Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Distilled recap of the back-and-forth with Jensen on export controls: Dwarkesh: Wouldn’t selling Nvidia chips to China enable them to train models like Claude Mythos with cyber offensive capabilities that would be threats to American companies and national security? Jensen: First of all, Mythos was trained on fairly mundane... capacity and a fairly mundane amount of it by an extraordinary company. The amount of capacity and the type of compute it was trained on is abundantly available in China. Dwarkesh: With that, could they eventually train a model like Mythos? Yes. But the question is, because we have more FLOPs, American labs are able to get to this level of capabilities first. Furthermore, even if they trained a model like this, the ability to deploy it at scale matters. If you had a cyber hacker, it's much more dangerous if they have a million of them versus a thousand of them. Jensen: Your premise is just wrong. The fact of the matter is their AI development is going just fine. The best AI researchers in the world, because they are limited in compute, also come up with extremely smart algorithms. DeepSeek is not an inconsequential advance. The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation. Dwarkesh: Currently, you can have a model like DeepSeek that can run on any accelerator if it's open source. Why would that stop being the case in the future? Jensen: Suppose it optimizes for Huawei. Suppose it optimizes for their architecture. It would put others at a disadvantage. As AI diffuses out into the rest of the world, their standards and their tech stack will become superior to ours because their models are open. Dwarkesh: Tesla sold extremely good electric vehicles to China for a long time. iPhones are sold in China. They didn't cause some lock-in. China will still make their version of EVs, and they're dominating, or smartphones, they're dominating. Jensen: We are not a car. The fact that I can buy this car brand one day and use another car brand another day is easy. Computing is not like that. There's a reason why x86 still exists. There's a reason why Arm is so sticky. These ecosystems are hard to replace. Dwarkesh: It's just hard to imagine that there's a long-term lock-in to the Chinese ecosystem, even if they have this slightly better open-source model for a while. American labs port across accelerators constantly. Anthropic's models are run on GPUs, they're run on Trainium, they're run on TPUs. There are so many things you can do, from distilling to a model that's well fit for your chips. Jensen: China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Today it's built on the American tech stack, Nvidia’s. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI are important. The United States ought to go win all five of them. in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want American technology to be diffused around the world—out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia—on that day, I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy ... caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all.show more

Dwarkesh Patel

240,434 subscribers

1,250,172 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

jensen spitting bars "So, China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. Fact. Right? China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Fact. Today it's built on the American tech stack Nvidia. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI is important. United States ought to go win all five of them. They're all important. The one that is the most important, of course, is the AI application layer. The layer that diffuses into society, the one that uses it most will benefit from this industrial revolution most. But my point is that every layer has to succeed. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task. The job of a radiologist, patient care, task to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. So I'm making the case that when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Of course we do. Is today you're talking about Mythos because Mythos is important? Sure, that's fantastic, but in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again, and I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it, but why do we concede it? Now nobody is advocating, nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody is advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first, but we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes."

jensen spitting bars "So, China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. Fact. Right? China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Fact. Today it's built on the American tech stack Nvidia. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI is important. United States ought to go win all five of them. They're all important. The one that is the most important, of course, is the AI application layer. The layer that diffuses into society, the one that uses it most will benefit from this industrial revolution most. But my point is that every layer has to succeed. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task. The job of a radiologist, patient care, task to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. So I'm making the case that when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Of course we do. Is today you're talking about Mythos because Mythos is important? Sure, that's fantastic, but in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again, and I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it, but why do we concede it? Now nobody is advocating, nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody is advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first, but we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes."

mark erdmann

13,279 views • 2 months ago

JENSEN HUANG: THE AMERICAN TECH STACK IS HOW WE WIN THE AI RACE "DeepSeek when it came out, it was a great win for the United States. Imagine if DeepSeek came out and only ran on Huawei. The fact of the matter is American tech stack all over the world being the world's standard is vital to the future of winning the AI race. You can't do it any other way, as you know, any computing platform wins because of developers, and half of the world's developers are in China." Source: The All-In Podcast

JENSEN HUANG: THE AMERICAN TECH STACK IS HOW WE WIN THE AI RACE "DeepSeek when it came out, it was a great win for the United States. Imagine if DeepSeek came out and only ran on Huawei. The fact of the matter is American tech stack all over the world being the world's standard is vital to the future of winning the AI race. You can't do it any other way, as you know, any computing platform wins because of developers, and half of the world's developers are in China." Source: The All-In Podcast

Mario Nawfal

45,238 views • 11 months ago

watched through the entire interview these guys aren't in the same league. jensen plays to win. dwarkesh has been one shotted by mythos marketing. in a way its jensen arguing against dario by proxy. think there's a fundamental underestimation that most ppl in the west have about huawei. they are a freak monster powerhouse and jensen is 100% correct in wanting to push nvidia in china versus letting huawei eat the domestic market. the worst outcome for the US would be for deepseek to be trained 100% on huawei chips versus a china that is dependent on the nvidia stack.

watched through the entire interview these guys aren't in the same league. jensen plays to win. dwarkesh has been one shotted by mythos marketing. in a way its jensen arguing against dario by proxy. think there's a fundamental underestimation that most ppl in the west have about huawei. they are a freak monster powerhouse and jensen is 100% correct in wanting to push nvidia in china versus letting huawei eat the domestic market. the worst outcome for the US would be for deepseek to be trained 100% on huawei chips versus a china that is dependent on the nvidia stack.

