4 ms·

This sounds like a “reciprocal” play against China. Everyone has been saying China uses this tactic to steal IP. The dirty little secret is that they did this t

This sounds like a “reciprocal” play against China. Everyone has been saying China uses this tactic to steal IP. The dirty little secret is that they did this to Tesla (suddenly they have all this homegrown EV tech after they let Tesla into the country), and I think Elmo is pissed. The other dirty not so secret is that Deepseek just trained against OpenAI (stole it). It’s a Cold War.

alephnerd 2y ago
There were murmurs about something like this even during the Biden administration. There is bipartisan support for bringing as much manufacturing capacity back to the US as possible - especially in packaging which is almost entirely outsourced because of unit economics and outsized subsidies by APAC players. The main difference is that a lot of the hardball tactics flew under the radar during the Biden admin. Also, Taiwan ain't China.
- 7speter 2y ago
  This was probably drawn up as an option, but is everyone here gonna ignore that theres a new administration in the whitehouse and Intels previous CEO (who, at least publicly, was very optimistic that Intel could pull a turnaround all on its own) was recently ousted?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Intel's leadership has been lobbying for this at a bipartisan level for almost half a decade now. This saga has been going on since 2018-19 and Pat Gelsinger is himself Republican leaning.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Chips are too imporant to modern war for any country to be unable to make them. I mean the entire chip not just a part. the entire chain from raw minerals to a complete circuit board needs to be in your county. don't forget to design the above too. Small countries better join something like the eu and nato because they cannot ro alone.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      > Chips are too imporant to modern war for any country to be unable to make them The chips being used in weapons systems are largely fabbed on legacy nodes (28nm/48nm) or 14nm at the latest. You don't need much more than a mid-2010s comparable Intel i5 or Nvidia Maxwell for most defense or weapons systems applications.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Today but will that continue? We don't know. If ai really works you may need better in the future. Only time will tell
        alephnerd 2y ago
        What is a use case that justifies a Radeon RX 5000 GPU versus an Nvidia Pascal? The same mindset you are describing is a major reason why Deepseek was able to "disrupt" the ML space. At some point, just throwing more and more compute becomes a waste. When building weapons systems, what matters is low unit costs and ease of replaceablity. This is the a major reason why most Defense (as well as Aerospace and Automotive) buyers tend to consolidate on older, cheaper, and more commodified processes There are significant usecases for bleeding edge compute such as in Simulations (heavily used in Nuclear Research and Jet Engine design), but you can fight using legacy compute at scale and still turn the tides. Look at both Russia and Ukraine for example.
        bluGill 2y ago
        If it wins the war it isn't a waste. Sometimes we can do better sometimes a lot of processing is needed. I refuse to limit the future which makes your question a stupid question. Maybe nothing will come up maybe it will.
        alephnerd 2y ago
        Stop giving platitudes - answer the question, or don't bother replying to me at all.
amluto 2y ago
Was there actually interesting EV tech to steal? Even when Tesla was new, there were various experimental EVs around, and it wasn’t that hard to build one. Tesla’s real innovations seem to have been packaging existing 18650 cells into giant packs in an economical manner and putting everything together into a package that looked nice. And now there’s BYD, which, as I understand it: - Uses a highly integrated drive system that does not have any particular resemblance to Tesla’s - Uses prismatic LFP cells. Those cells and battery packs are very different from what Tesla uses, at least in the US. And Tesla has never actually been a heavyweight in the battery tech space despite periodic PR pieces from management. The rest is … just a car? What did BYD steal from Tesla exactly, other than market share?
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tesla-trade-secrets-stolen-by-chinese-companys-owners-us-says https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tesla-trade-secret... Before you go “well how could two people cause all of this”, it’s the two people we heard about. There’s no suing in China to protect your shit.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bilbo0s 2y ago
Just being a pedant, but technically, Taiwan is not China. Having said that, yeah, it's not too hard to see a future where asian nations begin to see a lot more possibilities in cooperation than they see in competition with each other. Just as they have a right to develop their strategic postures, we, also, have a right to adjust our posture to serve us best in the largest possible number of future outcomes.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  Taiwan is ROC (republic of china) China is PRC (people's republic of china) Until the day China finally invades Taiwan and stablishes its laws there.
