Completely disregarding security aspect without any rebuttal for my claim.
Your assumption is half-assed because it's missing that
Your assumption is half-assed because it's missing that
I believe most people complaining about this decision are really just have grievances towards the state of US AI companies rather than the decision itself.
For the average person, China doesn't care about you or me. For a US company, US citizens are their gold mine.
If anything, the competition from a Chinese company will reduce a US company's possible profits. That's the threat. That's why Chinese EVs are banned in the US and why Chinese LLMs are next.
Just because something is made in China does not make it a threat to the US. The US trades all sorts of goods, produce, etc with China. The traded goods can be poisoned at any time. At what cost? Well we wouldn't be able to trade anymore. And that hurts both sides. But once a foreign nation does something better than a US firm, the US will put up a ban to protect its own stock market. This isn't new.
Restricting national secrets to only in-house software isn't guaranteed to provide better security (you still need to hire security specialists), but is guaranteed to spend resources in hiring sufficiently qualified personnel to maintain said software while ignoring the pool of potentially better qualified teams already hired by national companies. So, an alternative, is to use private contractors with different levels of secret sharing. This kind of choice isn't trivial to make.
You seem to forgetting the bonus side of "The traded goods can be poisoned at any time." If the exfiltrated data is more worth than the repercussions that are going to emerge out of it, then it's absolutely worth it. And this isn't specific to China. China holds a similar perspective to US in this regard, but with foreign services in general (arguably more strict, given it affects the entire populace). You just can't know when a third party will go rogue, do they take a more conservative approach of producing "locally", with private companies they can punish if they go against their interest. The current US government, ironically, is good evidence of this.
Well, that is not an issue. The US companies that hacked other seem to not be prosecuted at all.
Also, no state attorney doesn't seem to prosecute them on the large scale intellectual theft. Instead content creators like movie companies or the kids book author that made the Grüffelo need to start one-after-the-other civil claims onto them.
So US companies in the LLM area can be ruthlessly criminal. No one holds them accountable.
There are rumors that they stole chat logs from mathemiticians running problems through them for their own math findings. Again, no one holds them accountable.
The "hold accountable" is IMHO just CEO speach: fluff and empty air, but nothing behind it. If my opinion is true, then it doesn't matter if I can NOT hold an european company, a US company, or a chinese company accountable.
Also, currently the US is more and more aggresive towards other countries. Haven't heard of China raising tariffs for no reason at all, but random amounts. Or bullying e.g. european companies if they want to control the the market might (and abuse of it, see e.g. their uncontractual price raises or what they did to Ukraine --- with Starlink terminals payed for by european countries!).
China is no one friends ... don't get me wrong. But it isn't as vile as the USA currently is.
My software guys say, hey, the imaging infrared seeker is like a zillion percent harder to fool if it has this tiny LLM brain that we blow into the chip. They grab the most optimized model, which so happens to come from a PRC lab. Sure, it's running on all US hardware but, deep down in its little LLM brain, it so happens to be virtually blind to any IR signature that has a pulsed frequency of XXX.
Now all my missiles have what is basically an externally controlled IFF in their little missile brains. "Chinese jet? I see no Chinese jet."
Or what if the pulse contained more instructions? Like, say, "Do a U-Turn and Lock On The Closest Jet Motor You See". A couple of PLAAF pilots watching USN aviators frantically trying to dodge their own missiles - what might possibly be the most embarrassing air-to-air engagement in aviation history.
These models are called nondeterministic for a reason, and it's because the massively complex interrelated weights are incredibly hard to pick apart and audit. It's not like OSS code from a deterministic software program, like a pypi dependency. Now, it's not impossible, and THAT is where the weight of regulation and such SHOULD be going, but, hey, not sure you noticed, US Leadership is not exactly sitting in a surfeit of technical expertise at the moment.
I don't think it's the right call, to blanket ban them, but it's understandable.
That said, totally agree. There's no way this was fueled from actual concern. They're just nervous about the needles drifting next to the bubbles full of money.
But about that supply chain . . . . <nervous_whistling.wav/>
Did you miss the part of my comment where I mentioned this would be the US’s version in your rush to reply as smugly as possible?
Maybe read the content of a response before responding.