factorydoge

542,952 views • 2 months ago

Jensen Huang just made the most direct argument of his career about why banning Nvidia from China is not a national security strategy but rather a national security failure. Dwarkesh asks why Nvidia should be allowed to sell chips to China at all, if China would just use Huawei chips without them. Jensen's answer was that in the absence of a better choice, you take the only choice you have. As long as China has to settle for inferior chips, they are building their AI infrastructure on a foundation that is slower, harder to program, and years behind American technology. The moment the US decides to ban Nvidia from selling to China entirely, it removes that disadvantage. China is 40 percent of the global technology industry, Jensen said. Conceding that market, handing it entirely to Huawei is a disservice to American national security, American technology leadership, and American economic power. The data shows what has already happened since the export bans tightened. Nvidia's share of China's AI chip market collapsed from 95 percent to 55 percent in 2025 and at one point during the H20 ban, Jensen himself declared Nvidia had gone from 95 percent share to zero on advanced accelerators. The Trump administration's ban on H20 chips cost Nvidia an estimated 15 billion dollars in lost sales, plus a 4.5 billion dollar inventory write-down. Without the export controls, Nvidia was on track to generate roughly 23 billion dollars in H20 chip sales to China in 2025 alone. Meanwhile Huawei shipped 812,000 AI chips in 2025 and Beijing has now mandated that all state-funded data centers must switch to domestic chips. Jensen's deeper argument is about the global stack, not the quarterly revenue. When developers around the world build AI on CUDA, Nvidia's programming platform, they are building on American technology. When those AI models deploy into every country, the American stack goes with them. Cutting Nvidia out of China does not slow Chinese AI but rather accelerates the construction of a parallel Chinese tech stack that, once built at scale, competes with American technology everywhere else in the world.

Jensen Huang just made the most direct argument of his career about why banning Nvidia from China is not a national security strategy but rather a national security failure. Dwarkesh asks why Nvidia should be allowed to sell chips to China at all, if China would just use Huawei chips without them. Jensen's answer was that in the absence of a better choice, you take the only choice you have. As long as China has to settle for inferior chips, they are building their AI infrastructure on a foundation that is slower, harder to program, and years behind American technology. The moment the US decides to ban Nvidia from selling to China entirely, it removes that disadvantage. China is 40 percent of the global technology industry, Jensen said. Conceding that market, handing it entirely to Huawei is a disservice to American national security, American technology leadership, and American economic power. The data shows what has already happened since the export bans tightened. Nvidia's share of China's AI chip market collapsed from 95 percent to 55 percent in 2025 and at one point during the H20 ban, Jensen himself declared Nvidia had gone from 95 percent share to zero on advanced accelerators. The Trump administration's ban on H20 chips cost Nvidia an estimated 15 billion dollars in lost sales, plus a 4.5 billion dollar inventory write-down. Without the export controls, Nvidia was on track to generate roughly 23 billion dollars in H20 chip sales to China in 2025 alone. Meanwhile Huawei shipped 812,000 AI chips in 2025 and Beijing has now mandated that all state-funded data centers must switch to domestic chips. Jensen's deeper argument is about the global stack, not the quarterly revenue. When developers around the world build AI on CUDA, Nvidia's programming platform, they are building on American technology. When those AI models deploy into every country, the American stack goes with them. Cutting Nvidia out of China does not slow Chinese AI but rather accelerates the construction of a parallel Chinese tech stack that, once built at scale, competes with American technology everywhere else in the world.

Milk Road AI

21,133 views • 2 months ago

Jensen Huang pushes back on common misconceptions about China's tech capabilities, arguing the West is dangerously underestimating its competitor. He challenges three narratives he's heard: "They could never build AI chips. China can't manufacture. If there's one thing they could do is manufacture. And they're years behind us? Come on. They're nanoseconds behind us." Jensen explains why China is such a formidable competitor, starting with talent and work ethic: "Don't forget that China has some of the best entrepreneurs in the world because they came from some of the best STEM schools in the world. They're the most hungry in the world." He references the infamous "996" culture (9am to 9pm, 6 days a week) and notes that China is producing the most AI engineers in the world. Beyond talent, Jensen highlights a structural advantage most people overlook: "They are very lightly regulated, right? Less regulated, ironically, than we are in a capitalist system." He pushes back on the assumption that central governance means top-down control: "The genius of China was distributed economic systems. All of these 33 provinces and all the mayors… has driven enormous amount of internal competition, internal economic vibrancy." The result, Jensen argues, is a country that is "creative, hungry, fast-moving, underregulated." Looking ahead, Jensen says he takes China's stated goal of being an open market at face value: "What's in the best interest of China is for foreign companies to invest in China, compete in China… and they would also like to come out of China and participate around the world." For Jensen, the American tech industry is a national treasure, and the answer is simple: "Why would we not allow this industry to go compete for its survival?"

