5 ms·

Trouble Brewing for RISC-V as Issue of Technology Transfer Is Questioned

78 points by rcarmo 3y ago

soneil 3y ago
Related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38163412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38163412 is worth reading alongside this (it's not exactly a dupe, but it's pretty meta).
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  >"abusing RISC-V to get around U.S. dominance" Saying the quiet part out loud.
rwmj 3y ago
https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/11.1.23-riscv-letter.pdf https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites... This is the letter and it's as stupid as you imagine.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Well geopolitically it makes sense to some degree. Probably no other country would benefit more from RISC-V catching up with ARM/AMD64 than China (and unlike those US won't have as much direct control over transfer/licensing of IP etc.) They seem to be extremely clear about motivations: > The intellectual property used to design semiconductor chips is currently dominated by western firms, including ARM, Intel, and AMD. The U.S. and other governments have typically required licenses for certain use and users of chip architecture, but RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government One might justifiable strongly disagree with that, I wouldn't it's "stupid", though.
  - api 3y ago
    The US should make sure it has local fabs or fabs in very friendly countries that can meet demand, but the idea of preventing China from having its own cutting edge fabs seems completely absurd and impossible.
    - marcinzm 3y ago
      That's a strawmen argument. It's not about preventing something but about delaying it or increasing the cost of it. Economic warfare.
      - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
        Can you expound on that?
  - rwmj 3y ago
    > RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government I'm glad you highlighted that sentence from the statement because it is wrong in just about every aspect. Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs. Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one). Thirdly the PRC doesn't need to copy an open source architecture, they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. Fourthly it's open source so how would you realisticly prevent the PRC from getting it? - Even trying will mainly hurt developers in the US and make no difference for China. So yes, stupid. Edit: Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish. That's the worst kind of stupid unfortunately.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs I'm not sure if 'license' is the right word, maybe not, however the US government does pretty tightly control what technologies you're allowed to license/sell to foreign entities. > Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one) If Western companies don't invest into RISC-V that would slow down any meaningful progress in the ecosystem. Of course it might also mean that they will be left behind by Chinese companies. > they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. They could, good luck selling it to anyone outside China. Also Chinese companies which did that would probably sanctioned to such an extent that they couldn't sell any of their products in half of the world (not just chips). > Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish Again. How is it stupid? I mean it's a blatant attempt at protectionism and (I'm not sure what the right word for that is, but something related to imperialism?). I don't think it's irrational, though. Unless you don't believe that RISC-V becoming more widespread posses a threat to the hegemony US/Western companies have in the highend chip market?
RobotToaster 3y ago
I thought Bernstein v. United States settled that source code was protected speech?
- OhMeadhbh 3y ago
  Lol.
- barryrandall 3y ago
  Court precedents aren't particularly reliable.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
This whole thing is incredibly stupid. It's an instruction set, not some magical technology (although well designed). Transfer is the whole point: it's a hardware programming interface, an agreement between interested parties to speak the same language. These idiots in Congress should just go ahead and ban the Chinese from using the alphabet or perhaps the digits 1 and 0. I'm all for responding to China's increasingly aggressive posture, their challenges to a international rules bases order, their totalitarian political system, and their support of the Russian murder machine, but this is both ineffectual and wrong.
- foverzar 3y ago
  > I'm all for responding to China's increasingly aggressive posture, their challenges to a international rules bases order, their totalitarian political system, and their support of the Russian murder machine, but this is both ineffectual and wrong. You are competitive, we get it. But can you at least stop turning every conflict of interest you have into a f-ing holy war while completely denying any agency for yourself? Have you considered that this way you'll might stop finding yourself in situations like these? Like, maybe if someone didn't treat China aggressively in the first place, they wouldn't have to experience pushbacks from it - yeah, what else could have happened? Maybe "Russian murder machine" (lol, how well that had aged) wouldn't be running if someone didn't lie to it about peace agreements, preparing to warfare with it instead - what else could have happened? And these countries are hardly alone in an increasing and diverse list of US enemies - there is a clear pattern with only really one thing (or actor) in common. I have no idea what you people see behind the "international rules bases order" propaganda meme that you started massively parrot recently, but try giving that speech to someone from southern hemisphere. There is a better way to live than treat everything around you with "barbarians at the gate" attitude.
- hashtag-til 3y ago
  IMHO it is not stupid. It's the forever challenge of communicating with non-technical people. These topics/questions/points are so badly written that people who understand the topic can actually make use of them to create effective rules. If you ever discussed requirements for something with non-technical people, that's the way it goes... I'm curious to understand, on your view, what would be more effective measures?
BirAdam 3y ago
China already has access to stuff more performant and efficient than rISC-V currently is… via both AMD and ARM. Why would this help at all?
alexnewman 3y ago
If you look at these chip Bans as being used to vault China into a leadership position they make more sense 1) China has home grown flagship tier chip 2) soon a monopoly on risc v development which they are already building around also protects Chinese arm investment 3) local manufactures soon won’t need asml Perhaps the entire strategy is wrong
boffinAudio 3y ago
Its not like you can't change citizenship - and this is only a minor reason to do so.
riscycomment305 3y ago
HN needs to get more sophisticated with its response to this risk. RISC-V is a lot more than AI; that's why it would be a tragedy if any restrictions happen. BUT there is a genuinely big emphasis on using it for AI tech. RISC-V summit is happening right now; there's basically an entire track of talks dedicated to matrix/vector optimization and proposals. We need to brainstorm acceptable compromises in case this continues picking up steam. Bad example but you get the idea: what if the restriction just got focused on RVV rather than RISC-V at large?
bhouston 3y ago
Funded by Intel/ARM lobbyist I assume? A way to throw FUD at their competition?
- rwmj 3y ago
  Maybe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166311
  - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
    Meh. I think Intel has better things to do than worry about RISC-V.
photochemsyn 3y ago
> "a bipartisan group of US politicians is petitioning the White House to restrict transfer of know-how (so-called Intellectual Property, or IP) to RISC-V, as this may benefit adversaries like China." No, it's because this may drastically cut Intel's and ARM's market share, and these politicians are dependent on such interests for campaign donations, jobs for their kids, etc.

