11 ms·
Nvidia and its partners built a system to bypass U.S. export restrictions
- mgh2 2y agoArticle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42048033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42048033
- ChrisArchitect 2y agowhy did you post the tweet also then? Stick to the source
- twelve40 2y agoum... try reading the tweet maybe? it's adding massive new details about a different country altogether
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoconfusing tweet. Why does it have a photo of the Mumbai article then? Post the tweet in the thread about the mumbai article then. (a story that's been submitted 5 times already) It's a Related: or this is a Related:. No need to split up the discussion with multiple threads.
- leoh 2y agoIt doesn’t add any details which are actually substantiated
- infocollector 2y agoI am not sure I buy this argument that Nvidia management was complicit, but it does need investigation.
- sourraspberry 2y agoWillful ignorance, at best.
- changoplatanero 2y agoYeah…why would they need to bother with secretly arranging for their gpus to go to China given that there is excess demand in the free world.
- stefan_ 2y agoThis will continue until you put management people in prison. "Sales gonna sales" can't be the excuse forever.
- chairmansteve 2y agoYep. They'll just fine the company.
- cycomanic 2y agoAs the article states, Singapore accounted for 20% (!) of Nvidias total revenue. You think management wasn't aware that something was going on? A country with about 2% of the GDP of the US and non of the large AI companies? Management either was involved or willfully looked the other way the alternative is that they are so grossly incompetent and non-involved in the company that it's hard to believe.
- sct202 2y agoSingapore is a normal billing location for semiconductor products. It's roughly 20% for Intel as well https://www.intc.com/filings-reports/all-sec-filings/xbrl_doc_only/3079 https://www.intc.com/filings-reports/all-sec-filings/xbrl_do...
- creshal 2y agoIt's also roughly 20% for another company selling sanctioned products? Hmmmmmmm. Yes. Very normal, nothing to see here.
- andreweggleston 2y agoReminds me of IBM’s (successful) attempt to skirt US regulations regarding trade with Nazi Germany: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag
- aspenmayer 2y agoCoca-Cola did this too with Fanta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta
- wiseowise 2y agoCoca-Cola didn’t circumvent ban. They had to come up with a new product.
- aspenmayer 2y ago> During the Second World War, Germany was under a United States trade embargo, the British naval blockade and the import of Coca-Cola syrup was prohibited. To circumvent this, Max Keith, the head of Coca-Cola Deutschland (Coca-Cola GmbH), decided to create a new product for the German market, using only ingredients available in Germany at the time, including sugar beet, whey (a cheese byproduct), and apple pomace. He later described them as the "leftovers of leftovers". An embargo is literally a ban on trading.
- tzs 2y agoThat's Coca-Cola GmbH, a German company that was owned by a US company. When the US and Germany were at war the US Coca-Cola lost control of Coca-Cola GmbH. It wasn't until after the war that the US company got control back.
- aspenmayer 2y agoA distinction that matters somewhat in the context of the comparison to IBM, but given that the two Coca-Cola companies recombined after the war, it’s one of little difference.
- ChumpGPT 2y agoThere needs to be an investigation, I know Nvidia will cry that they didn't break any rules while knowing their partners are forwarding GPUs to China, Russia, Iran, etc. Perhaps a multi-billion $$$ fine against Nvidia and sanctions against any country that was used as a party to these transactions are in order. This is a national security issue for the USA.
- tzs 2y ago> This is a national security issue for the USA I'm skeptical. If it was actually a national security issue those GPUs would not be allowed to be sold to civilians. You can't have something that is easily portable and readily available to and tradable between civilians in the US and realistically expect it not to get out.
- spartanatreyu 2y ago> If it was actually a national security issue those GPUs would not be allowed to be sold to civilians. Fertilizer can be made into bombs yet it's still sold to civilians. I would argue that purchasing a Beirut amount of it and transporting it through a city would be of interest to national security. Likewise, there's a difference between a GPU and over 1000+ AI servers
- SR2Z 2y agoIt's not that a single GPU is a national security issue (although the law treats it like such). It's that selling MILLIONS of GPUs is a national security issue. Enforcing the first is a fool's errand, but the second one is much more doable.