Jensen Huang pushes back on common misconceptions about China's tech capabilities, arguing the West is dangerously underestimating its competitor. He challenges three narratives he's heard: "They could never build AI chips. China can't manufacture. If there's one thing they could do is manufacture. And they're years behind us? Come on. They're nanoseconds behind us." Jensen explains why China is such a formidable competitor, starting with talent and work ethic: "Don't forget that China has some of the best entrepreneurs in the world because they came from some of the best STEM schools in the world. They're the most hungry in the world." He references the infamous "996" culture (9am to 9pm, 6 days a week) and notes that China is producing the most AI engineers in the world. Beyond talent, Jensen highlights a structural advantage most people overlook: "They are very lightly regulated, right? Less regulated, ironically, than we are in a capitalist system." He pushes back on the assumption that central governance means top-down control: "The genius of China was distributed economic systems. All of these 33 provinces and all the mayors… has driven enormous amount of internal competition, internal economic vibrancy." The result, Jensen argues, is a country that is "creative, hungry, fast-moving, underregulated." Looking ahead, Jensen says he takes China's stated goal of being an open market at face value: "What's in the best interest of China is for foreign companies to invest in China, compete in China… and they would also like to come out of China and participate around the world." For Jensen, the American tech industry is a national treasure, and the answer is simple: "Why would we not allow this industry to go compete for its survival?"

Big Brain AI

41,991 views • 4 months ago

THAT MOMENT WHEN NVIDIA CEO JENSEN HUANG WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS COMMENTS ON CHINA BEATING THE U.S. IN THE AI RACE: “THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT CHINA HAS VERY GOOD AI TECHNOLOGY. THEY HAVE MANY AI RESEARCHERS. IN FACT, 50% OF THE WORLD’S AI RESEARCHERS ARE IN CHINA. THEY DEVELOP VERY GOOD AI TECHNOLOGY. THE MOST POPULAR OPEN-SOURCE AI MODELS IN THE WORLD TODAY ARE FROM CHINA. SO THEY ARE MOVING VERY, VERY FAST. THE UNITED STATES HAS TO CONTINUE TO MOVE INCREDIBLY FAST. OTHERWISE, THE WORLD IS VERY COMPETITIVE, SO WE HAVE TO RUN FAST.”

THAT MOMENT WHEN NVIDIA CEO JENSEN HUANG WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS COMMENTS ON CHINA BEATING THE U.S. IN THE AI RACE: “THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT CHINA HAS VERY GOOD AI TECHNOLOGY. THEY HAVE MANY AI RESEARCHERS. IN FACT, 50% OF THE WORLD’S AI RESEARCHERS ARE IN CHINA. THEY DEVELOP VERY GOOD AI TECHNOLOGY. THE MOST POPULAR OPEN-SOURCE AI MODELS IN THE WORLD TODAY ARE FROM CHINA. SO THEY ARE MOVING VERY, VERY FAST. THE UNITED STATES HAS TO CONTINUE TO MOVE INCREDIBLY FAST. OTHERWISE, THE WORLD IS VERY COMPETITIVE, SO WE HAVE TO RUN FAST.”

Vivek Sen

155,475 views • 1 month ago

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

The All-In Podcast

64,267 views • 2 months ago

Nvidia $NVDA CEO Jensen Huang was asked about a recent story that said he warned that China will beat the US in the AI race “That’s not what I said. What I said was China has very good AI technology. They have many AI researchers, in fact 50% of the world’s AI researchers are in China. And they develop very good AI technology. In fact, the most popular AI models in the world today, open-source models, are from China. So, they are moving very, very fast. The United States has to continue to move incredibly fast. And otherwise, otherwise – the world is very competitive, so we have to run fast.” (H/T Dan Nystedt)

Nvidia $NVDA CEO Jensen Huang was asked about a recent story that said he warned that China will beat the US in the AI race “That’s not what I said. What I said was China has very good AI technology. They have many AI researchers, in fact 50% of the world’s AI researchers are in China. And they develop very good AI technology. In fact, the most popular AI models in the world today, open-source models, are from China. So, they are moving very, very fast. The United States has to continue to move incredibly fast. And otherwise, otherwise – the world is very competitive, so we have to run fast.” (H/T Dan Nystedt)

Evan

1,946,746 views • 8 months ago

NVIDIA CEO: “CHINA IS MOVING INCREDIBLY FAST IN AI” Jensen Huang said China is accelerating AI on all fronts - infrastructure, models, and real-world applications: "China is fast to both invent a new technology, but also to integrate the technology, to apply the technology. And because there's so much competition in China, everybody wants to build a great company and wants to succeed, a lot of great capabilities come out. And at the foundation of all of that is China's education system has produced some of the world's finest AI researchers - about 50% of the world's AI researchers are based here in China." Source:

NVIDIA CEO: “CHINA IS MOVING INCREDIBLY FAST IN AI” Jensen Huang said China is accelerating AI on all fronts - infrastructure, models, and real-world applications: "China is fast to both invent a new technology, but also to integrate the technology, to apply the technology. And because there's so much competition in China, everybody wants to build a great company and wants to succeed, a lot of great capabilities come out. And at the foundation of all of that is China's education system has produced some of the world's finest AI researchers - about 50% of the world's AI researchers are based here in China." Source:

Mario Nawfal

1,018,768 views • 11 months ago

$China just made Silicon Valley's entire AI industry look like a scam. The US government spent 3 years trying to stop China from building competitive AI. But this backfired HORRIBLY. Here's what happened: Yesterday, a Chinese startup called DeepSeek released a new AI model called V4. It matches the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic's best models. At 1/7th the price. And for the first time ever, it was built on Chinese chips. NOT American ones. That last part is the one that terrifies the west. For context: Since 2022, the US has banned the export of advanced AI chips to China. The entire strategy was built on the assumption that if China can't access Nvidia's best hardware, they can't build frontier AI. But DeepSeek just proved that assumption wrong. Their V4 model was trained and runs on Huawei's Ascend chips. Huawei spent months working directly with DeepSeek to make sure V4 runs across their entire line of AI processors. Jensen Huang even predicted this on a recent podcast: "The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation." That day was yesterday. And the numbers are crazy: DeepSeek V4 costs $3.48 per million output tokens. OpenAI's latest model GPT-5.5 costs $30. Anthropic's Claude charges $25. Same ballpark performance. 7x cheaper. Uber's CTO just admitted they burned through their ENTIRE 2026 AI budget in 4 months using Anthropic's tools. If Uber had used DeepSeek instead, that same budget would have lasted 7 YEARS. 4 months vs 7 years. Same work getting done. But the pricing isn't even the big thing here. The real story is what DeepSeek did with their technical report: They published the benchmarks where they LOSE. Every AI company cherry-picks the tests where their model wins. DeepSeek ran the full comparison against GPT-5.4 and Google's Gemini, found they trail frontier models by 3 to 6 months, and printed it anyway. They literally don't care because the price gap makes the performance gap irrelevant for 90% of use cases. So the US export controls didn't slow China down. They ACCELERATED China's independence. Because Chinese developers were FORCED to train models with limited resources, they had to figure out how to make AI radically more efficient. That constraint became their competitive advantage. Every generation of DeepSeek has gotten dramatically cheaper to train. V4 continues the trend. Meanwhile US companies are going the OPPOSITE direction: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 Pro costs $180 per million output tokens. That's 51x more expensive than DeepSeek V4 for comparable work. The Commerce Secretary confirmed this week that ZERO Nvidia advanced chip shipments have actually gone through to China despite being approved in January. So China built frontier AI anyway. Without American chips. At a fraction of the cost. And the market response tells you everything: Chinese chipmaker SMIC surged 10%. Huahong Semiconductor jumped 15%. DeepSeek's Chinese AI competitors Zhipu AI and MiniMax dropped 9% because V4 is destroying them too. DeepSeek is making Silicon Valley's pricing model look like a scam. US tech companies spent $650 billion on AI infrastructure this year. DeepSeek just showed the world you can match their output for pennies. The export controls were supposed to be America's ace card. Instead they taught China how to win without American chips, at American prices nobody can compete with. Jensen Huang was right. This is a horrible outcome. But it's the outcome America built for itself.$

China just made Silicon Valley's entire AI industry look like a scam. The US government spent 3 years trying to stop China from building competitive AI. But this backfired HORRIBLY. Here's what happened: Yesterday, a Chinese startup called DeepSeek released a new AI model called V4. It matches the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic's best models. At 1/7th the price. And for the first time ever, it was built on Chinese chips. NOT American ones. That last part is the one that terrifies the west. For context: Since 2022, the US has banned the export of advanced AI chips to China. The entire strategy was built on the assumption that if China can't access Nvidia's best hardware, they can't build frontier AI. But DeepSeek just proved that assumption wrong. Their V4 model was trained and runs on Huawei's Ascend chips. Huawei spent months working directly with DeepSeek to make sure V4 runs across their entire line of AI processors. Jensen Huang even predicted this on a recent podcast: "The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation." That day was yesterday. And the numbers are crazy: DeepSeek V4 costs $3.48 per million output tokens. OpenAI's latest model GPT-5.5 costs $30. Anthropic's Claude charges $25. Same ballpark performance. 7x cheaper. Uber's CTO just admitted they burned through their ENTIRE 2026 AI budget in 4 months using Anthropic's tools. If Uber had used DeepSeek instead, that same budget would have lasted 7 YEARS. 4 months vs 7 years. Same work getting done. But the pricing isn't even the big thing here. The real story is what DeepSeek did with their technical report: They published the benchmarks where they LOSE. Every AI company cherry-picks the tests where their model wins. DeepSeek ran the full comparison against GPT-5.4 and Google's Gemini, found they trail frontier models by 3 to 6 months, and printed it anyway. They literally don't care because the price gap makes the performance gap irrelevant for 90% of use cases. So the US export controls didn't slow China down. They ACCELERATED China's independence. Because Chinese developers were FORCED to train models with limited resources, they had to figure out how to make AI radically more efficient. That constraint became their competitive advantage. Every generation of DeepSeek has gotten dramatically cheaper to train. V4 continues the trend. Meanwhile US companies are going the OPPOSITE direction: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 Pro costs $180 per million output tokens. That's 51x more expensive than DeepSeek V4 for comparable work. The Commerce Secretary confirmed this week that ZERO Nvidia advanced chip shipments have actually gone through to China despite being approved in January. So China built frontier AI anyway. Without American chips. At a fraction of the cost. And the market response tells you everything: Chinese chipmaker SMIC surged 10%. Huahong Semiconductor jumped 15%. DeepSeek's Chinese AI competitors Zhipu AI and MiniMax dropped 9% because V4 is destroying them too. DeepSeek is making Silicon Valley's pricing model look like a scam. US tech companies spent $650 billion on AI infrastructure this year. DeepSeek just showed the world you can match their output for pennies. The export controls were supposed to be America's ace card. Instead they taught China how to win without American chips, at American prices nobody can compete with. Jensen Huang was right. This is a horrible outcome. But it's the outcome America built for itself.