- pests 2y ago
  > Just being a pedant, but technically, Taiwan is not China. I think this is wrong? Both PRC and ROC claim ownership of all of China, including Taiwan. The PRC calling Taiwan a rouge territory and the ROC claiming to be a government in exile. The ROC has never denied otherwise as claiming to be sovereign would upset the balancing act they play. To sum it up, I would say the official position of Taiwan is that it is China.
  - jamesdutc 2y ago
    This is not a comment that correctly describes how these two entities realistically operate and interact. I don't know why people keep repeating this as though it were insightful. Whatever your own position on this matter may be, it is important that we factually describe the positions of the parties directly involved. Hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to spread a more accurate description of the dynamics at play. For reference, here is a speech by William 賴清德 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ching-te https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ching-te) outlining the position under which he operates. The phrasing he uses is one that is consistent across all of his public remarks; consistent with remarks by Louise 蕭美琴(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim) and other close associates of William 賴清德; consistent with remarks made by 蔡英文 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen); and consistent with how the structures in Taiwan have operated over at least the last decade. 《賴清德就職演說：兩岸「互不隸屬」》: https://youtu.be/oLO5bYF8lDs?t=139 https://youtu.be/oLO5bYF8lDs?t=139 The relevant remark is: 「由此可見，中華民國與中華人民共和國『戶不隸屬』」 Here is my (manual) translation: “From this it can be seen that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are ‘not subordinate to each other.’” Here is a Whisper-generated transcript of the entire speech, with an OpenAI generated translation inline. I skimmed the translation, and it adequately conveys the speaker's meaning and intention. (It does fail to convey the delicacy, careful phrasing, and specific rhetorical choices made by the speaker that are extremely clearly visible in the Chinese. However, this aspects are harder to convey if you don't have minimal prior knowledge on this topic.) https://pastebin.com/fGxHUpXN https://pastebin.com/fGxHUpXN It is true that there are historical positions, (historical) on-paper claims, and even a variety of differing positions and lively debate on this issue across all of the populations involved. But the conclusion one might draw from the comment above is wholly incorrect. It simply isn't the framing within which William 賴清德 and associated parties are actually navigating this issue.
notyourwork 2y ago
Did Deepseek steal anything or use what was made available publicly? I don’t agree that theft took place.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  I don’t know. Imagine a giant library, and a big corporation comes and steals it (OpenAI training on the internet/books). Then imagine another corporation comes and walks into the stolen library and scans each book so they have a copy (of the whole library ). The reason you don’t consider it theft is because we’re into deep level treachery here where right and wrong are beyond blurred. Just to add a slight bit of friction to all of this, I’ll just note that money and profit is involved. Lots of it. But when I said I don’t know, I really meant it. It seems obvious to me, but how could it be that obvious? I must be going crazy.
  - pphysch 2y ago
    That implies DeepSeek waltzed in and stole something resembling (ill-begotten) "trade secrets". It's more like DeepSeek legally bought OpenAI's public product, tore it apart and successfully RE'd it / used it to bootstrap their own thing. Like many other innovators and tinkerers.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> China uses this tactic to steal IP. The dirty little secret is that they did this to Tesla China bought its way into batteries by buying our bankrupt A123 [1]. We weren’t fleeced, we gave it away. > It’s a Cold War It’s a stupid Cold War. Literally search public property records for mortgage liens and join to senior people who have just been fired. Offer them a consulting contract so they don’t even know they’re an intelligence asset. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems
- notahacker 2y ago
  > It’s a stupid Cold War. Yeah. Short of nuking themselves, the US couldn't really be trying harder to lose in every possible aspect right now.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The article was pretty light on what critical value was purchased out of the bankruptcy. Was it the coventure Advanced Traction Battery Systems, critical IP, factories in China, or what? Is this a failure of industrial policy where USA would be the leader if we just pumped enough money in it, or was the outcome based on fundamental comparative advantage.

alephnerd 2y ago

There were murmurs about something like this even during the Biden administration. There is bipartisan support for bringing as much manufacturing capacity back to the US as possible - especially in packaging which is almost entirely outsourced because of unit economics and outsized subsidies by APAC players. The main difference is that a lot of the hardball tactics flew under the radar during the Biden admin. Also, Taiwan ain't China.

