3 ms·
Yes, 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
by matt123456789 3y ago
Yes, 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.