If your goal is to lift the limit, why put it in? We periodically raise flop limits in export control law. The intention is still to limit China and Iran. Wo

If your goal is to lift the limit, why put it in? We periodically raise flop limits in export control law. The intention is still to limit China and Iran. Would any computer industry accept a government mandated limit on perf? Should NVIDIA accept a limit on flops? Should Pure accept a limit on TBs? Should Samsung accept a limit on HBM bandwidth? Should Arista accept a limit on link bandwidth? I don’t think that there is enough awareness that scaling laws tie intelligence to these HW metrics. Enforcing a cap on intelligence is the same thing as a cap on these metrics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_scaling_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_scaling_law Has this legislation really thought through the implications of capping technology metrics, especially in a state where most of the GDP is driven by these metrics? Clearly I’m biased because I am working on advancing these metrics. I’m doing it because I believe in the power of computing technology to improve the world (smartphones, self driving, automating data entry, biotech, scientific discovery, space, security, defense, etc, etc) as it has done historically. I also believe in the spirit of inventors and entrepreneurs to contribute and be rewarded for these advancements. I would like to understand the biases of the supporters of this bill beyond a power grab by early movers. Export control flop limits are designed to limit the access of technology to US allies. I think it would be informative if the group of people trying to limit access of AI technology to themselves was brought into the light. Who are they? Why do they think the people of the US and of CA should grant that power to them?