7speter 2y ago
This was probably drawn up as an option, but is everyone here gonna ignore that theres a new administration in the whitehouse and Intels previous CEO (who, at least publicly, was very optimistic that Intel could pull a turnaround all on its own) was recently ousted?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Intel's leadership has been lobbying for this at a bipartisan level for almost half a decade now. This saga has been going on since 2018-19 and Pat Gelsinger is himself Republican leaning.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Chips are too imporant to modern war for any country to be unable to make them. I mean the entire chip not just a part. the entire chain from raw minerals to a complete circuit board needs to be in your county. don't forget to design the above too. Small countries better join something like the eu and nato because they cannot ro alone.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > Chips are too imporant to modern war for any country to be unable to make them The chips being used in weapons systems are largely fabbed on legacy nodes (28nm/48nm) or 14nm at the latest. You don't need much more than a mid-2010s comparable Intel i5 or Nvidia Maxwell for most defense or weapons systems applications.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Today but will that continue? We don't know. If ai really works you may need better in the future. Only time will tell
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        What is a use case that justifies a Radeon RX 5000 GPU versus an Nvidia Pascal? The same mindset you are describing is a major reason why Deepseek was able to "disrupt" the ML space. At some point, just throwing more and more compute becomes a waste. When building weapons systems, what matters is low unit costs and ease of replaceablity. This is the a major reason why most Defense (as well as Aerospace and Automotive) buyers tend to consolidate on older, cheaper, and more commodified processes There are significant usecases for bleeding edge compute such as in Simulations (heavily used in Nuclear Research and Jet Engine design), but you can fight using legacy compute at scale and still turn the tides. Look at both Russia and Ukraine for example.
        bluGill 2y ago
        If it wins the war it isn't a waste. Sometimes we can do better sometimes a lot of processing is needed. I refuse to limit the future which makes your question a stupid question. Maybe nothing will come up maybe it will.
        alephnerd 2y ago
        Stop giving platitudes - answer the question, or don't bother replying to me at all.

amluto 2y ago

Was there actually interesting EV tech to steal? Even when Tesla was new, there were various experimental EVs around, and it wasn’t that hard to build one. Tesla’s real innovations seem to have been packaging existing 18650 cells into giant packs in an economical manner and putting everything together into a package that looked nice. And now there’s BYD, which, as I understand it: - Uses a highly integrated drive system that does not have any particular resemblance to Tesla’s - Uses prismatic LFP cells. Those cells and battery packs are very different from what Tesla uses, at least in the US. And Tesla has never actually been a heavyweight in the battery tech space despite periodic PR pieces from management. The rest is … just a car? What did BYD steal from Tesla exactly, other than market share?

bloomingkales 2y ago
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tesla-trade-secrets-stolen-by-chinese-companys-owners-us-says https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tesla-trade-secret... Before you go “well how could two people cause all of this”, it’s the two people we heard about. There’s no suing in China to protect your shit.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bilbo0s 2y ago

Just being a pedant, but technically, Taiwan is not China. Having said that, yeah, it's not too hard to see a future where asian nations begin to see a lot more possibilities in cooperation than they see in competition with each other. Just as they have a right to develop their strategic postures, we, also, have a right to adjust our posture to serve us best in the largest possible number of future outcomes.