Ricardo

279,980 views • 2 months ago

“We have a crisis of open source models in the Western world. Outside of China, there are no good open source models. We don't even have any in the US now. The talent, the capital and the focus to be best-in-class at pre-training, mid-training, post-training is an extremely scarce skillset. The answer for a lot of countries may just be to take an open weights model from China, post-train or fine-tune their own version, and have that be what they start from." Everett Randle Why does the West have such poor open source models and is it a national security threat to rely on open-source Chinese models Demis Hassabis Yann LeCun Aidan Gomez Lilian Weng Jan Leike

“We have a crisis of open source models in the Western world. Outside of China, there are no good open source models. We don't even have any in the US now. The talent, the capital and the focus to be best-in-class at pre-training, mid-training, post-training is an extremely scarce skillset. The answer for a lot of countries may just be to take an open weights model from China, post-train or fine-tune their own version, and have that be what they start from." Everett Randle Why does the West have such poor open source models and is it a national security threat to rely on open-source Chinese models Demis Hassabis Yann LeCun Aidan Gomez Lilian Weng Jan Leike

Harry Stebbings

63,397 views • 19 days ago

NVIDIA CEO Jensen was on fire in his Dwarkesh interview. He makes two incredibly important points in this clip. First, Anthropic and their ilk had better stop scaring everyone that AI is akin to a nuclear bomb. This meme will only hold the US back while the rest of the world (and most importantly China) will pass us by. Second he makes a basic economic argument about worldwide technology dominance. If the US does not allow NVIDIA to foster their ecosystem in China, China will create their own AI tech stack and will eventually crowd out the US’s AI lead everywhere in the world, and eventually in the US itself. This isn’t theoretical. The US conceded manufacturing to China and is desperately trying to claw it back now. 90% of rare earth refining is done in China: raw materials for magnets, meaning motors, meaning drones, meaning military superiority in the end. China is not some backward third world economy that geriatric policy makers might envision. Yes, they are currently behind in advanced chip making, but western lead in that area won’t last. Meanwhile they are ahead in some areas of AI architecture. So the US has a choice. Be confident and compete against China, or eventually cede the AI tech stack to them. Jensen is correct here.

NVIDIA CEO Jensen was on fire in his Dwarkesh interview. He makes two incredibly important points in this clip. First, Anthropic and their ilk had better stop scaring everyone that AI is akin to a nuclear bomb. This meme will only hold the US back while the rest of the world (and most importantly China) will pass us by. Second he makes a basic economic argument about worldwide technology dominance. If the US does not allow NVIDIA to foster their ecosystem in China, China will create their own AI tech stack and will eventually crowd out the US’s AI lead everywhere in the world, and eventually in the US itself. This isn’t theoretical. The US conceded manufacturing to China and is desperately trying to claw it back now. 90% of rare earth refining is done in China: raw materials for magnets, meaning motors, meaning drones, meaning military superiority in the end. China is not some backward third world economy that geriatric policy makers might envision. Yes, they are currently behind in advanced chip making, but western lead in that area won’t last. Meanwhile they are ahead in some areas of AI architecture. So the US has a choice. Be confident and compete against China, or eventually cede the AI tech stack to them. Jensen is correct here.

Phil Trubey

72,743 views • 2 months ago

Jensen Huang just made the case for American empire. Said it plain. Didn’t flinch. Didn’t walk it back. And almost nobody caught what he actually admitted. Jensen Huang: “The amount of compute in the United States is a hundred times more than anywhere else in the world.” One hundred times. That is not a market lead. That is a monopoly on the future of intelligence. The kind that compounds every six months until no one else can close the distance. Jensen Huang: “We make sure that the US labs are the first to hear about it and the first chance to buy it.” Every chip Nvidia designs. Every architecture they ship. America gets first access. Everyone else gets what is left. That is not a sales strategy. That is arms distribution with a quarterly earnings call. Jensen Huang: “And if they don’t have enough money, we even invest in them.” The company building the weapons is bankrolling the people who fire them. Nvidia is no longer a public company. It is a state instrument with a stock ticker. Jensen Huang: “Why would you want the United States to give up the world?” The CEO of the most valuable hardware company on earth did not hedge that. Did not qualify it. He said it like it was obvious. Because to him, it is. Nations used to be measured by steel output. Then oil reserves. Then warhead count. Now it is how much intelligence they can produce per second. Compute is no longer a commodity. It is a strategic resource. Like uranium in 1944. Except this one doubles faster than anyone can respond. Europe understands none of this. They are drafting AI regulations. Compliance frameworks. Ethics panels. Risk tiers. They are bringing paperwork to a physics war. You cannot govern intelligence you do not have the silicon to produce. China gets it. That is why they are building fabs, not filing comment periods. Nvidia already made sure the gap is not annual. It is generational. Silicon Valley still thinks it is building consumer software. Huang just told them they are building American infrastructure. Every model trained here runs on machines that exist nowhere else. Every company that scales here scales on silicon no rival can touch. The world thinks Nvidia sells chips. Nvidia sells the ability to think. And they only sell it under one flag.

