News Cerebras Boss Calls Nvidia ‘Un-American’ for Sanctions-Swerving GPUs

[Admin]

The CEO of Cerebras has accused Nvidia of following the letter of the law regarding US-China sanctions, but limboing under the GPU restrictions in an unpatriotic manner.

Cerebras Boss Calls Nvidia ‘Un-American’ for Sanctions-Swerving GPUs : Read more

 

[edzieba]

"Company whines that more successful competitor is entirely compliant with sanctions".

 

[atomicWAR]

"Company whines that more successful competitor is entirely compliant with sanctions".

While true, there is some level where things become more murky.

Yes Nvidia is following the letter of the law. But rushing faster chips to China while they still can to keep profits up before sanctions kick/kicked in is/was not a good look...that makes it appear that cutting down chips when required by law is more of a PR move politically both here in the US and in China, than real concern.

There comes a point where Nvidia invites such criticism with these kind of moves. Fair or not.

Now does it rise to the level claimed by Cerebras CEO? Yes and no imho. But not enough so that I would have said something IF I were in his place as it can just look petty even if its rooted in some level of fact and (maybe) truth.

 

[-Fran-]

There's no better way to pay your respects to the 'MURRICAN flag than following the money, no matter the consequences.

Or was that Capitalism? Heh.

Regards.

 

[atomicWAR]

There's no better way to pay your respects to the 'MURRICAN flag than following the money, no matter the consequences.

Or was that Capitalism? Heh.

Regards.

Sometimes you crack me up....

 

[endocine]

Not sure what this CEO wants, his words ring hollow because his company sells in the same market. He isn't wrong about "arming the enemy" but if there is a "spirit" about something, it needs to be defined in the law. Is Feldman asking for a complete embargo, and how does that exactly get enforced since China is able to get around existing restrictions through various means, buying from 3rd party countries, industrial espionage on a global scale, imitative innovation, and home grown development.

 

[gg83]

While true, there is some level where things become more murky.

Yes Nvidia is following the letter of the law. But rushing faster chips to China while they still can to keep profits up before sanctions kick/kicked in is/was not a good look...that makes it appear that cutting down chips when required by law is more of a PR move politically both here in the US and in China, than real concern.

There comes a point where Nvidia invites such criticism with these kind of moves. Fair or not.

Now does it rise to the level claimed by Cerebras CEO? Yes and no imho. But not enough so that I would have said something IF I were in his place as it can just look petty even if its rooted in some level of fact and (maybe) truth.

I agree. N-greedia

 

[helper800]

It is certainly impossible to completely prevent certain products from getting through sanctions such as this. The intent of the law is what is being violated by Nvidia, but they are a public company which means they have to pursue any and all profit as long as it is in the confines of legality. In fact, one could argue that if Nvidia did not do such things to make massive profit they would be failing their prerogative as a publicly traded company to seek any and all profit for their stakeholders.

 

[vanadiel007]

This guy would do the same if he had the opportunity. Companies are not there to follow spirits, they are there to legally generate profit.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

It's getting harder to separate tech from politics, but an argument can be made both ways. One can argue Nvidia shouldn't be dealing with China at all given the political climate, and yet the other side of the argument is that US officials should be giving tech companies clearer guidelines so American companies don't wind up in unsavory situations. Nvidia went out of their way to make a sanction-compliant chip only for the US to ban its sale after it was produced. Setting politics aside for just a moment, this kind of dithering only hurts American tech companies that could've dedicated their resources elsewhere.

 

[reverb256]

It's not "un-American", it's precisely American. 😂

 

[atomicWAR]

It's not "un-American", it's precisely American. 😂

mmmm no I'd argue its captialism. but pot-a-toe, pot-ah-toe.

 

[abufrejoval]

Let's have a look where Cerebras is selling then:

I've long wanted to see who's actually using their tech and so far the only major installed base seems to be Group 42 Holding, a company mostly owned by a son of the United Emirates founder and brother to MBZ, its current king in a federation of absolute monarchs...

...and a very good friend of MBS, who has critical voices chopped up and disposed beyond the borders of his own realm, if it should tickle his fancy.

