Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On DeepSeek and export controls

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 185 posts

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#121

Post by etblg »

_t9ow wrote: post #113
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or overthrew democracies in South America, leading to the refugee crisis it now refuses to take responsibility for. The entity that is least problematic (of the available options) and should be entrusted is the European Union.

> overthrew democracies in South America Don't forget Central America and Iran; supporting military dictators in Southeast Asia (Marcos in the Philippines and Suharto in Indonesia); invading Haiti and raiding it of the entirety of its gold reserves, condemning its people to poverty -- one could go on and on.

I mean hell, one of the states (Hawaii) didn't even join willingly, it was annexed by President McKinley by force.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#122

Post by hellojesus »

wood_spirit wrote: post #102
jonathanstrange wrote: post #6

It's shortsighted to believe that export controls are relevant. China will be able to manufacture as good or better chips than the US in the not too distant future anyway.

China only has to attack Taiwan to deny the US of TSMC’s production capacity. Prediction: they will do this as soon as they see sufficient domestic chip production. The attempts to inshore fabs to the USA is too little too late. And it doesn’t matter if Trump defends Taiwan and makes China back down - the fabs will have been bombed to bits. As it is, trump would probably just do sanctions and tariffs, which - like Ru…

> And it doesn’t matter if Trump defends Taiwan and makes China back down - the fabs will have been bombed to bits.

What would prevent the US from directly attacking China's domestic fabs in this scenario? Defending Taiwan doesn't seem as proxy-ish as Ukraine considering China considers it their territory already.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#123

Post by scilro »

>Even if the US and China were at parity in AI systems, it seems likely that China could direct more talent, capital, and focus to military applications of the technology. Combined with its large industrial base and military-strategic advantages, this could help China take a commanding lead on the global stage, not just for AI but for everything.

China spends 1.5% of its GDP on its military. The US spends 3.5%. I get that the two countries are engaged in competition for dominance, but why is China the bigger threat here?

Also, there are a great deal of groups and institutions out there that are pushing for more diplomacy, more cooperation, and a ratcheting down of tensions. If Dario is going to get political anyway, why not go that route?

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#124

Post by krapp »

hellojesus wrote: post #109
krapp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Living in a country where being able to shoot people is an absolute, immutable, inalienable right granted by God himself (more so than anything else in the Bill of Rights) but where access to food, shelter, healthcare and education are all expensive privileges subject to the whims of the free market, and where half of the population doesn't even believe viruses are real, and where you don't even need th…

> Living in a country where being able to shoot people is an absolute, immutable, inalienable right granted by God himself (more so than anything else in the Bill of Rights)... 2A provides access to weapons. It doesn't allow people to murder one another. > but where access to food, shelter, healthcare and education are all expensive privileges subject to the whims of the free market,... Article 1 Section 8 doesn't en…

Most people - even most Americans - aren't libertarian minarchists who believe everything the government does is harmful by default and that free market capitalism is an unalloyed moral good. History has shown that the kind of governance you want rarely works out well for anyone but oligarchs.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#125

Post by hellojesus »

breakitmakeit wrote: post #119
hellojesus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 1 Section 8 does not enumerate Congress with the power to provide healthcare, so Medicaid should onoy be a state level program. I know removing it harms those at the low end of the income spectrum, and that is a bummer, but I really would prefer Congress ammend the Constitution instead of just passing laws of which they have no authority to pass.

And thus is shown that legal reasoning is not equivalent to moral reasoning

In my opinion, it would be more moral to allow charity to cover healthcare for low wealth individuals over a government provided solution.

But even supposing a government funded solution is best, why push to the feds what could be solved by the state?

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#126

Post by MiiMe19 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #120
MiiMe19 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Europe and Latin America want to buddy up with the concentration camp gang, I really don't care. We do not need fascists and communists as our partners.

Funny you mention fascists. As for China being a concentration camp gang, that's not going to matter when their former big brother/ally is just relentlessly bullying them and trying to extract all sorts of concessions under duress, and the alternative has demonstrated to be a reliable ally and partner.

