←back to thread

521 points hd4 | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
hunglee2 ◴[] No.45643396[source]
The US attempt to slow down China's technological development succeeds on the basis of preventing China from directly following the same path, but may backfire in the sense it forces innovation by China in a different direction. The overall outcome for us all may be increase efficiency as a result of this forced innovation, especially if Chinese companies continue to open source their advances, so we may in the end have reason to thank the US for their civilisational gate keeping
replies(17): >>45643584 #>>45643614 #>>45643618 #>>45643770 #>>45643876 #>>45644337 #>>45644641 #>>45644671 #>>45644907 #>>45645384 #>>45645721 #>>45646056 #>>45646138 #>>45648814 #>>45651479 #>>45651810 #>>45663019 #
dlisboa ◴[] No.45643770[source]
History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.

In many senses there's hubris in the western* view of China accomplishments: most of what western companies have created has had significant contribution by Chinese scientists or manufacturing, without which those companies would have nothing. If you look at the names of AI researchers there's a strong pattern even if some are currently plying their trade in the west.

---

* I hate the term "western" because some "westeners" use it to separated what they think are "civilized" from "uncivilized", hence for them LATAM is not "western" even though everything about LATAM countries is western.

replies(20): >>45643893 #>>45643978 #>>45644016 #>>45644041 #>>45644087 #>>45644258 #>>45644757 #>>45644769 #>>45644893 #>>45645743 #>>45645759 #>>45646420 #>>45646546 #>>45646864 #>>45647139 #>>45647493 #>>45647537 #>>45648987 #>>45649151 #>>45665056 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.45644087[source]
> History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.

It's worked for a very long time for aircraft.

China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline.

If for no technical reasons and purely political, COMAC may still be decades away from being able to fly to most of the world.

Likewise, in ~5 years, China may be able to build Chips that are as good as Nvidia after Nvidia's 90% profit margin - i.e. they are 1/10th as good for the price - but since they can buy them for cost - they're they same price for performance and good enough.

If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips.

replies(4): >>45644374 #>>45644658 #>>45646026 #>>45648524 #
Yoric ◴[] No.45644658[source]
> If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips.

Note that this happens at the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances, so as of this writing, there's no such thing as certainty about politics.

replies(1): >>45646955 #
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45646955[source]
>the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances

This isn't happening. The US is driving a harder bargain with our allies. No one serious thinks anyone is walking away from alliances with the US.

replies(6): >>45647084 #>>45647556 #>>45647876 #>>45648222 #>>45648467 #>>45651133 #
1. brookst ◴[] No.45647084{3}[source]
The US has become unreliable and erratic. Countries aren’t cutting ties or anything, but certainly investing to reduce exposure to capricious US leadership. Much of Europe is increasing domestic military production rather than just buying more from the US precisely because the US has publicly discussed leaving NATO and/or not honoring its guarantees.
replies(1): >>45648062 #
2. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45648062[source]
Increasing domestic military production is actually a great outcome.

Obviously Wall Street would have preferred purchasing from US-listed/owned arms companies, but from the perspective of a military alliance, having well-armed allies is the main point.

It's really hard to argue with Trump's methods if they led to Europe finally spending on their own defense.

replies(3): >>45650597 #>>45654630 #>>45663717 #
3. markdown ◴[] No.45650597[source]
You've moved the goalposts
replies(1): >>45658658 #
4. antonvs ◴[] No.45654630[source]
> It's really hard to argue with Trump's methods

On the contrary, his methods are ridiculous. He could have achieved similar ends without kowtowing to Russia, without squandering the opportunity to further weaken Russia’s military capacity, and so on. Something similar applies to pretty much everything else he’s done. He incurs collateral damage on everything even when it’s completely unnecessary to do so. It’s a definitional example of egregious incompetence.

5. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45658658{3}[source]
sorry nope. I said that we haven't broken up an alliances and that our allies are now investing in their own defense.
6. brookst ◴[] No.45663717[source]
That’s moving the goalposts.

The fact that they are doing this because they don’t trust the US to honor its commitments is a very different proposition from “maybe it’s for the best”.

And if you’re familiar with world war 1 and 2, you might doubt that significant increase in domestic military production is a wholly good thing.

But point stands: it’s an example of formerly-strong alliance that is no longer trusted.