- tzs 2y agoEven if they can limit exports to only a handful of GPUs is that sufficient? My understanding is that what those countries want them for is AI training. Once a model is trained using the model can be done on much less powerful hardware. So instead of trying to set up sham companies that they indirectly control to buy and sneak GPUs out of the county, how about setting up a sham startup in the US that they indirectly control in some field that needs AI, have it buy a ton of GPUs, and then have it use some of those resources to run training jobs for them?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lithiumii 2y agoThe more they sell, the less likely China & others are going to make a real alternative.
- spartanatreyu 2y agoThey will still make a real alternative, it's in their own national security interests to do so.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> They will still make a real alternative, it's in their own national security interests to do so There is also a massive difference between making them uneconomically and making them economically at scale.
- Uvix 2y agoIf national security interests drove development, the US would have local manufacturing of current-process-node chips instead of being dependent on TSMC.
- gmueckl 2y agoIf 5nm semiconductors were essential for some military core capabilities, they'd start building the whole production chain domestically in a hurry at eyewatering cost and probably finish it over budget and 15 years late.
- mrmetanoia 2y agoThis is not my impression of how things generally go with China.
- libertine 2y agoThese could be used for military purposes, wouldn't the best use case be let them try to make a real alternative instead of providing them the tools?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sourraspberry 2y agoClose this loophole and another one opens. The ban was and is incredibly shortsighted.
- ipython 2y agoThis loophole is as old as export restrictions. Cutout resellers have been used to skirt these regulations for decades. The scale is noteworthy in this case.
- EasyMark 2y agoThe ban is very forward-thinking and acknowledging the reality of the situation that China is not our friend and there's no reason to be shipping them our best military and semiconductor IP. They are not going to use it to make US/China relations improve or a better world.
- nemothekid 2y agoWe will see what happens - but given nvidias growth and how heavy they are now weighted I’m skeptical there will be any enforcement until well after the elections. Neither party wants to look “bad for the economy”, even if the people harmed isn’t of significant size.
- fred_is_fred 2y agoYou mean the election that happens in less than 12 hours? Yes, enforcement will probably happen after that.
- lesuorac 2y agoI mean voting ends in 12 hours except for all the situations where it doesn't. The presidential election ends in December and all your local ones won't be certified today and in the event of a run-off or re-count voting also won't end today.
- burningChrome 2y ago>> Neither party wants to look “bad for the economy You mean like the horrific jobs numbers that came out that nobody is covering either? Like bad like that??
- bottom999mottob 2y agoNobody is a a bit of an exaggeration. Anyone who has been following finance noticed many major US news outlets covering when the job numbers dropped [0]. Yes it was really only covered for a day because the election hype is a bigger story. Why did nobody talk about the floods in Nepal or mass suicides in Sudan? Clearly we should all be talking about jobs and the US economy! [0] https://news.google.com/search?q=job%20numbers&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/search?q=job%20numbers&hl=en-US&gl=U...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- helf 2y agoThey need to be heavily penalized
- bruce511 2y agoNvidia is obviously a US company, but the chips themselves are manufactured in Taiwan. And of course China sees Taiwan as a rogue province, at at least treats invasion there as "on the table". While the US may decide to actively support Taiwan, at the very least a war over that will disrupt production. Should Taiwan fall, and China choose to ban exports from there to the US, then the fun and games would really start. As long as back-channels exist to supply the chips to China, then there's less incentive for China to control Taiwan. The ban exists as good politics (we don't ship to our adversaries) while the back-channels ensure they aren't forced into a position no-one wants them to be in.
- Tier3r 2y agoThere exists a third possibility where the US and China sign an under the table deal for China to invade, the US to saber rattle and China to allow the flow of chips to continue. The present direction seems to be the US is "de-risking" from Taiwan by moving chip production to the US, so if China does invade they aren't caught in a bind.