catlikesshrimp 2y ago
Taiwan is ROC (republic of china) China is PRC (people's republic of china) Until the day China finally invades Taiwan and stablishes its laws there.
pests 2y ago
> Just being a pedant, but technically, Taiwan is not China. I think this is wrong? Both PRC and ROC claim ownership of all of China, including Taiwan. The PRC calling Taiwan a rouge territory and the ROC claiming to be a government in exile. The ROC has never denied otherwise as claiming to be sovereign would upset the balancing act they play. To sum it up, I would say the official position of Taiwan is that it is China.
- jamesdutc 2y ago
  This is not a comment that correctly describes how these two entities realistically operate and interact. I don't know why people keep repeating this as though it were insightful. Whatever your own position on this matter may be, it is important that we factually describe the positions of the parties directly involved. Hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to spread a more accurate description of the dynamics at play. For reference, here is a speech by William 賴清德 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ching-te https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ching-te) outlining the position under which he operates. The phrasing he uses is one that is consistent across all of his public remarks; consistent with remarks by Louise 蕭美琴(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim) and other close associates of William 賴清德; consistent with remarks made by 蔡英文 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen); and consistent with how the structures in Taiwan have operated over at least the last decade. 《賴清德就職演說：兩岸「互不隸屬」》: https://youtu.be/oLO5bYF8lDs?t=139 https://youtu.be/oLO5bYF8lDs?t=139 The relevant remark is: 「由此可見，中華民國與中華人民共和國『戶不隸屬』」 Here is my (manual) translation: “From this it can be seen that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are ‘not subordinate to each other.’” Here is a Whisper-generated transcript of the entire speech, with an OpenAI generated translation inline. I skimmed the translation, and it adequately conveys the speaker's meaning and intention. (It does fail to convey the delicacy, careful phrasing, and specific rhetorical choices made by the speaker that are extremely clearly visible in the Chinese. However, this aspects are harder to convey if you don't have minimal prior knowledge on this topic.) https://pastebin.com/fGxHUpXN https://pastebin.com/fGxHUpXN It is true that there are historical positions, (historical) on-paper claims, and even a variety of differing positions and lively debate on this issue across all of the populations involved. But the conclusion one might draw from the comment above is wholly incorrect. It simply isn't the framing within which William 賴清德 and associated parties are actually navigating this issue.

notyourwork 2y ago

Did Deepseek steal anything or use what was made available publicly? I don’t agree that theft took place.

bloomingkales 2y ago
I don’t know. Imagine a giant library, and a big corporation comes and steals it (OpenAI training on the internet/books). Then imagine another corporation comes and walks into the stolen library and scans each book so they have a copy (of the whole library ). The reason you don’t consider it theft is because we’re into deep level treachery here where right and wrong are beyond blurred. Just to add a slight bit of friction to all of this, I’ll just note that money and profit is involved. Lots of it. But when I said I don’t know, I really meant it. It seems obvious to me, but how could it be that obvious? I must be going crazy.
- pphysch 2y ago
  That implies DeepSeek waltzed in and stole something resembling (ill-begotten) "trade secrets". It's more like DeepSeek legally bought OpenAI's public product, tore it apart and successfully RE'd it / used it to bootstrap their own thing. Like many other innovators and tinkerers.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> China uses this tactic to steal IP. The dirty little secret is that they did this to Tesla China bought its way into batteries by buying our bankrupt A123 [1]. We weren’t fleeced, we gave it away. > It’s a Cold War It’s a stupid Cold War. Literally search public property records for mortgage liens and join to senior people who have just been fired. Offer them a consulting contract so they don’t even know they’re an intelligence asset. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems

notahacker 2y ago
> It’s a stupid Cold War. Yeah. Short of nuking themselves, the US couldn't really be trying harder to lose in every possible aspect right now.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
The article was pretty light on what critical value was purchased out of the bankruptcy. Was it the coventure Advanced Traction Battery Systems, critical IP, factories in China, or what? Is this a failure of industrial policy where USA would be the leader if we just pumped enough money in it, or was the outcome based on fundamental comparative advantage.