Jensen Huang just made the case for American empire. Said it plain. Didn’t flinch. Didn’t walk it back. And almost nobody caught what he actually admitted. Jensen Huang: “The amount of compute in the United States is a hundred times more than anywhere else in the world.” One hundred times. That is not a market lead. That is a monopoly on the future of intelligence. The kind that compounds every six months until no one else can close the distance. Jensen Huang: “We make sure that the US labs are the first to hear about it and the first chance to buy it.” Every chip Nvidia designs. Every architecture they ship. America gets first access. Everyone else gets what is left. That is not a sales strategy. That is arms distribution with a quarterly earnings call. Jensen Huang: “And if they don’t have enough money, we even invest in them.” The company building the weapons is bankrolling the people who fire them. Nvidia is no longer a public company. It is a state instrument with a stock ticker. Jensen Huang: “Why would you want the United States to give up the world?” The CEO of the most valuable hardware company on earth did not hedge that. Did not qualify it. He said it like it was obvious. Because to him, it is. Nations used to be measured by steel output. Then oil reserves. Then warhead count. Now it is how much intelligence they can produce per second. Compute is no longer a commodity. It is a strategic resource. Like uranium in 1944. Except this one doubles faster than anyone can respond. Europe understands none of this. They are drafting AI regulations. Compliance frameworks. Ethics panels. Risk tiers. They are bringing paperwork to a physics war. You cannot govern intelligence you do not have the silicon to produce. China gets it. That is why they are building fabs, not filing comment periods. Nvidia already made sure the gap is not annual. It is generational. Silicon Valley still thinks it is building consumer software. Huang just told them they are building American infrastructure. Every model trained here runs on machines that exist nowhere else. Every company that scales here scales on silicon no rival can touch. The world thinks Nvidia sells chips. Nvidia sells the ability to think. And they only sell it under one flag.

Dustin

57,059 views • 2 months ago

🇨🇳🇺🇸 TREASURY SECRETARY BESSENT: “THIS IS CHINA VERSUS THE WORLD - NOT JUST A U.S.-CHINA PROBLEM” “We have things that are more powerful than the rarer export controls that the Chinese want to put on. And to be clear, this is China versus the world. It's not a U.S.-China problem. Good news is that this is IMF week. A lot of my counterparts, or all my counterparts, are here. We're going to be speaking with our European allies, with Australia, with Canada, with India, and the Asian democracies. And we're going to have a fulsome group response to this because bureaucrats in China cannot manage the supply chain or the manufacturing process for the rest of the world. We don't want to damage their economy. We don't believe that they want to damage ours." Source: Rapid Response 47

🇨🇳🇺🇸 TREASURY SECRETARY BESSENT: “THIS IS CHINA VERSUS THE WORLD - NOT JUST A U.S.-CHINA PROBLEM” “We have things that are more powerful than the rarer export controls that the Chinese want to put on. And to be clear, this is China versus the world. It's not a U.S.-China problem. Good news is that this is IMF week. A lot of my counterparts, or all my counterparts, are here. We're going to be speaking with our European allies, with Australia, with Canada, with India, and the Asian democracies. And we're going to have a fulsome group response to this because bureaucrats in China cannot manage the supply chain or the manufacturing process for the rest of the world. We don't want to damage their economy. We don't believe that they want to damage ours." Source: Rapid Response 47

Mario Nawfal

319,810 views • 8 months ago

David Sacks on what "winning" the AI race looks like for the US and China 🇺🇸🇨🇳 -- Mass adoption of their tech stack (80-90% market share) -- Achieving an advantage so decisive that they cannot be leapfrogged back @jason: "If China wins the AI race, what does it mean to win?" David Sacks: "To me, it would mean that they achieve a decisive advantage in AI such that we can't leapfrog them back." "An example of this might be something like 5G, where Huawei leapfrogged us, got to 5G first, and disseminated it through the world." "This is where we have to change our mindset towards diffusion." "I would define winning as the whole world consolidates around the American tech stack." "They use American hardware in data centers that are fundamentally powered by American technology." "Just look at market share. If we have like 80 to 90% market share, that's winning." "If (China) has 80% market share, then we're in big trouble."

David Sacks on what "winning" the AI race looks like for the US and China 🇺🇸🇨🇳 -- Mass adoption of their tech stack (80-90% market share) -- Achieving an advantage so decisive that they cannot be leapfrogged back @jason: "If China wins the AI race, what does it mean to win?" David Sacks: "To me, it would mean that they achieve a decisive advantage in AI such that we can't leapfrog them back." "An example of this might be something like 5G, where Huawei leapfrogged us, got to 5G first, and disseminated it through the world." "This is where we have to change our mindset towards diffusion." "I would define winning as the whole world consolidates around the American tech stack." "They use American hardware in data centers that are fundamentally powered by American technology." "Just look at market share. If we have like 80 to 90% market share, that's winning." "If (China) has 80% market share, then we're in big trouble."

