[HN Gopher] TSMC faces tough choices amid rumors for Intel found...
___________________________________________________________________
TSMC faces tough choices amid rumors for Intel foundry
collaboration
Author : walterbell
Score : 122 points
Date : 2025-02-13 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techsoda.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techsoda.substack.com)
| Winblows11 wrote:
| > U.S. government has proposed three potential cooperation
| options to TSMC
|
| > 2. TSMC joining other firms as investors in Intel Foundry
| Services (IFS), a division being spun off from Intel, with TSMC
| transferring its technology as part of its shareholder role.
|
| > On the other hand, if TSMC rejects the proposals, the U.S.
| government could impose a 100% tariff on chips made in Taiwan
|
| When US can't compete, they have to blackmail/steal/sanction to
| rescue their failed corporations. The same stealing accusation
| they level at China.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Taiwan added similar ToT clauses when they backed TSMC, UMC,
| PSMC, and others back in the 1980s-2000s.
|
| Intel is absolutely lobbying for this to hamper TSMC, but
| Taiwan's industrial policy ain't a saint either. At least this
| spurs some amount of Capex spending in the US.
| fritzo wrote:
| Agreed. I learned much from Joe Studwell's book "How Asia
| Works" (2013), where he argues that among countries in the
| Asian region, those whose economies flourished were those
| with protectionist trade policies and export discipline,
| leading to the creation and honing of domestic industry.
| alephnerd wrote:
| It's more prosaic than that. It's just helping local donors
| and closely aligned businesses.
|
| A lot of the "ministerial advice" story (the uber powerful
| ITRI, METI, etc) is to a certain extent a rewriting of
| history. A major reason why these bureaucratic orgs were so
| successful in Asian countries was explicitly because of the
| revolving door - after your 20 year stint at ITRI or METI,
| you'd join as an advisor for one of the affected companies
| or start your own consultancy.
|
| This isn't to say that they made bad choices (they didn't),
| but it absolutely was done due to collusion between
| regulators and businesses.
|
| The Trump-era "politician aligned businessman" model is the
| norm across Asia - it's a major reason why Morris Chang
| lobbied against the CHIPS act, Hyundai lobbied against
| easing automotive tariffs, Tata lobbied for 5% sales tax on
| EVs but 25% sales tax on Hybrids and 50% on ICE, etc.
|
| The Asian Model of Development is predicated on "Access
| Money" to use Yuen Yuen Ang's typography of corruption.
| gessha wrote:
| > it's a major reason why Morris Chang lobbied against
| the CHIPS act, Hyundai lobbied against easing automotive
| tariffs, Tata lobbied for 5% sales tax on EVs but 25%
| sales tax on Hybrids and 50% on ICE, etc.
|
| Could you provide citations for some of the above? I'm
| interested in reading more about them.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Could you provide citations for some of the above? I'm
| interested in reading more about them
|
| Sure. These are some off the top of my head, but I can
| get some more substantive stuff later
|
| Morris Chang -
| https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/14/taiwan-tech-
| king-pe...
|
| The development of Korea's Automotive Industry - https://
| www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1984/10/07/s...
|
| Tata's lobbying - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/tata-m...
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Yeah. TSMC is the best right now. But they achieved that for
| a variety of reasons, including a very supportive Taiwanese
| government. The other major reason was Apple really saved
| their ass when they moved over from Samsung. The third reason
| is Intel really did fuck up under the Brian years.
| richardw wrote:
| Ok go ahead and impose the tariffs. That will be the shortest,
| sharpest lesson in economics and leverage, transferring tech
| profits to government and forcing allies to realign. TSMC is
| not TikTok.
| coliveira wrote:
| The problem for TSMC is that they're in a weak position. They
| cut themselves from China, so what other options they have
| other than do what the US wants? A smart person could see
| this result from a mile ahead, first with Biden's insistence
| that it set plants in the US. The whole idea was always the
| forced IP transfer to US companies.
| richardw wrote:
| They're very exposed and the only way Taiwan independence
| survives is by keeping IP and skills locked up on the
| island. What you can bet on is if Intel had the goods,
| Trump would say "meh, let's deal" to China. Compared to
| that, what cost is a tariff or two?
|
| If I were Taiwan, I'd say "give us nukes and a couple subs,
| then you get our best factories". The US nuclear umbrella
| is now less of a guarantee and countries need to own their
| security.
