China has made several efforts to preserve their chip access, including smuggling, buying chips that are just under the legal limit of performance, and investing in their domestic chip industry.
I fully agree that this was an ambiguous use of “China.” We should have been more specific about which actors are taking which actions. I’ve updated the text to the following:
NVIDIA designed a new chip with performance just beneath the thresholds set by the export controls in order to legally sell the chip in China. Other chips have been smuggled into China in violation of US export controls. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has struggled to support domestic chip manufacturing plants, and has taken further steps to prevent American investors from investing in Chinese companies.
We’ve also cut the second sentence in this paragraph, as the paragraph remains comprehensible without it:
Modern AI systems are trained on advanced computer chips which are designed and fabricated by only a handful of companies in the world. The US and China have been competing for access to these chips for years. Last October, the Biden administration partnered with international allies to severely limit China’s access to leading AI chips.
More generally, we try to avoid zero-sum competitive mindsets on AI development. They can encourage racing towards more powerful AI systems, justify cutting corners on safety, and hinder efforts for international cooperation on AI governance. It’s important to discuss national AI policies which are often explicitly motivated by goals of competition without legitimizing or justifying zero-sum competitive mindsets which can undermine efforts to cooperate. While we will comment on the how the US and China are competing in AI, we avoid recommending “race with China.”
This is an exemplary and welcome response: concise, full-throated, actioned. Respect, thank you Aidan.
Sincerely, I hope my feedback was all-considered good from your perspective. As I noted in this post, I felt my initial email was slightly unkind at one point, but I am overall glad I shared it—you appreciate my getting exercised about this, even over a few paragraphs!
It’s important to discuss national AI policies which are often explicitly motivated by goals of competition without legitimizing or justifying zero-sum competitive mindsets which can undermine efforts to cooperate.
Yes, and I repeat that CAIS newsletter has a good balance of nuance, correctness, helpfulness, reach. Hopefully your example here sets the tone for conversations in this space!
We appreciate the feedback!
I fully agree that this was an ambiguous use of “China.” We should have been more specific about which actors are taking which actions. I’ve updated the text to the following:
We’ve also cut the second sentence in this paragraph, as the paragraph remains comprehensible without it:
More generally, we try to avoid zero-sum competitive mindsets on AI development. They can encourage racing towards more powerful AI systems, justify cutting corners on safety, and hinder efforts for international cooperation on AI governance. It’s important to discuss national AI policies which are often explicitly motivated by goals of competition without legitimizing or justifying zero-sum competitive mindsets which can undermine efforts to cooperate. While we will comment on the how the US and China are competing in AI, we avoid recommending “race with China.”
This is an exemplary and welcome response: concise, full-throated, actioned. Respect, thank you Aidan.
Sincerely, I hope my feedback was all-considered good from your perspective. As I noted in this post, I felt my initial email was slightly unkind at one point, but I am overall glad I shared it—you appreciate my getting exercised about this, even over a few paragraphs!
Yes, and I repeat that CAIS newsletter has a good balance of nuance, correctness, helpfulness, reach. Hopefully your example here sets the tone for conversations in this space!