Now I certainly admire that G42 seems bent on making its Jais13b and 30b LLMs open source, the first LLM that has Arabic langauge content as the majority input, but pure altruism and benevolence may not be the sole motive behind the millions if not billions they are investing here.

It may be about hegemony of a very UAE+Saudi ethos, that is already challanged from Quatar and most certainly across the Gulf that separates Persia and Arabia, while they all read the same holy book that surely is the bedrock of the training body (that book does not advise leniency towards people who loose or change their faith, btw.).

Their ethos isn't that terribly far from China's. It does not include democracy, equal rights and obligations for all who happen to live in a country, even if they were invited for the work. Nor does it further open mass expression of diverse opinions, that might not conform to the officially sanctioned ethos of that country's rulers.

So dear Mr. Feldman, be very careful in both your criticism and who you work for, because the agenda of M.B.x may not align with your personal values and opinions, only they do not think that yours could potentially matter, ever.

 

[tamalero]

There's no better way to pay your respects to the 'MURRICAN flag than following the money, no matter the consequences.

Or was that Capitalism? Heh.

Regards.

Capitalism and even rules of war are ok only when its convenient for the american interests.

 

[Chung Leong]

What's un-American is flagrant violations of the US Constitution. These sanctions are clearly fall under the concept of "regulatory taking". Shareholders of Nvidia are being forced to take a financial hit in the name of some public good. That's not permissible according to the Fifth Amendment. If the government really does believe that denying China of these chips is of paramount importance, then it should have no problem compensating Nvidia for losses from foregoing the sales. The American people should see an actual price tag of these sanctions, so they can judge whether they're worth the cost. Right now, the government is imposing sanctions left and right because they're free from its perspective. And no one cares when these measures fail miserably.

 

[Order 66]

What's un-American is flagrant violations of the US Constitution. These sanctions are clearly fall under the concept of "regulatory taking". Shareholders of Nvidia are being forced to take a financial hit in the name of some public good. That's not permissible according to the Fifth Amendment. If the government really does believe that denying China of these chips is of paramount importance, then it should have no problem compensating Nvidia for losses from foregoing the sales. The American people should see an actual price tag of these sanctions, so they can judge whether they're worth the cost. Right now, the government is imposing sanctions left and right because they're free from its perspective. And no one cares when these measures fail miserably.

IIRC, the fifth amendment has nothing to do with that, it has to do with criminal rights. Regulatory taking is referring to the limiting of private property by the government.

 

[bit_user]

I think the main reason AMD and Intel are "playing ball" is that they sell too many other products (i.e. by share of their total revenue) into the Chinese market that could be blocked by China if they didn't. They have such a small share of the AI market, itself, that it wouldn't make much difference to their bottom line, if they continue to build conformant AI products for China or not. So, there have got to be other reasons.

As for Nvidia's behavior, I'm somewhat ambivalent. It's hard to fault them for selling products that conform to the sanctioned limits, since one would reasonably expect that the limits are set low enough that something conforming to them wouldn't be very usable for the targeted applications. If they're not, then it's the government's fault for setting the limits too high. However, if Nvidia is designing other features into its products to lessen the impact of said restrictions, then that indeed violates the spirit of the sanctions and Nvidia should be warned off of doing so.

 

[bit_user]

There's no better way to pay your respects to the 'MURRICAN flag than following the money, no matter the consequences.

Or was that Capitalism? Heh.

Being headquartered in the US, these companies are subject to US corporate law, including a mandate to act in shareholders' best interests. However, I think multinational corporations based in most developed countries would probably have the same mandate and take similar decisions.

I think it's a mistake to anthropomorphize corporations and accuse them of being unpatriotic. They were probably never patriotic enterprises, to begin with, and certainly aren't as multinational entities. The whole reason we need regulations is that corporations can't be trusted to follow things like social norms.

That's not a slight against corporations, but just acknowledging their true nature. It's like indicting polar bears for their willingness to eat people. That doesn't make them inherently bad, just something dangerous that should be dealt with carefully.

 

[bit_user]

It is certainly impossible to completely prevent certain products from getting through sanctions such as this.

...only if you require 100% compliance. These sanctions will have leaks, but that might be okay, depending on how big the leaks are and what ends the sanctions are intended to serve.