| coliveira wrote:
| Taiwan should learn a lesson from Ukraine. It makes no
| sense to go to war against a neighboring nation trusting
| on support from people thousands of miles away. Do any
| deals locally, that's the best way to survive.
| variaga wrote:
| Ukraine did not go to war, _Russia_ went to war, and
| Ukraine _had_ a "local" deal with Russia (in exchange
| for Ukraine giving up their nukes, Russia promised to
| honor their territorial integrity), Russia simply refused
| to honor their half of the deal.
| FpUser wrote:
| The initial deal as I remember was with Russia, US and
| UK. And the deal was a memoranda which is not even
| binding and does not compel any real actions in case of
| breach. Basically Ukraine had acted as a fool.
|
| Immediately after break up from USSR they had 50+ million
| population, strong army, industry, tech, great location
| as a transit hub, agriculture, resources etc. and their
| fucking corrupt "leaders" pissed it all away an had
| turned their country into an easy prey and a shadow of
| its former self.
| fransje26 wrote:
| Fingers crossed they do.
|
| It's going to be a costly, painful lesson for everybody
| involved, but it could be a salvatory action that helps slow-
| down the frightening nonsense building up in the US.
| outside1234 wrote:
| It is just a matter of time before Trump punches himself in
| the face
| refulgentis wrote:
| Something tells me it's not the entire US that's making this
| decision
| Spooky23 wrote:
| This is a republic of sovereign states, not a democracy.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| It's actually both. It's a representative democracy whose
| representatives are drafted from a group of states who give
| up some of their independence in exchange for a collective
| military and a central government that regulates trade
| across borders to the benefit of all of us.
|
| The states still maintain their own military forces in the
| form of the National Guard, but in times of war these units
| can be activated by the federal government to support the
| US military. So they do maintain some sovereignty in the
| sense that they have their own military forces, but nowhere
| near to the extent that the federal government asserts
| sovereignty here.
|
| You can't really call any state in the US "Sovereign" when
| the federal government has the power that it does. But also
| it's nice to be able to travel to Arkansas and not have to
| worry about your actions that are legal in Washington being
| used to prosecute you in Arkansas.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Those things you describe are norms not law. States are
| legally sovereign and will be testing the ability of the
| Federal government to drive their behavior.
|
| The people who will be controlling the direction of the
| country will be empathizing the states over the people.
|
| Regardless of the state of elections, we'll have a deeply
| conservative or reactionary judiciary for a generation to
| come. Elections have consequences.
| dralley wrote:
| States are not "sovereign". We don't have the Articles of
| Confederation anymore. States do have certain powers, but
| not as many as even e.g. Canadian provinces have.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > When US can't compete, they have to blackmail/steal/sanction
| to rescue their failed corporations. The same stealing
| accusation they level at China.
|
| That's all of the countries.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Downvote me all you want, I can pull plenty of examples.
| Nothing pisses off a voting constituency more than a major
| regional employer shuttering, so governments do something about
| it. That, or the government wants to build/maintain a hegemony,
| so they float companies to outlast competition.
| adrian_b wrote:
| "That's all of the countries", for the countries that have
| enough leverage to do this.
|
| However in none of those countries but USA will you see in
| almost any published text or discussion thread a lot of
| people weeping that the competitors from China are too strong
| only because their government either subsidizes them or
| forces foreign companies to transfer IP, or they do not
| enforce the environmental regulations.
|
| The contrast between these continuous complaints of the US
| citizens and what the US government really does, by
| subsidizing all significant private investments with tax
| breaks and by blackmailing foreign companies to give various
| advantages to US companies is funny.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| No, this is straight up how China built what it has. And
| stealing technology from established players in Europe and
| the UK was how the US came to ascendancy in the late 1800's.
| Before that we were just a backwater.
|
| Go back far enough and everyone will have done this with
| their nascent industries.
| koolba wrote:
| > Go back far enough and everyone will have done this with
| their nascent industries.
|
| And that's arguably a core job of any elected government.
| It's not to promote external commerce or industry. That's
| just a positive side effect of equitable bilateral deals.
| The primary economic and security responsibility is to your
| own people.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > And that's arguably a core job of any elected
| government. It's not to promote external commerce or
| industry.
|
| Is the "free trade" mask completely off now? Good.
