3 ms·

Not particularly as you're ignoring the environment when the rules were made. When the rules were made they made them as constrained (we want that right?). So t

Not particularly as you're ignoring the environment when the rules were made. When the rules were made they made them as constrained (we want that right?). So the remaining chips were the ones nvidia had two/three product segments down. Then nvidia introduced a new chip that was 99% instead of just selling the ones they had that were 75/80%. You can see how nvidia is participating in bad faith over this. Blaming the g-men for releasing constrained, market-aware rules is itself a bad faith participation.

cherioo 3y ago
IMO, regulation is supposed to be “we think this is the line that makes chip too dangerous”. And nvidia is complying with that. If the danger line is 80%, why not set the line at 81% The administration feels like it’s throwing a tantrum about an extra 19% of performance. The fact that that even matters, or the premise that chip is dangerous, are both just funny (not so fun for nvidia)
bee_rider 3y ago
If there’s a line that actually makes product dangerous, the government should set it there. Designing laws they just-so happen to only hit specific SKUs seems like the original bad-faith act.
declaredapple 3y ago
I don't get it, the rules were "Do not cross this line", nvidia, being a business that makes products that comply with regulations, made a product that stopped just short of the line. It's like putting up a speed limit sign that says "55mph" and then ticketing them for speeding going "53mph"
- parineum 3y ago
  Nvidia clearly attempted to circumvent the _spirit_ of the law. The intent of the ban was clear and Nvidia ignored that. It's much less like the speed limit example you gave and much more like a parent telling one of their children to stop touching the sibling so they just hover an inch away from them saying, "I'm not touching you!". The parent is going to very obviously modify their rule immediately to curb this circumvention. If I had to guess, Nvidia hoped the regulations were just signalling rather than an actual attempt to prevent the specific hardware from getting to the Chinese.
- __loam 3y ago
  It's not like that at all. It's more like "don't sell F22s to anyone else" then Lockheed makes a slightly slower and less stealthy export model to skirt the rules. It's obvious that Nvidia is acting in bad faith, and it's funny that the same people who said we need to maintain an edge over China are probably defending Nvidia doing this.
  - declaredapple 3y ago
    > "don't sell F22s to anyone else" What they actually said (abbreviated) was anything with more then > "600 Gbyte/s [memory transfer speed]" or 4800TOPS Page 103 https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-21658.pdf https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-21658.pdf They set very specific performance restrictions, not a general "don't sell fast stuff plz"
    - __loam 3y ago
      I don't really care about what exactly they said, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that the intention of this restriction is to keep China from getting the highest end chips for AI development and putting a chip, that didn't exist when the regulation was written, right up against the restriction was obviously bad faith on Nvidia's part.

cherioo 3y ago

IMO, regulation is supposed to be “we think this is the line that makes chip too dangerous”. And nvidia is complying with that. If the danger line is 80%, why not set the line at 81% The administration feels like it’s throwing a tantrum about an extra 19% of performance. The fact that that even matters, or the premise that chip is dangerous, are both just funny (not so fun for nvidia)

bee_rider 3y ago

If there’s a line that actually makes product dangerous, the government should set it there. Designing laws they just-so happen to only hit specific SKUs seems like the original bad-faith act.

declaredapple 3y ago

I don't get it, the rules were "Do not cross this line", nvidia, being a business that makes products that comply with regulations, made a product that stopped just short of the line. It's like putting up a speed limit sign that says "55mph" and then ticketing them for speeding going "53mph"

parineum 3y ago
Nvidia clearly attempted to circumvent the _spirit_ of the law. The intent of the ban was clear and Nvidia ignored that. It's much less like the speed limit example you gave and much more like a parent telling one of their children to stop touching the sibling so they just hover an inch away from them saying, "I'm not touching you!". The parent is going to very obviously modify their rule immediately to curb this circumvention. If I had to guess, Nvidia hoped the regulations were just signalling rather than an actual attempt to prevent the specific hardware from getting to the Chinese.
__loam 3y ago
It's not like that at all. It's more like "don't sell F22s to anyone else" then Lockheed makes a slightly slower and less stealthy export model to skirt the rules. It's obvious that Nvidia is acting in bad faith, and it's funny that the same people who said we need to maintain an edge over China are probably defending Nvidia doing this.
- declaredapple 3y ago
  > "don't sell F22s to anyone else" What they actually said (abbreviated) was anything with more then > "600 Gbyte/s [memory transfer speed]" or 4800TOPS Page 103 https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-21658.pdf https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-21658.pdf They set very specific performance restrictions, not a general "don't sell fast stuff plz"
  - __loam 3y ago
    I don't really care about what exactly they said, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that the intention of this restriction is to keep China from getting the highest end chips for AI development and putting a chip, that didn't exist when the regulation was written, right up against the restriction was obviously bad faith on Nvidia's part.