A pretty good way to know how painful the sanctions are is by listening to the Chinese. The louder they protest and retaliate, the more you know it's "working".

 

[bit_user]

What's un-American is flagrant violations of the US Constitution. These sanctions are clearly fall under the concept of "regulatory taking". Shareholders of Nvidia are being forced to take a financial hit in the name of some public good. That's not permissible according to the Fifth Amendment.

Are you a constitutional lawyer? I'm not. I know Nvidia has plenty of lawyers, though. If there's truly a compelling case to be made that this is unconstitutional, then I trust Nvidia to litigate it in court.

I doubt it, though. Depriving a company of selling a slice of its products in a slice of its markets isn't actually "taking" anything. I don't believe the US Constitution places the right to pursue profits above the State's need for national security.

 

[DavidLejdar]

It is certainly impossible to completely prevent certain products from getting through sanctions such as this. The intent of the law is what is being violated by Nvidia, but they are a public company which means they have to pursue any and all profit as long as it is in the confines of legality. In fact, one could argue that if Nvidia did not do such things to make massive profit they would be failing their prerogative as a publicly traded company to seek any and all profit for their stakeholders.

Strictly speaking, it is not the duty of a public company to make profit. What a public company is about, is that it has free trade of stock-shares, and that it is required to disclose a range of information about the business. And when a company is, or would be, like: "We shall not profit from slavery, nor shall we pollute the environment, and before dividends, we will spend money for social projects, such as providing housing to the homeless.", then such company may perhaps not be the hit on the stock exchange, but it is not illegal to be ethical.

Of course, when some billionaire makes a take-over, and with the majority of shares decides that it is time for the company to make some profit, so the billionaire can get an even bigger yacht etc., then that is what it is about.

Btw, the corporation I work in, the majority of shares is held by a foundation, which doesn't involve itself in the business matters and which spends quite a chunk of dividends on social projects. The corporation has hundreds of thousands employees worldwide. And that's arguably an example of that a business can work with moreorless ethics at it.

 

[bit_user]

Strictly speaking, it is not the duty of a public company to make profit. What a public company is about, is that it has free trade of stock-shares, and that it is required to disclose a range of information about the business. And when a company is, or would be, like: "We shall not profit from slavery, nor shall we pollute the environment, and before dividends, we will spend money for social projects, such as providing housing to the homeless.", then such company may perhaps not be the hit on the stock exchange, but it is not illegal to be ethical.

It's a matter of civil law and the corporate charter. In US, there's a designation known as a "B corporation", which you typically get as a way of signifying your mission extends beyond profit, and into social areas.

B Corporation (certification) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In a typical "C corporation", the company can be sued by its investors for failing to behave in a profit-maximizing way. The other thing that tends to happen is that the CEO and board members get forced out, if they aren't being suitably aggressive.

 

[bit_user]

What a compliment.

The only way you know of its problems is that the USA has strong press freedoms. While all of the problems get a lot of news coverage, there's much more that's good about the USA and working quite well.

Furthermore, most of the problems its facing are being experienced by countries around the world, but the US has more tools to address them than others.

 

[bit_user]

The difference here is that the US (half) acknowledge these issues and proceeds do fix none of them.

As you're probably aware, we can't veer into political discussions, here - especially anything beyond the topic of the article. So, I'll just share something I've learned from years of working in engineering teams.

You can't really fix a problem without understanding it. Furthermore, you'll never get consensus on what the proper or best approach is, until you can get consensus among the team on what the problem is. When I'm involved in any collective endeavor I always try to focus first on achieving some consensus on what problem we're trying to solve or objective we're trying to achieve. I don't move on to the solutions phase, until everyone is on board with the goal.

With that in mind, you don't win people over to your cause or priorities by yelling at them. First, try to listen and understand where they're at. Then, maybe we can identify areas of compromise. Compromise is fundamental to the exercise of politics, whether we like it or not. I know it's easier said than done, especially with all the forces, fractures, and divisions at play, but I also know the only failure is certain is if we never try.

 

[COLGeek]

We're done here folks. Thank you to those who stayed on topic.