| coliveira wrote:
| The US wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be
| considered a democratic, competition-friendly, rules
| conforming country but will act as an autocratic anti-
| competitive bully against other nations when it sees fit. Of
| course, I never fell for the propaganda, but it is time for
| people wake up and realize this is a facade.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| I'll keep that in mind next time I read about the Chicken
| Tax that the guide lamp of democratic, free-trade, rules-
| abiding practices known as Europe put on Americans to
| protect their own poultry industry.
|
| There are other examples for both Europe and other regions,
| but that's what instantly pops into my mind.
| netcan wrote:
| > On the other hand, if TSMC rejects the proposals, the U.S.
| government could impose a 100% tariff on chips made in Taiwan.
|
| Seems like a bluff... at least taken literally. Is the US
| really going to put a 100% tax on _the_ core component of the
| computing industry?
|
| If this actually played out it would be pretty bad for the US
| economy.
|
| I suppose the unstated implication us that the US could just
| take the IP by force.
| bradchris wrote:
| > I supposed the unstated implication is that the US could
| just take the IP by force
|
| Isn't that what China's stated plan is?
| aprentic wrote:
| They're extremely careful not to state that as their plan.
|
| In general, they make a huge effort not to talk about their
| plans vis-a-vis Taiwan at all. They just keep repeating
| that Taiwan is part of China.
|
| The closest they come to stating that they plan to use
| force is that they'll sometimes say that they won't reject
| the use of force.
|
| Given that nobody has proposed a scenario where China
| actually could do something like "take the IP by force"
| (since the IP would be gone if they ever tried to invade)
| and we can generally see that the Chinese leaders aren't
| complete idiots, it seems highly unlikely that they're
| planning an invasion any time soon.
| dageshi wrote:
| If all it costs them were never having access to those
| chips again the chinese would've taken Taiwan already.
|
| The chinese want to invade Taiwan because they think it's
| a rebel province, their only consideration is whether the
| US will oppose them militarily if they do.
| palmotea wrote:
| > The chinese want to invade Taiwan because they think
| it's a rebel province, their only consideration is
| whether the US will oppose them militarily if they do.
|
| IIRC, the US's wargaming shows that if it tries to
| intervene, it will lose. Taiwan is too far from the US
| and too close to China.
| aprentic wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| The US has unrivaled force projection capabilities; half
| the worlds carrier fleets, the largest navy by tonnage,
| and the technology to execute unprecedented combined arms
| maneuvers.
|
| China has insane defense-in-depth; more missiles than you
| can shake a stick at, the largest navy by number of
| ships, a vast arsenal of countermeasures, and a 4:1
| population advantage.
|
| China can't stand toe-to-toe with the US anywhere except
| the immediate vicinity of China. In that vicinity, nobody
| can get close if China doesn't want them to.
| palmotea wrote:
| > China can't stand toe-to-toe with the US anywhere
| except the immediate vicinity of China. In that vicinity,
| nobody can get close if China doesn't want them to.
|
| I think you have a typo there.
|
| Personally, I think if the US wants to defend Taiwan from
| invasion, it needs to stock them up with a massive
| amounts of missile/artillery/whatever systems and
| ammunition, and that needs to be distributed all over the
| island so there's no concentrated stockpile to attack.
|
| But the US cupboard is bare, and Ukraine made it barer.
| IIRC, in an all-out war _the US itself will run out of
| missiles_ in a few days or weeks, and lacks the capacity
| to replenish them at a reasonable rate.
| aprentic wrote:
| It's clearly not just about the chips. China didn't
| attack Taiwan before 1987, when TSMC was founded.
|
| There are many disincentives. The biggest one is that
| China is confident that they'll get full control of
| Taiwan without violence.
|
| They believe that the US is in a state of terminal
| decline and Europe will never overcome centuries of
| infighting. A significant portion of the population of
| Taiwan wants to reunify. They fully expect that they can
| just continue to nurture supporters within Taiwan and
| wait out the West and Taiwan will just fall into their
| lap.
|
| Why would they go to war when they think they can get
| everything they want without war?
| outside1234 wrote:
| I mean, we have a total moron as a leader, so I wouldn't rule
| out totally insane things like a 100% tax.
| Swoerd wrote:
| You're selling him short, he's also a felon, sexual
| predator, fraud, grifter, traitor, conman, Demagogue and
| Narcissist.
