3 ms·

Anthropic's CEO says DeepSeek shows US export rules are working

42 points by pseudolus 2y ago

octacat 2y ago
what does stop chinese companies from just opening a company in EU (or better a place with _cheap_ energy and without the ban) to train?
- vaidhy 2y ago
  You end up with the tiktok situation. Bytedance is a singapore company, but it is forced to sell to a US entity.
  - kylebenzle 2y ago
    TikTok, like DeepSeek seems to be doing fine despite the lip service.
  - zihotki 2y ago
    Has EU ever forced a company to sell to EU entity?
    - addandsubtract 2y ago
      The EU requires a local entity at some point – if only for data / tax reasons.
black_13 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aeternum 2y ago
This kind of double-speak is so annoying. "To be clear, the goal here is not to deny China or any other authoritarian country the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, and so on that come from very powerful AI systems. Everyone should be able to benefit from AI. The goal is to prevent them from gaining military dominance.” A moralizing statement that weasels out of the implication. This would be a more straightforward way to say it: Export restrictions are necessary to prevent China from gaining military dominance, even if those restrictions deny China the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, and so on that come from very powerful AI systems.
- master_crab 2y ago
  ..and even if they fail in all the ways that matter (which DeepSeek seems to be showing it has)
- noxs 2y ago
  U.S. even failed on military too as China recently demostrated their 6th-gen fighters, i.e. their own NGAD[1], while U.S. has paused the NGAD development. Arrogance is the biggest enemy of U.S., not China. [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3293762/why-do-chinas-sixth-gen-stealth-fighters-have-different-designs https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3293762/why...
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  "Authoritarian" is actually irrelevant and only (over-)used to give a moral veneer to the aim, which is simply to keep the US and US companies on top. Of course they don't want to deny others the benefit of anything... as long as they buy from US companies or do not threaten US dominance.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
jameslk 2y ago
US strategy towards China as of late seems so defensive and even feels a bit desperate. Banning companies from US markets or their ability to purchase things to applying sweeping tariffs. What’s the endgame here? Trying to keep China contained from eclipsing the west perpetually? What about India? I’m not a fan of the shenanigans China pulls but I legitimately don’t understand what the point is trying to play whack-a-mole against all these Chinese companies
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  You are right on the money, its like a dying empire's last gasp, or when kids are playing hide-and-seek and one kids is found and says, "I wasn't playing anyway!" China (Tiawan) is doing fine in chip manufacturing, pretending to cut them off just hastens the US downfall.
  - jameslk 2y ago
    Yes it seems weak, but to be fair, I don’t anticipate a US downfall (which I suppose can be interpreted many ways) given its immense size, military, US dollar everywhere. Not without taking down the rest of the world with it. Historically China and India were economic powerhouses for the past thousand years prior to the industrial age. The trend seems to be that they will return to that position given their gains over the past couple of decades. That seems impossible for the US to stop without waging a complete Cold War or worse. Maybe that’s the direction we’re headed
- viccis 2y ago
  When a vision for a better future is foreclosed, so the option of rising to meet a challenge is off the table, the only thing you can do is stop yourself from looking like a loser is to eliminate the challenge altogether.
- boruto 2y ago
  India is like a century or more behind. What is there to contain.
  - 2y ago
nis0s 2y ago
This reads like a…patriotic response to the situation at hand.
whueric 2y ago
[dead]
ben30 2y ago
There's an inherent contradiction in the current US approach to China. On one hand, China has developed an unparalleled manufacturing ecosystem, particularly evident in places like Shenzhen, where the physical proximity of component manufacturers creates an efficiency that's nearly impossible to replicate elsewhere. The iPhone supply chain is a prime example of this integrated network, where design issues can be resolved through direct factory-to-factory collaboration within hours. The attempt to slow China's AI development through tariffs and trade restrictions seems misguided for two key reasons. First, as we've seen with Russia, trade restrictions often just lead to the development of alternative supply routes through intermediary countries rather than true isolation. Second, and perhaps more importantly, restrictions may actually accelerate Chinese innovation. The "necessity is the mother of invention" principle suggests that trade barriers could push Chinese AI companies to develop novel solutions and optimizations, potentially making them more competitive in the global AI race, not less. This is particularly relevant in the context of large language models, where alternative approaches might emerge from working under constraints. The current situation indeed resembles a Sputnik moment, but the strategy of using trade barriers might be counterproductive to maintaining technological leadership.

