jerryskids 7,068 Posted 22 hours ago 1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: This is a little odd - I’m not excluding all your other comments but the Prospect raised two issues, both of which have been well reported elsewhere. - One is the expanded export licensing controls. There has been a loophole in older regulations that has been permitting out competitors & adversaries to access some of our best technology. We belatedly finally tightened that loophole a couple weeks ago, but for some reason - it has no connection to trade, nor should it - it was tethered to Trump’s trade discussions and was delayed another year. Totally, pointless, useless, self defeating. It never should have been a part of the discussions. But Trump *loves getting dragged into “deals” which just allows our adversaries to play him every time by engaging him with horse trading on unlinked matters. - The *other issue, which you do raise, has to do with the US’s Blackwell chips. Here’s the reputed nephew of an MIT professor who also had to get backdoored into Fordham discussing his sophisticated understanding of this technology. - There was even less than ZERO reason for dragging this onto the table. I’d have to think even the likes of Rubio & Bessent had to claw it back off the table to keep Trump from giving it away to ‘his friend’ Xi. All we did was dodge a bullet there. We got to keep a thing we already own but it sounds like it’s being treated as some sort of win by the Ballroom Presidency & lord knows what we surrendered for that privilege.. Is that what you'd have to think? Would that be because of your DEFCON 1 level TDS? You didn't address what I said. You posted a bullet claiming we gave away our best tech to China -- we not only didn't do that, but I explained a strategic reason to do what we've done. You didn't address it, and instead posted more pablum. But hey, you worked in "reputed nephew of an MIT professor...", that makes this a serious discussion. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,068 Posted 22 hours ago 51 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: The other side knows but I’m not telling you my secrets. Another serious post. OMG, Trump didn't say what he's going to do if China attacks Taiwan! Every other president... well, they wouldn't have either. Biden would have talked about taking Corn Pop behind the shed. I'm sure that bothered you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 635 Posted 21 hours ago 4 hours ago, jerryskids said: The claim is that we gave them the best. We didn't. You might find that a quibble, but it's actually the strategy. A lot of experts think it is in our strategic interest to give them good enough AI tech, but not the latest greatest. The argument is that if we don't give them anything, they will spend money until they catch up. This way, they aren't as motivated to do that, but they never quite catch up to us. What expert strategy was behind the administration’s decision to place additional export controls a few weeks ago? And if it’s beneficial to let access continue (on the dubious assumption they’ll just stop spending & stealing to compete) why would limiting the extension to a year matter? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,068 Posted 11 hours ago 10 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: What expert strategy was behind the administration’s decision to place additional export controls a few weeks ago? And if it’s beneficial to let access continue (on the dubious assumption they’ll just stop spending & stealing to compete) why would limiting the extension to a year matter? I can't see past these spinning goalposts, Saints. Let's wrap up the fact that your bullet about giving them our best was a categorical lie from a biased Trump-hating site, then we can move on to whatever this is. If your TDS won't let you admit it, I'll just take the W and move on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 635 Posted 10 hours ago 19 minutes ago, jerryskids said: I can't see past these spinning goalposts, Saints. Let's wrap up the fact that your bullet about giving them our best was a categorical lie from a biased Trump-hating site, then we can move on to whatever this is. If your TDS won't let you admit it, I'll just take the W and move on. So the discussion about tge on again / off again technology controls is at an end. I appreciate the response. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,068 Posted 10 hours ago 4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: So the discussion about tge on again / off again technology controls is at an end. I appreciate the response. The discussion about your first bullet is, but your TDS can't bring you to admit it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 635 Posted 10 hours ago 4 minutes ago, jerryskids said: The discussion about your first bullet is, but your TDS can't bring you to admit it. I asked you to explain your point further. No, to me it doesn’t make sense that the administration finally agreed to terminate access to a wide range of entities to the nation’s most advanced technology then changed course. And it also makes no sense that this dubious rope-a-dope strategy based on the assumption that China will stop researching & stealing our advanced technologies just because we give them access to it would be affected by the opportunity to continue doing it for another year. - All ears, it’s an interesting topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,068 Posted 10 hours ago 7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: I asked you to explain your point further. No, to me it doesn’t make sense that the administration finally agreed to terminate access to a wide range of entities to the nation’s most advanced technology then changed course. And it also makes no sense that this dubious rope-a-dope strategy based on the assumption that China will stop researching & stealing our advanced technologies just because we give them access to it would be affected by the opportunity to continue doing it for another year. - All ears, it’s an interesting topic. The discussion about your first bullet is, but your TDS can't bring you to admit it. Did we give them our best AI, yes or no? If no, that bullet is a lie, since it says "no" in your own link. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 635 Posted 10 hours ago 32 minutes ago, jerryskids said: The discussion about your first bullet is, but your TDS can't bring you to admit it. Did we give them our best AI, yes or no? If no, that bullet is a lie, since it says "no" in your own link. You’re talking about the Blackwell chips, right? Or as the learned president says the “super-duper” chips, correct? To answer your question, yes, the Trump2 expansion of recent export controls on our best technology (this is a whole classification not a single product) has been paused. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,068 Posted 9 hours ago 41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: You’re talking about the Blackwell chips, right? Or as the learned president says the “super-duper” chips, correct? To answer your question, yes, the Trump2 expansion of recent export controls on our best technology (this is a whole classification not a single product) has been paused. Yes, the Blackwell chips. The ones mentioned in your link that we are not giving China. Try harder to answer my question without a bunch of word salad. Hint: "yes" isn't the answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 635 Posted 9 hours ago 13 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Yes, the Blackwell chips. The ones mentioned in your link that we are not giving China. Try harder to answer my question without a bunch of word salad. Hint: "yes" isn't the answer. I appreciate your responses but I do stand by my point. The article is very clear on the two issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