| iszomer wrote:
| But an insanely ruthless businessman.
|
| I wonder what the Japanese government has to say about it
| or, whether the Taiwanese government would allow itself
| to sign a formal trade and security treaty with Japan,
| apart from their One China Policy stance.
| hobs wrote:
| Ruthless? Mostly just a penny pinching liar. By all
| measures (until he started this presidency grift) he
| would have made more money just putting his inheritance
| in index funds, he's just projecting.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| He lost nearly all of daddy's money. But that's the
| thing: when you're born rich, it's impossible to become
| poor.
|
| He is a terrible businessman. How did you get the
| impression that he is "ruthless"?
| sangnoir wrote:
| > But an insanely ruthless businessman
|
| Ruthless but ineffective: he'll stiff contractors and
| suppliers, but still failed to keep a Casino solvent when
| the house is supposed to always win. He also started a
| tariff war in his first term that ended up with him
| subsidizing farmers.
| iszomer wrote:
| Judging by the rest of the comments from my own, all of
| this is anecdotal right? I don't know the true facts nor
| their context. And why is he so irrevocably offensive to
| _ya 'll_? Has he hurt you in some way personally? (not
| trolling)
| Hikikomori wrote:
| I'll give you insane, maybe ruthless as he stole from his
| own charity, but ain't a businessman.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Ruthless but stupid.
|
| Let's not forget he has gone bankrupt SIX TIMES.
| newsclues wrote:
| If the US bluff is give us what we want or we pull our
| security guarantee and China invades and you are forced to
| blow the fabs and move your engineers.
|
| That hurts the US access to chips, short term. But then who
| is going to fill the demand and where will the talent
| migrate, and who else is going to build the capacity ($$$)?
| gwervc wrote:
| The US revealing its true face (the fact it was no allies,
| only vassals) and trying to bully Taiwan into giving up its
| most precious economic could be something that help China
| in the long run. I mean, given two bullies, why try to
| appease the distant and foreign one, instead of the one
| with cultural and linguistic ties? Seems an incredibly
| short-sighted move from Taiwan, but it's good that more
| people see its true colors. Taiwan should try to gain more
| protection from Japan.
| rasz wrote:
| At some point being assimilated by China starts to look
| like a good option. Why blow up fabs if you join willingly,
| and then its China who is blocking US from buying chips
| made on latest nodes.
| netcan wrote:
| IDK... if a profitable market is up for grabs, $$$s are not
| a problem. The financial system is quite comfortable
| fronting cash for factories making in-demand products.
|
| Have people suddenly forgotten that markets and enterprises
| exist, and are quite good at making products. Chips are not
| minerals. The state department isn't a tool for this job.
|
| In any case, TSMC is currently within the US sphere. Nvidia
| makes most of the capital gains. US government gets to deny
| China. US companies get good chips. Where's the upside in
| blowing all this up?
|
| Perhaps pulling the security guarantee and greenlighting
| reunification under PRC is the destination, and onshoaring
| Taiwan's critical industries is deemed prudent in advance
| of this.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _When US can 't compete, they have to
| blackmail/steal/sanction to rescue their failed corporations_
|
| Obsolete framing. This would be happening even if Intel were
| competitive. We're shifting into a nationalist (possibly
| kleptocratic) economic footing. Previously, we were
| friendshoring. This administration doesn't discriminate between
| friend and foe.
| selectodude wrote:
| In fact we seem to be keeping our enemies closer.
| delusional wrote:
| I think it's a framing from somebody outside the US. The
| current US administration didn't just happen. When you could
| no longer compete under the terms you yourself set. You
| decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the
| table.
|
| It's a framing that doesn't let the American public distance
| themselves from their own elected officials. He is your
| president.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _When you could no longer compete under the terms you
| yourself set. You decided to elect a nationalist leader
| that would flip the table_
|
| This is the mistake. This isn't industrial strategy. It's
| part messaging tantrum part pursuit of autarky.
|
| America could have been winning, and in some domains it is,
| but that doesn't matter because the political question is
| how those gains are divided inside America.
|
| > _a framing that doesn 't let the American public distance
| themselves from their own elected officials_
|
| Nobody is doing that. The point is America is grabbing
| irrespective of whether it's winning, and without any
| particular coherence.
| voidfunc wrote:
| > He is your president.
|
| I didn't vote for him. With the way our electoral college
| works I didn't really even have a voice in this election.