Once again, I don't really care if Europe decides that is who they want to be friends with. If your country thinks that trade is more important than the country currently directly committing a modern holocaust, I don't want us to be allied with you at all.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#127

Post by sitkack »

Kostchei wrote: post #39
rcarmo wrote: post #25

I like a lot of what Dario writes, but in this case I just can't follow the reasoning. Everything I've picked up about how DeepSeek did what they did (including going a level lower than CUDA to better take advantage of the limited hardware[1], and the balance of techniques used[2]) points to some very smart Chinese engineers having out-smarted US ones (to put it in terms that matter to US folk, because I'm European a…

yeh. I see Dario saying "let's protect the US more" for no reason other than bias and "of course they improved over time" which feels like a mighty strong strain of copium. Very disappointing for a leader of an organization i respected. Assuming he speaks for Anthropic, and it seems he does, Past tense.

You can hear it directly from Dario

Navigating a world in transition: Dario Amodei in conversation with Zanny Minton Beddoes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvMolVW_2v0

You can tell as an academic he wants to give DeepSeek props, at least that is what I would like to believe. The first third has the presenter leaning into "cheap chinese" too many times.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#128

Post by wood_spirit »

hellojesus wrote: post #122
wood_spirit wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China only has to attack Taiwan to deny the US of TSMC’s production capacity. Prediction: they will do this as soon as they see sufficient domestic chip production. The attempts to inshore fabs to the USA is too little too late. And it doesn’t matter if Trump defends Taiwan and makes China back down - the fabs will have been bombed to bits. As it is, trump would probably just do sanctions and tariffs, which - like Ru…

> And it doesn’t matter if Trump defends Taiwan and makes China back down - the fabs will have been bombed to bits. What would prevent the US from directly attacking China's domestic fabs in this scenario? Defending Taiwan doesn't seem as proxy-ish as Ukraine considering China considers it their territory already.

It seems unlikely the US will take military action to protect an ally.

It seems even more unlikely that, should the US be prepared to bomb land targets in China, that they would do anything beyond overt military targets that are being used to attack Taiwan.

When trump has recently been asked what he’ll do when China attacks Taiwan he has just said sanctions and tariffs.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#129

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

gadtfly wrote: post #103
gadtfly wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ This is publicly new information, and the 2nd part especially contradicts consequential rumours that had been all-but-cemented in closely-following outsiders' understanding of Sonnet and Anthropic. Completely aside from anything else in this article.

Also, though it's not "new information": "Making AI that is smarter than almost all humans at almost all things [...] is most likely to happen in 2026-2027." continues to sail over everybody's head, not a single comment about it, even to shit on it. People will continue to act as though they are literally blind to this, as though they literally don't see it.

I find that really, really, really hard to believe, given the current approaches.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#130

Post by hellojesus »

krapp wrote: post #124
hellojesus wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Living in a country where being able to shoot people is an absolute, immutable, inalienable right granted by God himself (more so than anything else in the Bill of Rights)... 2A provides access to weapons. It doesn't allow people to murder one another. > but where access to food, shelter, healthcare and education are all expensive privileges subject to the whims of the free market,... Article 1 Section 8 doesn't en…

Most people - even most Americans - aren't libertarian minarchists who believe everything the government does is harmful by default and that free market capitalism is an unalloyed moral good. History has shown that the kind of governance you want rarely works out well for anyone but oligarchs.

I don't believe everything the government does is harmful. Personally I'm quite fond of the FAA despite the many that complain about TSA.

But most of what the government does introduces dead weight to economic transactions or moral hazard. This is especially true when the government tries to provide social benefits beyond taking over a product or service that could perfectly well be provided by the private sector.

I would have little argument against the government regulating that private healthcare providers cannot discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. It would increase costs uniformly across the industry. I do have arguments for providing healthcare on the basis of income, as I believe the program would be better served by private charity. Those who argue the contrary do so only because they want to force all citizens to contribute to the private charity (run publically) of healthcare-for-the-poor, because they want to solve someone else's problem but don't want to have to bear the burden themselves.

Post reply on HN