3 ms·
I’m disappointed none of the top comments here mention Commerce’s years-long effort to restrict Chinese access to leading-edge GPUs. The origin of this policy i
by benced 3y ago
I’m disappointed none of the top comments here mention Commerce’s years-long effort to restrict Chinese access to leading-edge GPUs. The origin of this policy is the simple realization that those restrictions are meaningless if an AWS account gets around them. Argue against that if you’d like, but argue against the correct thing.
- matt123456789 3y agoYes, that is another thing that Commerce is doing. And your assumption of the motivation for this proposal is probably accurate. But the two things are not the same. Here, the wording of the proposed rule doesn’t appear to limit it in scope to H100s and GroqRacks. That makes this a separate issue. It also imposes entirely separate restrictions and reporting requirements on an entirely different class of provider. I’m not sure why you’re insisting that we treat them as the same issue.
- benced 3y agoI don't think I've seen a single comment along the lines of "I don't like this rule but it would be reasonable for only A100 and H100 equipped instances" (which would be my personal stance FWIW). Instead, it's just binary opposition to any form of KYC on compute.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]