The All-In Podcast

133,343 views • 1 year ago

Jensen Huang just delivered the most important warning no one in Washington is ready to hear. Not about China. About what America is doing to itself. Huang: “We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here, and the first. But we should also try to compete and win around the world.” Washington heard that and locked onto China. Jensen wasn’t talking about China. He was talking about India. The Middle East. Africa. Southeast Asia. The next two billion people coming online. All of them about to build on somebody’s AI stack. The question was never whether they get the technology. The question is whose name is on it. Huang: “It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity, instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolute.” Washington doesn’t do nuance. Washington does ban lists. Restriction is now the entire American AI strategy. Not deployment. Not adoption. Not global capture. Restriction. As if you win a technology race by refusing to run it. And nobody in Washington understands what happens when you cut somebody off. They don’t stop. They build their own. Every restriction is an invitation to innovate without you. Every ban is a blueprint for independence. Every chip you refuse to sell is a chip someone else learns how to make. You are not slowing competitors down. You are giving them the one thing they never had before. Motivation to never need you again. That is not a hypothetical. That is the pattern. Every single time. Countries that cannot count on American access stop waiting for it. They invest. They recruit. They accelerate. They make breakthroughs they never would have made if Washington had just shown up and competed. You don’t contain progress by withholding it. You pour jet fuel on the one outcome you were trying to prevent. Meanwhile the people making these decisions have never built anything. Not a chip. Not a model. Not a product. Not a company. Bureaucrats writing regulation for an industry they cannot even describe accurately. Committees moving at the speed of subcommittee. And the entire American AI future is being filtered through people whose greatest technological achievement is a shared Google Doc. And here is what no one in that room wants to admit. The United States is not competing against Chinese technology. It is competing against Chinese willingness to show up. While Congress debates which chips to block, Beijing is already on a plane. Signing infrastructure deals across four continents. Not with better hardware. With available hardware. And available has beaten superior in every technology war ever fought. VHS over Betamax. Android over iOS globally. The best product never wins. The most adopted one does. Standards are not products. Standards are dependency. The kind that compounds for generations. Every country running American AI is locked into the American ecosystem permanently. Every country that isn’t belongs to somebody else. And every country America cut off is now building infrastructure designed to ensure it never has to ask again. Huang: “Your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all.” That is not an opinion. That is the man building the infrastructure of the future telling Washington it is engineering its own irrelevance. The cruelest part is not that America could lose the AI race. It is that America could lose it while being absolutely certain it is winning. Because restriction feels like power. It feels like control. Like dominance. Like you are holding every card. But you are not holding anything. You are just not playing. And every day you sit there writing rules instead of shipping technology, someone else is filling the vacuum you created. History never remembers who built the best technology. Only whose technology the world was already running on when it mattered.

Jensen Huang just delivered the most important warning no one in Washington is ready to hear. Not about China. About what America is doing to itself. Huang: “We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here, and the first. But we should also try to compete and win around the world.” Washington heard that and locked onto China. Jensen wasn’t talking about China. He was talking about India. The Middle East. Africa. Southeast Asia. The next two billion people coming online. All of them about to build on somebody’s AI stack. The question was never whether they get the technology. The question is whose name is on it. Huang: “It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity, instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolute.” Washington doesn’t do nuance. Washington does ban lists. Restriction is now the entire American AI strategy. Not deployment. Not adoption. Not global capture. Restriction. As if you win a technology race by refusing to run it. And nobody in Washington understands what happens when you cut somebody off. They don’t stop. They build their own. Every restriction is an invitation to innovate without you. Every ban is a blueprint for independence. Every chip you refuse to sell is a chip someone else learns how to make. You are not slowing competitors down. You are giving them the one thing they never had before. Motivation to never need you again. That is not a hypothetical. That is the pattern. Every single time. Countries that cannot count on American access stop waiting for it. They invest. They recruit. They accelerate. They make breakthroughs they never would have made if Washington had just shown up and competed. You don’t contain progress by withholding it. You pour jet fuel on the one outcome you were trying to prevent. Meanwhile the people making these decisions have never built anything. Not a chip. Not a model. Not a product. Not a company. Bureaucrats writing regulation for an industry they cannot even describe accurately. Committees moving at the speed of subcommittee. And the entire American AI future is being filtered through people whose greatest technological achievement is a shared Google Doc. And here is what no one in that room wants to admit. The United States is not competing against Chinese technology. It is competing against Chinese willingness to show up. While Congress debates which chips to block, Beijing is already on a plane. Signing infrastructure deals across four continents. Not with better hardware. With available hardware. And available has beaten superior in every technology war ever fought. VHS over Betamax. Android over iOS globally. The best product never wins. The most adopted one does. Standards are not products. Standards are dependency. The kind that compounds for generations. Every country running American AI is locked into the American ecosystem permanently. Every country that isn’t belongs to somebody else. And every country America cut off is now building infrastructure designed to ensure it never has to ask again. Huang: “Your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all.” That is not an opinion. That is the man building the infrastructure of the future telling Washington it is engineering its own irrelevance. The cruelest part is not that America could lose the AI race. It is that America could lose it while being absolutely certain it is winning. Because restriction feels like power. It feels like control. Like dominance. Like you are holding every card. But you are not holding anything. You are just not playing. And every day you sit there writing rules instead of shipping technology, someone else is filling the vacuum you created. History never remembers who built the best technology. Only whose technology the world was already running on when it mattered.

Dustin

46,030 views • 1 month ago

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 to Jack Altman: U.S.-China AI Race Mirrors Cold War with Soviet Union "There is a two-horse race. This is shaping up to be the equivalent of what the Cold War was against the Soviet Union in the last century. It is shaping up to be like that. China does have ambitions to basically imprint the world on their ideas of how society should be organized, how the world should be run, and they obviously intend to fully proliferate their technology, which they're doing in many areas. The world, 50 years from now, 20 years from now, is going to be running on Chinese AI or American AI. Those are your choices. AI is going to be the control layer for everything. My view is AI is going to be how you interface with the education system, with the healthcare system, with transportation, with employment, with the government, with law. It's going to be AI lawyers, AI doctors, AI teachers. Do you want your AI teacher, you want your kids to be taught by Chinese AI? Really, like Marx? They're really good at teaching you Marxism and Xi Jinping thought. Another way to put it is the culture in the weights, and so, like, how these things are trained and who they're trained by really, really deeply matters. By the way, this is already an issue in lots of countries because number one, they may not want Chinese AI, but number two, do they want super woke Northern California AI? There are big questions on this. If you had a choice between AI with American values versus the Chinese Communist Party values. It's just crystal clear where you'd want to go. By the way, there's also going to be a direct military, a direct military version, a national security version of this, which is, okay, do you want to live in a world of all CCP-controlled robots and drones and airplanes and cars?"

