as the post mentions, the models could have been trained on 1. trained on GPUs within China or 2. on GPUs outside China for example datacenters in Singapore.

The 2nd option is perfectly legal and allowed by US government.

What if the gov tolerated gpu exports on purpose?

Black & grey market devices marked up many times cost buyers heavily, while still suppressing motivation to develop sovereignty.

If nvidia selling to China tolerated for the realpolitik and gets undone by incoming powers to create an appearance of change, is it really the right thing to do? Is it the smart thing to do?

It's an interesting thought experiment, though, we will probably never know.

> What if the gov tolerated gpu exports on purpose?

Given the track record of this administration, they were probably paid to tolerate said exports.

Why on earth would that be suppressing motivation to develop sovereignty? The whole thing makes developing sovereignty an existential priority. When one critical part of your AI technology stack is subject to whims of your adversary, it's not really fully your AI technology stack. Today they turn the tap partially on, but only unofficially, tomorrow they'll shut it off. Time to buy your own tap.

Yup, I think the same applies to traffic of arms regulations.. Private firms sell to countries they are 'allowed' to, passing it between organisations in a chain until they get to the original customer they couldn't sell to directly.. Cuts are taken along the way, and people making money look the other way..

When Xi visited, Trump offered to sell him US made weapons.

What's the chance that these GPUs got to China without Trump getting a cut somehow?

Pretty much zero. Trump sat on knowledge of the affair for an entire year. That's extremely guilty behavior, he was either extorting Huang or covering g for him.

The whole thing is the most corrupt thing we have ever seen at the presidential level.

@dang curious, is this post getting heavily downvoted or flagged?

I get that the geopolitical angle is sensitive, especially with the backdrop of today's big news - but I thought this was a really well-researched technical deep dive, right up HN's alley. (TIL: you could fingerprint gpu hardware just from an llm weights!)

I need to double check PyTorch code, I am not sure how robust this fingerprinting is without PyTorch "bug". Parallel philox based PRNG is a well-researched area and I am surprised (even if it is not secure-PRNG) it can fingerprinting like this. But obviously there are more people who are more knowledgeable on this can give their perspectives here.

i dont know what is expected of export controls... they are never effective. they also find western chips in iranian drones etc. there is a huge gray area of resellers who resel to resellers etc. its pretty much uncontrollable....

Simply banning things causes the price to go up. That alone is good enough to motivate the policy decision.

During the Cold War, America used various shell companies to get valuable titanium out of Russia for building spy planes. If someone is willing to pay, smugglers will find a way.

Export controls inherently raise the cost of doing business with parties you don't like, the other party has to either invest more resources acquiring them, or make the decision to forego acquiring them. The grey market exists precisely because there's an opportunity to exploit this for profit. At the end of the day, when these effects of these export controls are discussed, they usually seem to revolve around export controls setting a specific program or effort back by a span of months, not in stopping a specific commodity from accessing another market whatsoever (excepting some hyper-specific components).

> its pretty much uncontrollable

As Hezbollah discovered in 2024, covert supply-chain interdiction is very possible and I'd be surprised if the CIA didn't know what was going on, at least to some extent.

Yes or indeed supplying cards to the Chinese market with extras...

So export controls are more like export friction

We need deep investigations at the CFTC and SEC level on who took short positions and put options on NVDA. My bet is there are Singaporean propshops backed by the likes of Goldman and others who are rightsizing this market.

didn't the culper report come out in march or something like that?