I wish I could find it again, but I remember reading about how Russians are using an old style chip-screen. I don't remember the name and can't find it. It's kinda like a FPGA but it's not reprogrammable and can be done cheaply on small batches. Really neat tech.

I think the idea is to starve the Chinese on AI advances, but there isn't much point spending a fortune training such models when you can have an insider leak it to you for much less money.

>I think the idea is to starve the Chinese on AI advances, but there isn't much point spending a fortune training such models when you can have an insider leak it to you for much less money.

But why is this a good idea? You're saying it as if it's obviously a good idea. Why not cut off the entire food supply from some impoverished nation in Africa? Is that justified? What justifies stopping AI advances or blocking technological progress in China?

Seems like the main justification is that we can't accept China surpassing us. That's not a moral excuse, it's a petty one.

It's not my idea, it's an attempt to explain the intent of the sanctions, I'm very against the sanctions for a multitude of reasons. If you see my other comments on this page you can see where I've stated that I would much rather, as you suggest, the West gracefully step down from a hegemon and take our seat at the multi-polar world where we can focus on cleaning our own house.

ah. We're in agreement. nm, I misunderstood what you said.

The US should act in its best interests, not China's. What's the advantage in helping a geopolitical adversary who has not demonstrated much capacity for "playing by the rules"?

It's counterproductive which means it is not in the best interest of the US and actually in the best interest of China. It only makes sense to me as prelude to a war and as part of a 'timing attack', if there is no subsequent war to then all that has happened is the creation of an indigenous industry for much less cost to China than what it would have been if China had tried to do it by itself without sanctions. To be clear, I very much don't want this war, for one I think the West would lose, and even if we 'won' the middle class would be crushed without access to cheap chinese goods.

The West would lose? How? China cannot project force aside from ICBMs.

So, it's to our advantage to give away IP instead of making them discover and invent things on their own? This is some r/latestagecapitalism level of nonsense.

Allowing the chinese to buy foreign goods is not giving away our IP it's selling goods which is what you normally do with goods. And yes it selling them goods would slow down their tech advancement for the reasons I listed - it's an ironic emergent behavior but it is one that repeats all the time so people should know about it. Nassim Taleb calls it antifragile but it has occurred throughout history. You make an enemy stronger by attacking them, which is not to say don't attack your enemies, just be more careful about it.

I said I think we'll lose and even if we win the result will still be calamitous. I think people have rose tinted glasses of the 1950s and think that a war time economy and a military victory will bring that back. It wont.

From my Chinese perspective, the time to ponder this question has long passed. It's not useful.

In a street interview in China (Xinjiang, even) about sanctions, an old man gave an interesting answer. He did not express resentment for the sanctions. Instead, he said: let them sanction, in the end we can't rely on others for our own prosperity and development.

He is right. There is no point in Chinese resenting the sanctions. There is no point in foreigners criticizing the sanctions, we all know it's no use. The only thing that matters now is for Chinese to focus on work. Focus on our own R&D. No need to say much, just get things done.

Not only is it no use, but it's very counterproductive. It's hard to push for innovation locally as it's initially higher cost and lower quality so local companies are incentivized to continue to buy foreign. Without the customers to drive demand the top down initiatives invites corruption and money spent on it just goes into a bottomless black hole. By being sanctioned you have the foreign countries ensuring local companies can only by locally and are not able to bribe the foreign countries to circumvent.

From the US perspective it's different. I'm living in the US, I think we're being petty, disrespectful and I think the action is pathetic.

This is not about China resenting the sanctions. You already have the right attitude This is about a US citizen looking at the US and feeling ashamed at our own virtues.

We should share technology and work together. Not fear one nation surpassing the other.

Was that interviewed man in Xinjiang a Han or a Uyghur? I'd be challenged to think of something more duplicitous than a street interview in Xinjiang.

There are many more ethnicities in Xinjiang than just Han and Uyghur you know. Chinese typically don't focus on people's ethnicities and prefer to refer to people by their place of origin (e.g., "Xinjiang people", "Shandong people", etc), the Chinese way of being inclusive. The man appeared racially ambiguous, could just as well be mixed.

I have a Uyghur acquaintance in Germany who's pretty mad at the media's depiction of stuff. He views it as slander of his home region. At the same time he resents that most westerners don't actually care about the truth, they just want their viewpoints confirmed and get mad at him for presenting a different narrative.

Colloquially, when Chinese people refer to Xinjiangren, they mean non-Han Muslim people. I heard a lot of casual racism directed towards them while I lived in China. Chinese are being "inclusive" because A. they are ignorant, B. they assume most people are Han, with the occasional minority that looks mostly Han anyway, and C. they associate a region with ethnicity or local culture.

All street interviews that are shown in media parrot official state talking points. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

I think it's actually a shame that you now live in a society with free access to information but choose to take state media at face value.

What is his view?