78 points by rcarmo 3y ago

Related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38163412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38163412 is worth reading alongside this (it's not exactly a dupe, but it's pretty meta).

RobotToaster 3y ago
>"abusing RISC-V to get around U.S. dominance" Saying the quiet part out loud.

rwmj 3y ago

https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/11.1.23-riscv-letter.pdf https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites... This is the letter and it's as stupid as you imagine.

qwytw 3y ago
Well geopolitically it makes sense to some degree. Probably no other country would benefit more from RISC-V catching up with ARM/AMD64 than China (and unlike those US won't have as much direct control over transfer/licensing of IP etc.) They seem to be extremely clear about motivations: > The intellectual property used to design semiconductor chips is currently dominated by western firms, including ARM, Intel, and AMD. The U.S. and other governments have typically required licenses for certain use and users of chip architecture, but RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government One might justifiable strongly disagree with that, I wouldn't it's "stupid", though.
- api 3y ago
  The US should make sure it has local fabs or fabs in very friendly countries that can meet demand, but the idea of preventing China from having its own cutting edge fabs seems completely absurd and impossible.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    That's a strawmen argument. It's not about preventing something but about delaying it or increasing the cost of it. Economic warfare.
    - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
      Can you expound on that?
- rwmj 3y ago
  > RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government I'm glad you highlighted that sentence from the statement because it is wrong in just about every aspect. Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs. Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one). Thirdly the PRC doesn't need to copy an open source architecture, they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. Fourthly it's open source so how would you realisticly prevent the PRC from getting it? - Even trying will mainly hurt developers in the US and make no difference for China. So yes, stupid. Edit: Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish. That's the worst kind of stupid unfortunately.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs I'm not sure if 'license' is the right word, maybe not, however the US government does pretty tightly control what technologies you're allowed to license/sell to foreign entities. > Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one) If Western companies don't invest into RISC-V that would slow down any meaningful progress in the ecosystem. Of course it might also mean that they will be left behind by Chinese companies. > they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. They could, good luck selling it to anyone outside China. Also Chinese companies which did that would probably sanctioned to such an extent that they couldn't sell any of their products in half of the world (not just chips). > Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish Again. How is it stupid? I mean it's a blatant attempt at protectionism and (I'm not sure what the right word for that is, but something related to imperialism?). I don't think it's irrational, though. Unless you don't believe that RISC-V becoming more widespread posses a threat to the hegemony US/Western companies have in the highend chip market?

