competitive.

chaostheory 3y ago
Why do we have to work on helping China with new tech in order to remain competitive? Why should we help China develop their own chip foundries when we’re about to get into a hot kinetic war with them in the South China Sea? Again, you can’t ignore that issue if you want a strong argument.
- jakobson14 3y ago
  Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. That much should be obvious to ANYONE with even a PASSING understanding of how open source works. In their report, the US gov wants open source collaboration on RISC-V between the US and it's allies.....while also excluding china. Sorry, not fucking possible. You can either have open colaboration where anyone can participate, and yeah, that means somebody might secretly be working for the PRC, or you have no open colaboration at all. There is NO middle ground, and any attempt to create one will simply kill the open colaboration. Kill the open collaboration in the USA, and the USA falls behind. All the other countries in the world will continue to collaborate on RISC-V, in the EU, in china, japan, austrailia, canada, and wherever else, and none of that will translate into increased experience or capability for the US. The USA becomes a pure consumer of other people's tech, never contributing anything back for fear that it might find it's way to someone in china either directly or by way of someone else engaging in open colaboration.
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    Open source collaboration does not mean that mainland Chinese corporate and government entities get to hire Western consultants for money. That’s the only thing this legislation can affect if you understand how open source works so I don’t see the problem. > All the other countries in the world will continue to collaborate on RISC-V, in the EU, in china, japan, austrailia, canada, and wherever else, and none of that will translate into increased experience or capability for the US. Yes, and as long as mainland Chinese entities don’t get official support and consultation that is perfectly fine. You can’t stop unofficial support because open source, which is fine. I can also guarantee that all of the countries that you listed will take the US stance, especially Japan and Australia. anyone would with any familiarity of geopolitics would know that The PLA navy and the navies of the US and its allies such as Japan, the UK, and Australia are getting ready for combat in the South China Sea as we speak. You cannot ignore that unless you want a weak argument
    - jakobson14 3y ago
      There's nothing in this about hiring consultants for money. Read it again. This is about export of technology, which you are doing whenever you post open source implementations of RISC-V technology online. The lawmakers are explicitly concerned that chinese technology companies benefit whenever a US person shares designs or code online. They are specifically, explicitly seeking that all allied countries be able to freely exchange open source stuff, but that the PRC be excluded from this open source exchange. Here, let me quote it for you: "In response, the United States should build a robust ecosystem for open-source collaboration among the U.S. and our allies while ensuring the PRC is unable to benefit from that work." As for whether this is achievable? It's not. In a world with global internet, "don't share the stuff you post online with china" can only be implemented as "don't share the stuff you made online." There is no other way. What they're describing is contradictory. You can't have an ecosystem of open source collaboration while ALSO preventing a specific entity from benefiting from it. It doesn't especially matter whether other countries are on board with this, since the above even prevents US persons from being able to openly share with each other. They can enact the same policies if they want, or if the US wants them to, but it only replicates the same fundamental problem. Nothing can be shared online, on this great global internet, without also sharing it with the PRC. This isn't even the first time that the US government has attempted something like this. They tried back in the 90's to block export of cryptographic implementations, including open source ones like GPG, to other countries by posting them on the internet. It was rendered a moot point when someone published the source code of GPG under the first amendment in a book as an act of protest.

chaostheory 3y ago

Why do we have to work on helping China with new tech in order to remain competitive? Why should we help China develop their own chip foundries when we’re about to get into a hot kinetic war with them in the South China Sea? Again, you can’t ignore that issue if you want a strong argument.

jakobson14 3y ago
Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. That much should be obvious to ANYONE with even a PASSING understanding of how open source works. In their report, the US gov wants open source collaboration on RISC-V between the US and it's allies.....while also excluding china. Sorry, not fucking possible. You can either have open colaboration where anyone can participate, and yeah, that means somebody might secretly be working for the PRC, or you have no open colaboration at all. There is NO middle ground, and any attempt to create one will simply kill the open colaboration. Kill the open collaboration in the USA, and the USA falls behind. All the other countries in the world will continue to collaborate on RISC-V, in the EU, in china, japan, austrailia, canada, and wherever else, and none of that will translate into increased experience or capability for the US. The USA becomes a pure consumer of other people's tech, never contributing anything back for fear that it might find it's way to someone in china either directly or by way of someone else engaging in open colaboration.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  Open source collaboration does not mean that mainland Chinese corporate and government entities get to hire Western consultants for money. That’s the only thing this legislation can affect if you understand how open source works so I don’t see the problem. > All the other countries in the world will continue to collaborate on RISC-V, in the EU, in china, japan, austrailia, canada, and wherever else, and none of that will translate into increased experience or capability for the US. Yes, and as long as mainland Chinese entities don’t get official support and consultation that is perfectly fine. You can’t stop unofficial support because open source, which is fine. I can also guarantee that all of the countries that you listed will take the US stance, especially Japan and Australia. anyone would with any familiarity of geopolitics would know that The PLA navy and the navies of the US and its allies such as Japan, the UK, and Australia are getting ready for combat in the South China Sea as we speak. You cannot ignore that unless you want a weak argument
  - jakobson14 3y ago
    There's nothing in this about hiring consultants for money. Read it again. This is about export of technology, which you are doing whenever you post open source implementations of RISC-V technology online. The lawmakers are explicitly concerned that chinese technology companies benefit whenever a US person shares designs or code online. They are specifically, explicitly seeking that all allied countries be able to freely exchange open source stuff, but that the PRC be excluded from this open source exchange. Here, let me quote it for you: "In response, the United States should build a robust ecosystem for open-source collaboration among the U.S. and our allies while ensuring the PRC is unable to benefit from that work." As for whether this is achievable? It's not. In a world with global internet, "don't share the stuff you post online with china" can only be implemented as "don't share the stuff you made online." There is no other way. What they're describing is contradictory. You can't have an ecosystem of open source collaboration while ALSO preventing a specific entity from benefiting from it. It doesn't especially matter whether other countries are on board with this, since the above even prevents US persons from being able to openly share with each other. They can enact the same policies if they want, or if the US wants them to, but it only replicates the same fundamental problem. Nothing can be shared online, on this great global internet, without also sharing it with the PRC. This isn't even the first time that the US government has attempted something like this. They tried back in the 90's to block export of cryptographic implementations, including open source ones like GPG, to other countries by posting them on the internet. It was rendered a moot point when someone published the source code of GPG under the first amendment in a book as an act of protest.