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 to Jack Altman: U.S.-China AI Race Mirrors Cold War with Soviet Union "There is a two-horse race. This is shaping up to be the equivalent of what the Cold War was against the Soviet Union in the last century. It is shaping up to be like that. China does have ambitions to basically imprint the world on their ideas of how society should be organized, how the world should be run, and they obviously intend to fully proliferate their technology, which they're doing in many areas. The world, 50 years from now, 20 years from now, is going to be running on Chinese AI or American AI. Those are your choices. AI is going to be the control layer for everything. My view is AI is going to be how you interface with the education system, with the healthcare system, with transportation, with employment, with the government, with law. It's going to be AI lawyers, AI doctors, AI teachers. Do you want your AI teacher, you want your kids to be taught by Chinese AI? Really, like Marx? They're really good at teaching you Marxism and Xi Jinping thought. Another way to put it is the culture in the weights, and so, like, how these things are trained and who they're trained by really, really deeply matters. By the way, this is already an issue in lots of countries because number one, they may not want Chinese AI, but number two, do they want super woke Northern California AI? There are big questions on this. If you had a choice between AI with American values versus the Chinese Communist Party values. It's just crystal clear where you'd want to go. By the way, there's also going to be a direct military, a direct military version, a national security version of this, which is, okay, do you want to live in a world of all CCP-controlled robots and drones and airplanes and cars?"

Josh Caplan

14,531 views • 1 year ago

Jensen Huang just told you who is winning the most important race on Earth. For fifty years, America held an unchallenged monopoly on the future. We built the transistor. We launched the internet. We wrote the source code for the modern world. Then the man who builds the physical backbone of every AI system on the planet read the score out loud. Huang: “50% of the world’s AI researchers are Chinese.” Half the minds building what comes next are not ours. Huang: “70% of last year’s AI patents are published by China.” Seven out of every ten blueprints for the next era are being written in Mandarin. Huang: “Nine out of the ten top science and technology schools in the world are now in China.” The talent pipeline did not slow down. It reversed direction. Huang: “We used to lead most of them; now they lead most of them. This has completely flipped in the last half to a decade.” Fifty years of American intellectual supremacy. Inverted in less than ten. This is not a rivalry between OpenAI and DeepSeek. This is not a stock ticker or a quarterly earnings call. This is the largest transfer of civilizational power in the modern era. And it is happening while the West drafts safety frameworks and fills out compliance paperwork. Huang: “They have a large population of highly qualified students. They work incredibly hard. This is a country with an enormous might.” China does not treat AI like a product category. They treat it as the single variable that decides who writes the rules for the next century. The West keeps asking what AI should be allowed to do. China keeps asking how fast they can build it. That gap is not philosophical. It is existential. This is not a left fight. This is not a right fight. This is a survival fight. And right now, America is not fighting it like one. The nation that controls the talent controls the research. The nation that controls the research controls the models. The nation that controls the models does not ask permission. It sets the terms. History never remembers the civilization with the better safety committee. It remembers the one that refused to stop building.

Jensen Huang just told you who is winning the most important race on Earth. For fifty years, America held an unchallenged monopoly on the future. We built the transistor. We launched the internet. We wrote the source code for the modern world. Then the man who builds the physical backbone of every AI system on the planet read the score out loud. Huang: “50% of the world’s AI researchers are Chinese.” Half the minds building what comes next are not ours. Huang: “70% of last year’s AI patents are published by China.” Seven out of every ten blueprints for the next era are being written in Mandarin. Huang: “Nine out of the ten top science and technology schools in the world are now in China.” The talent pipeline did not slow down. It reversed direction. Huang: “We used to lead most of them; now they lead most of them. This has completely flipped in the last half to a decade.” Fifty years of American intellectual supremacy. Inverted in less than ten. This is not a rivalry between OpenAI and DeepSeek. This is not a stock ticker or a quarterly earnings call. This is the largest transfer of civilizational power in the modern era. And it is happening while the West drafts safety frameworks and fills out compliance paperwork. Huang: “They have a large population of highly qualified students. They work incredibly hard. This is a country with an enormous might.” China does not treat AI like a product category. They treat it as the single variable that decides who writes the rules for the next century. The West keeps asking what AI should be allowed to do. China keeps asking how fast they can build it. That gap is not philosophical. It is existential. This is not a left fight. This is not a right fight. This is a survival fight. And right now, America is not fighting it like one. The nation that controls the talent controls the research. The nation that controls the research controls the models. The nation that controls the models does not ask permission. It sets the terms. History never remembers the civilization with the better safety committee. It remembers the one that refused to stop building.

Dustin

57,402 views • 2 months ago

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

The All-In Podcast

910,352 views • 1 year ago

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

MTS

14,406 views • 13 days ago