42 points by pseudolus 2y ago

what does stop chinese companies from just opening a company in EU (or better a place with _cheap_ energy and without the ban) to train?

vaidhy 2y ago
You end up with the tiktok situation. Bytedance is a singapore company, but it is forced to sell to a US entity.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  TikTok, like DeepSeek seems to be doing fine despite the lip service.
- zihotki 2y ago
  Has EU ever forced a company to sell to EU entity?
  - addandsubtract 2y ago
    The EU requires a local entity at some point – if only for data / tax reasons.

black_13 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

aeternum 2y ago

This kind of double-speak is so annoying. "To be clear, the goal here is not to deny China or any other authoritarian country the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, and so on that come from very powerful AI systems. Everyone should be able to benefit from AI. The goal is to prevent them from gaining military dominance.” A moralizing statement that weasels out of the implication. This would be a more straightforward way to say it: Export restrictions are necessary to prevent China from gaining military dominance, even if those restrictions deny China the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, and so on that come from very powerful AI systems.

master_crab 2y ago
..and even if they fail in all the ways that matter (which DeepSeek seems to be showing it has)
noxs 2y ago
U.S. even failed on military too as China recently demostrated their 6th-gen fighters, i.e. their own NGAD[1], while U.S. has paused the NGAD development. Arrogance is the biggest enemy of U.S., not China. [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3293762/why-do-chinas-sixth-gen-stealth-fighters-have-different-designs https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3293762/why...
mytailorisrich 2y ago
"Authoritarian" is actually irrelevant and only (over-)used to give a moral veneer to the aim, which is simply to keep the US and US companies on top. Of course they don't want to deny others the benefit of anything... as long as they buy from US companies or do not threaten US dominance.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

jameslk 2y ago

US strategy towards China as of late seems so defensive and even feels a bit desperate. Banning companies from US markets or their ability to purchase things to applying sweeping tariffs. What’s the endgame here? Trying to keep China contained from eclipsing the west perpetually? What about India? I’m not a fan of the shenanigans China pulls but I legitimately don’t understand what the point is trying to play whack-a-mole against all these Chinese companies

kylebenzle 2y ago
You are right on the money, its like a dying empire's last gasp, or when kids are playing hide-and-seek and one kids is found and says, "I wasn't playing anyway!" China (Tiawan) is doing fine in chip manufacturing, pretending to cut them off just hastens the US downfall.
- jameslk 2y ago
  Yes it seems weak, but to be fair, I don’t anticipate a US downfall (which I suppose can be interpreted many ways) given its immense size, military, US dollar everywhere. Not without taking down the rest of the world with it. Historically China and India were economic powerhouses for the past thousand years prior to the industrial age. The trend seems to be that they will return to that position given their gains over the past couple of decades. That seems impossible for the US to stop without waging a complete Cold War or worse. Maybe that’s the direction we’re headed
viccis 2y ago
When a vision for a better future is foreclosed, so the option of rising to meet a challenge is off the table, the only thing you can do is stop yourself from looking like a loser is to eliminate the challenge altogether.
boruto 2y ago
India is like a century or more behind. What is there to contain.
- 2y ago

nis0s 2y ago

This reads like a…patriotic response to the situation at hand.

whueric 2y ago

[dead]

ben30 2y ago

There's an inherent contradiction in the current US approach to China. On one hand, China has developed an unparalleled manufacturing ecosystem, particularly evident in places like Shenzhen, where the physical proximity of component manufacturers creates an efficiency that's nearly impossible to replicate elsewhere. The iPhone supply chain is a prime example of this integrated network, where design issues can be resolved through direct factory-to-factory collaboration within hours. The attempt to slow China's AI development through tariffs and trade restrictions seems misguided for two key reasons. First, as we've seen with Russia, trade restrictions often just lead to the development of alternative supply routes through intermediary countries rather than true isolation. Second, and perhaps more importantly, restrictions may actually accelerate Chinese innovation. The "necessity is the mother of invention" principle suggests that trade barriers could push Chinese AI companies to develop novel solutions and optimizations, potentially making them more competitive in the global AI race, not less. This is particularly relevant in the context of large language models, where alternative approaches might emerge from working under constraints. The current situation indeed resembles a Sputnik moment, but the strategy of using trade barriers might be counterproductive to maintaining technological leadership.