- KK7NIL 2y ago> The present direction seems to be the US is "de-risking" from Taiwan by moving chip production to the US, so if China does invade they aren't caught in a bind. This idea that the US is protecting Taiwan for its semiconductor prowess (aka the "silicon shield") is a very confusing idea to me as it ignores the period from the 40's to the 90's when Taiwan had no semiconductor manufacturing that wasn't being done as well or better elsewhere, yet the US was a ardent supporter, to the point of almost entirely shunning the People's Republic of China over it. It's a smart sounding idea (especially if you don't know your 20th century Chinese history) but the facts just don't back it up.
- gmueckl 2y agoChina was a commie state like the USSR countries back then. I don't see how the west could have treated one as the idiologocal archenemy and nemesis and not extent the same animosity to the other.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoIt’s a national security issue and an important geopolitical issue. I doubt leaders in nvidia had no idea about this given the scale of the reselling business. Investigations, fines, and jail time for those involved please.
- typ 2y agoI agree that export restrictions would potentially help the advantage in the AI race to some extent, however, the primary factor that leads to the tech advancement and China's dominance in manufacturing is not where the US sells to, but where the US buys from. I would say the best resource to advance an industry is not IP thefting or government subsidies but the tech leaders' purchase orders (and customers' specifications and requirements learned from those orders). For instance, AAPL has contributed to the progress of the component supply chain and then the emergence of a bunch of China phone companies. Later TSLA did the same for the Lithium-ion batteries companies and the EV industry in China.
- sroussey 2y agoAnd the US will swoop in and move TMSC employees to Arizona.
- physhster 2y agoSame goes for plane parts and other export-restricted things. Not sure Nvidia can do anything about it.
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoOh wow, that sucks. Anyways.
- _cs2017_ 2y agoUnsubstantiated claims accusing companies of criminal offense and implying that individual people are also criminally liable. This should be flagged.
- daft_pink 2y agoThey should cancel their patents or software copyright on the cuda apis as a response. The only reason they are dominant is because of their software control.
- rfoo 2y agoCUDA is not merely software control. Let's face it: it's tied to their architecture and evolves with their architecture. Ignore whatever patent and software copyright you are talking about, they are simply the best at implementing this programming model. If you port CUDA over and want high performance, you must build very similar GPUs. And can you beat NVIDIA on building their own GPU architecture without much space for innovation? And yes, this does mean that NVIDIA themselves is also facing increasingly absurd constraints and after a few generations CUDA as a programming model may not be sustainable any more.
- melodyogonna 2y agoModular and Chris Lattner wants to do this though - beat hardware vendors on their own hardware. I think it is going to be difficult, especially for Nvidia GPUs
- modeless 2y agoTinygrad is doing this too.
- modeless 2y agoCanceling copyright is a remedy that should be used a lot more often. Has it ever been done?
- zokier 2y agoZLUDA exists. I hasn't received any legal challenges from nvidia, even when it was sponsored by AMD.
- lesuorac 2y agoWhy did you pick "cancel their patents or software copyright on the cuda apis as a response"? The law is pretty clear, just throw them in prison [1]. [1]: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oee/penalties https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oee/penalties
- shark1 2y agoI did not understand why they called it "sophisticated". Did I miss something?
- leoh 2y agoI flagged this because the tweet is an extremely editorialized take. There are no corroborated details suggesting that nvidia did this to exceed market expectations nor any corroborated details that suggests that nvidia has been intentionally and explicitly complicit.
- leoh 2y agoFolks that downvoted — where is the evidence?
- PeterStuer 2y ago"Nvidia claims it cannot control the final delivery location of its GPUs" Unless Nvidia would be restricted from selling to anyone that is not under the same restrictions than they are, I'd say that is not just a claim but a thruth. Btw. Don't these trade restrictions not just strengthen BRICS and accelerate their internal market development?
- waysa 2y agoThis is just market forces at work, driven by the demand in China. There is money to be made, so business people (maybe incentivized by CCP) will find ways to avoid sanctions. Nvidia probably could do more to counter this. But why would they? On paper everything looks fine and they make money off it.
- akira2501 2y ago> This is just market forces at work Laws are just market forces at work.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- coryfklein 2y agoWhat is Nvidia supposed to do if a random dude in Singapore buys graphics cards and then resells them to Chinese? I don't understand how they can enforce anything here.