Quite surprising. Since India has been very wary of any Chinese tech company involvement in India.
Seems Deepseeks has really shaken a lot with their open source model
Artificial Intelligence thread
- Thread starter 9dashline
- Start date
Seems Deepseeks has really shaken a lot with their open source model
I mean we've been talking about this for a while now. Singapore is the most obvious smuggling location, but it also goes through Taiwan, Korea and Japan.
There is no shortage of AI chips in China and no shortage of data centers. EDWC project is what's driving all this construction in areas with low cost and abundant power. We just don't know how this computing power is being used.
My sense is that when DeepSeek complains about lack of computing resources, they are also just comparing themselves to domestic giants like ByteDance and Alibaba.
Yeah China needs to mass produce her own Ndivia like Chips with similar performance so the country can start relying 100% on her own tech ecosystem throughout the AI value chain. Since US sanctions are only going to get more restrictive with Deepseeks breakthrough.
To understand China's stance, one need only observe Chinese cyberspace - the nation will unwaveringly maintain Deepseek's open-source commitment. The logic is straightforward: the Sino-American AI war has commenced. Constrained by semiconductor limitations, China's transparent counterstrategy focuses on transforming foundational AI computing power into open public infrastructure. This forced technological democratization aims to dismantle America's profit model predicated on controlling AI infrastructure, redirecting revenue streams toward application-layer innovations (contrasting with the U.S. AI hegemony model where application developers struggle profitability as infrastructure monopolists capture value). Essentially, AI infrastructure providers would be regulated like email services, telecom operators, or IDC providers - permitted only "pipeline" profits rather than service-layer premiums (unlike OpenAI's exorbitant fees per application that stifle AI diversity).
Historically paralleling the internet's early miscalculations when email services attempted postal-style per-message monetization (ultimately disastrous), America's current strategic misdirection ensures inevitable defeat. China's calculus transcends immediate profitability - treating AI as public welfare (akin to high-speed rail operations) while critically denying American revenue streams constitutes the core objective.
Through open-source proliferation, China enables all nations (including U.S. allies) to access premium, unrestricted AI services at near-zero cost within their sovereign domains. This strategic containment breaks America's ability to extract monopoly-driven superprofits through technological colonization, fundamentally countering Washington's AI-centric tech war offensive.
It's much more complicated than you think.
Of course, China is trying to develop and possess acceleration solutions similar to those of Nvidia. The U.S. blockade on high-end semiconductors, coupled with the domestic shortage of tools and production capacity for high-end chips, are the harsh realities. Developing acceleration solutions like those of Nvidia requires a significant amount of development in high-end and foundational software and hardware, which takes years to accomplish.
The nurturing of this ecosystem requires a perspective of five or even ten years. AI has already emerged and begun to change the world. In the future, AI will always be connected to human life. Why the desire for such a quick victory? China's resistance against Japan lasted eight years, and the AI competition between China and the U.S. is never a matter of a day or two (Nvidia's CUDA moat was not built in a day either). The more the U.S. suppresses, the stronger China's internal skills become. So once China breaks through its own limitations (mass production of high-end chips), the opponent the U.S. faces will be incredibly powerful, because China will no longer have any weaknesses, while the U.S.'s weaknesses have always been inherent (the U.S. itself is still unaware).
Chinese people are not worried about winning the AI war. Knowing that nearly 50% of global AI researchers are of Chinese descent should make it clear that the U.S. cannot win this war. The entire education systems of the U.S. and Europe have problems (in terms of STEM capabilities). Once they are surpassed, there will be no chance left.
We, we are quite aware on this forum of shortage of tools or production capacity inside China. We have a lot of great sources and people that post in the semiconductor thread.
If you have anything more useful to add on how much chips get smuggled in to China, feel free to share it. Otherwise, don't waste our time with comments like "it's more complicated than you think". If you have the goods and want to share it, share it. If you can't share, don't waste the rest of our time.
Point One: The supply channels extend far beyond the four countries you mentioned (including those Middle Eastern states). This explains why the U.S. has now implemented comprehensive restrictions across all nations.
Point Two: Specific operational details cannot be publicly disclosed here, particularly given this forum thread's persistent high visibility in Google search results.
I can reveal this much: We're discussing a nine-figure transaction between parties with no prior business history, necessitating intermediary escrow arrangements and technical verification capabilities to bridge mutual distrust. The Chinese recipient imposed location constraints favoring jurisdictions with Chinese legal protections. Through understanding their non-negotiable terms and standard transaction protocols, I gained rare insights into such high-stakes operations. Ultimately, the deal collapsed due to unique technical complications (consider: How does one validate quality assurance for components priced at 20k−300k per unit? The intermediary's financial exposure became untenable).
Regarding forum participants' professional backgrounds - while identifiable, what purpose would detailing serve? Should we disclose:
Additional unpublicized channels beyond known countries?
The shadow-state counterparts in these transactions?
Suppliers' operational blueprints and channel networks?
Any explicit discussion here would essentially gift-wrap intelligence for U.S. Commerce Department containment strategies. Given America's expanding restrictions, future countermeasures will inevitably adapt within predictable parameters.
If my expertise seems questionable, so be it. I'll maintain discretion accordingly. Let me emphasize: My statements here carry no guarantee of 100% accuracy, as the information itself contains inherent ambiguities. This case represents a commercially unsuccessful experimental transaction - precisely the kind of adaptive innovation constantly emerging to circumvent new restrictions.
DDDD. Don't get baited into posting this stuff here. This forum is literally a honeypot.
Yes the pipeline seems quite comprehensive. I'm told a common path is shipping from Taiwan to a third country in ASEAN with lax port rules like Malaysia where the ledgers can be changed without noticing, then back to Hong Kong on a small boat.
One of the past articles from semianalysis here details Bytedance as Oracle's largest customer by far, and they are building mega-datacenters in Malaysia. This is leverage for China as Larry is a supporter of Trump.