Is some context missing? I’m trying to be dense, I’m just not sure how Deepseek broke American laws. I get that a license is required for countries to purchase these from the vendor. What is stopping a third party from collecting hardware through intermediaries and reselling them to a Chinese company outside of US borders?
Your response got that there is limited legal recourse, even if it’s true. The main hope is messaging but it’s a long shot.
The Deepseek-R1 paper shows us that training good LLMs can be done by anyone. That means you don’t need NVidias top of the line chips and you don’t need to pay a premium to some company that got access to those chips.
If it turns out that they lied about the hardware they used, it means that Nvidia and the big AI companies still enjoy a monopoly.
I get the prevailing idea, and I can understand the reasoning behind it. My question really was trying to ferret out whether it was US laws that were violated, Singaporean laws, the initial trade agreement, or something else.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Is some context missing? I’m trying to be dense, I’m just not sure how Deepseek broke American laws. I get that a license is required for countries to purchase these from the vendor. What is stopping a third party from collecting hardware through intermediaries and reselling them to a Chinese company outside of US borders?
Yes.
Your response got that there is limited legal recourse, even if it’s true. The main hope is messaging but it’s a long shot.
The Deepseek-R1 paper shows us that training good LLMs can be done by anyone. That means you don’t need NVidias top of the line chips and you don’t need to pay a premium to some company that got access to those chips.
If it turns out that they lied about the hardware they used, it means that Nvidia and the big AI companies still enjoy a monopoly.
Makes sense.
You’re not allowed to buy/resell the hardware to China as an intermediary.
I get the prevailing idea, and I can understand the reasoning behind it. My question really was trying to ferret out whether it was US laws that were violated, Singaporean laws, the initial trade agreement, or something else.
The seller and buyer both violated US export controls, which is against US law.
Why does China care about US law though?
The intermediaries care. This is very obvious.
They don’t, but that wasn’t your question.