RobotToaster 3y ago

I thought Bernstein v. United States settled that source code was protected speech?

OhMeadhbh 3y ago
Lol.
barryrandall 3y ago
Court precedents aren't particularly reliable.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

This whole thing is incredibly stupid. It's an instruction set, not some magical technology (although well designed). Transfer is the whole point: it's a hardware programming interface, an agreement between interested parties to speak the same language. These idiots in Congress should just go ahead and ban the Chinese from using the alphabet or perhaps the digits 1 and 0. I'm all for responding to China's increasingly aggressive posture, their challenges to a international rules bases order, their totalitarian political system, and their support of the Russian murder machine, but this is both ineffectual and wrong.

foverzar 3y ago
> I'm all for responding to China's increasingly aggressive posture, their challenges to a international rules bases order, their totalitarian political system, and their support of the Russian murder machine, but this is both ineffectual and wrong. You are competitive, we get it. But can you at least stop turning every conflict of interest you have into a f-ing holy war while completely denying any agency for yourself? Have you considered that this way you'll might stop finding yourself in situations like these? Like, maybe if someone didn't treat China aggressively in the first place, they wouldn't have to experience pushbacks from it - yeah, what else could have happened? Maybe "Russian murder machine" (lol, how well that had aged) wouldn't be running if someone didn't lie to it about peace agreements, preparing to warfare with it instead - what else could have happened? And these countries are hardly alone in an increasing and diverse list of US enemies - there is a clear pattern with only really one thing (or actor) in common. I have no idea what you people see behind the "international rules bases order" propaganda meme that you started massively parrot recently, but try giving that speech to someone from southern hemisphere. There is a better way to live than treat everything around you with "barbarians at the gate" attitude.
hashtag-til 3y ago
IMHO it is not stupid. It's the forever challenge of communicating with non-technical people. These topics/questions/points are so badly written that people who understand the topic can actually make use of them to create effective rules. If you ever discussed requirements for something with non-technical people, that's the way it goes... I'm curious to understand, on your view, what would be more effective measures?

BirAdam 3y ago

China already has access to stuff more performant and efficient than rISC-V currently is… via both AMD and ARM. Why would this help at all?

alexnewman 3y ago

If you look at these chip Bans as being used to vault China into a leadership position they make more sense 1) China has home grown flagship tier chip 2) soon a monopoly on risc v development which they are already building around also protects Chinese arm investment 3) local manufactures soon won’t need asml Perhaps the entire strategy is wrong

boffinAudio 3y ago

Its not like you can't change citizenship - and this is only a minor reason to do so.

riscycomment305 3y ago

HN needs to get more sophisticated with its response to this risk. RISC-V is a lot more than AI; that's why it would be a tragedy if any restrictions happen. BUT there is a genuinely big emphasis on using it for AI tech. RISC-V summit is happening right now; there's basically an entire track of talks dedicated to matrix/vector optimization and proposals. We need to brainstorm acceptable compromises in case this continues picking up steam. Bad example but you get the idea: what if the restriction just got focused on RVV rather than RISC-V at large?

bhouston 3y ago

Funded by Intel/ARM lobbyist I assume? A way to throw FUD at their competition?

rwmj 3y ago
Maybe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166311
- OhMeadhbh 3y ago
  Meh. I think Intel has better things to do than worry about RISC-V.

photochemsyn 3y ago

> "a bipartisan group of US politicians is petitioning the White House to restrict transfer of know-how (so-called Intellectual Property, or IP) to RISC-V, as this may benefit adversaries like China." No, it's because this may drastically cut Intel's and ARM's market share, and these politicians are dependent on such interests for campaign donations, jobs for their kids, etc.