• SpikesOtherDog
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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?

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

    • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      You’re not allowed to buy/resell the hardware to China as an intermediary.

      • SpikesOtherDog
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

        • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          The seller and buyer both violated US export controls, which is against US law.