Export embargo’s of GPU’s can be used for those countries as the US is currently attempting to do with China. “Country X unfairly competes by violating US copyright” is likely a very good argument to motivate the US government to work to do embargos like that.
It’s also worth noting that this doesn’t hamper all AI fields. Alpha Fold for example works well on bioinformatic data that licensed in a way where everyone can use it freely.
In addition to just slowing everything down, it creates also pressures for better curation of data as it makes it easier for companies who sell curated data to operate. Having people make more explicit decision about which data to include in models might be benefitial for safety.
Export controls don’t completely eliminate any exports but they do make it harder and more expensive. That’s especially true if someone needs a lot of GPUs.
I think the mistake here is thinking that just because something get harder and more expensive that it will actually slow or materially reduce some stated outcome. The reason is that the costs and burdens may not fall on the targeted locus. In the GPU case that just means that none of those GPU get into uses such as consumer markets or gaming system/cards.
While not perfect comparisons, in your view just how effective—say in time to build, time to improve or ability to pursue an activity—have export controls been regarding:
Putin’s ability to conduct his war in Ukraine?
North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic programs?
China’s tech and military advancements?
Iran’s nuclear and ballistic program?
For me, I can only see that the export efforts have only imposed costs on the general population (to differing degrees) rather than materially impacting the actual target activity. Perhaps I’m missing something and each of the above would be much more a problem than if the sanctions/export restrictions had not been put in place.
That said, I would agree that from a pure “on principle” basis not aiding and abetting something or someone you think is a danger to you is the right thing to do. However, I do think in this case it come much closer to virtue signalling than actions producing some binding constraint on the efforts.
Putin’s military seems to run out of high precision ammunition and does not do well on the battlefield currently. It’s hard to say how much of this is due to export controls and how much is due to other factors.
North Korea doesn’t seems to have a lot of reliable intercontinental missiles. Their tech development seems quite slowed down. It isn’t zero but also not fast.
China’s tech advancement are a result of the West outsourcing a lot of tech production to China and not having embargos. I don’t know much about Chinese military tech.
Iran still doesn’t have nuclear weapons. It might still get them, but there’s certainly a slowdown of development.
Nuclear and ballistic technology is pretty well understood for decades developing AGI without having existing designs to copy will be much harder.
Export embargo’s of GPU’s can be used for those countries as the US is currently attempting to do with China. “Country X unfairly competes by violating US copyright” is likely a very good argument to motivate the US government to work to do embargos like that.
It’s also worth noting that this doesn’t hamper all AI fields. Alpha Fold for example works well on bioinformatic data that licensed in a way where everyone can use it freely.
In addition to just slowing everything down, it creates also pressures for better curation of data as it makes it easier for companies who sell curated data to operate. Having people make more explicit decision about which data to include in models might be benefitial for safety.
It is not clear to me export controls have been very successful so far—in pretty much every area.
Export controls don’t completely eliminate any exports but they do make it harder and more expensive. That’s especially true if someone needs a lot of GPUs.
I think the mistake here is thinking that just because something get harder and more expensive that it will actually slow or materially reduce some stated outcome. The reason is that the costs and burdens may not fall on the targeted locus. In the GPU case that just means that none of those GPU get into uses such as consumer markets or gaming system/cards.
While not perfect comparisons, in your view just how effective—say in time to build, time to improve or ability to pursue an activity—have export controls been regarding:
Putin’s ability to conduct his war in Ukraine?
North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic programs?
China’s tech and military advancements?
Iran’s nuclear and ballistic program?
For me, I can only see that the export efforts have only imposed costs on the general population (to differing degrees) rather than materially impacting the actual target activity. Perhaps I’m missing something and each of the above would be much more a problem than if the sanctions/export restrictions had not been put in place.
That said, I would agree that from a pure “on principle” basis not aiding and abetting something or someone you think is a danger to you is the right thing to do. However, I do think in this case it come much closer to virtue signalling than actions producing some binding constraint on the efforts.
Putin’s military seems to run out of high precision ammunition and does not do well on the battlefield currently. It’s hard to say how much of this is due to export controls and how much is due to other factors.
North Korea doesn’t seems to have a lot of reliable intercontinental missiles. Their tech development seems quite slowed down. It isn’t zero but also not fast.
China’s tech advancement are a result of the West outsourcing a lot of tech production to China and not having embargos. I don’t know much about Chinese military tech.
Iran still doesn’t have nuclear weapons. It might still get them, but there’s certainly a slowdown of development.
Nuclear and ballistic technology is pretty well understood for decades developing AGI without having existing designs to copy will be much harder.