|
| He's The President the people of PA, MI, and GA wanted tho.
|
| So no, he's not "my President".
| kelipso wrote:
| Doesn't matter what you think or didn't do, he is still
| your President.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip
| the table.
|
| Most of us really didn't. Some of us, for the first time in
| our lives, made substantial personal campaign contributions
| to the other side because the nationalist leader looked
| really dangerous for US economics and international
| relations.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Some of us, for the first time in our lives, made
| substantial personal campaign contributions to the other
| side because the nationalist leader looked really
| dangerous for US economics and international relations.
|
| It's too bad for those people that the other side they
| supported was so stupid they lost anyway.
|
| I wrote that side some angry letters over the years. For
| a long time, there were strong signals they arrogantly
| thought that "nationalist leader [who] looked really
| dangerous" was actually an opportunity for them to win on
| an unpopular platform that appealed to their elites. They
| did some really stupid shit that undermined their
| credibility.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It was never about "the democrats aren't perfect", I
| think we gave up a long time ago on politicians that
| would actually push things forward. Nope, it was more
| like here is the "status quo" (things don't get better
| but they don't get worse either) and here is "batsh*t
| crazy" (99% chance things get really bad). And I guess
| that's what many Trump supporters are going for: they
| know Trump is nuts, but they don't want to see the status
| quo stand. They want destruction while hoping that they
| will come out better for it.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > We're shifting into a nationalist (possibly kleptocratic)
| economic footing.
|
| From that point of view, it is probably in TSMC's best
| interest to _not_ hand over their IP..
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it is probably in TSMC 's best interest to not hand over
| their IP_
|
| Absolutely not. TSMC, ironically, can outlast Trump.
| Unfortunately, Taipei may not be able to.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Previously, we were friendshoring.
|
| Of all the places to "friendshore," Taiwan is probably the
| worst due to its location and vulnerability.
| moogly wrote:
| OK if you want to be isolationist and retreat to a haughty
| vantage point in your ivory tower, but to isolate in ignominy
| by purposefully pissing off all your friends and
| acquaintances is so strange to me.
|
| Is it America First or America Alone?
| ericmay wrote:
| > When US can't compete, they have to blackmail/steal/sanction
| to rescue their failed corporations.
|
| Name a country where this doesn't occur. The US is not the only
| country in the world by a long shot that doesn't take measures
| to protect their failing corporations or export products.
|
| > The same stealing accusation they level at China.
|
| Well they've leveled the accusation against China and nothing
| changed. So what should the United States do? Continue to let
| it happen or do something about it? Unfortunately global
| fair/free trade requires all participants to participate in
| good faith. If the second largest economy is going to actively
| undermine that system it just won't work.
| liuliu wrote:
| Taiwan is not China.
| elefanten wrote:
| GGP referenced US accusations against China
| somat wrote:
| Yes it is, it's the PRC(West Taiwan) that is not China.
|
| Realistically, I get your point and you are correct, but
| also wanted to point out how politically tricky the whole
| situation is. Hell, depending on how you define successor
| states. I could make a good argument that neither is
| actually China. I would be wrong, but could make a good go
| at it.
| snailmailstare wrote:
| The US spent a long time arguing for globalization and free
| trade, proposing all the treaties, etc, but the US isn't a
| real republic so anything its signature is on is worth dirt.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Hardly any countries do this. It's only really the US which
| has had the soft power to behave in this way.
| Leary wrote:
| This is weak sauce. America should limit chips to other
| countries and then make Taiwan sell them to the US with the
| 100% tariffs.
|
| Oh wait, that's what the AI diffusion rules do.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| "Real men have fabs." - Jerry Sanders.
|
| TSMC - "You don't need to manage your own fabs. Let us do it
| for you and just focus on what you do best."
|
| Intel kept its fabs, which certainly gave it many advantages,
| until Intel's tick-tock model failed. Now, America is crying
| about its own failures and wants to punish others for their
| success.
|
| It makes America look bitter.
| tmaly wrote:
| Intel cannot afford to create a new fab on the newest
| technology.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > Intel cannot afford to create a new fab on the newest
| technology.
|
| Where did the billions they racked-up in the past decades
| go to..?
| osnium123 wrote:
| They wasted it on stock buybacks and acquiring start ups
| that they went onto kill.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Have you looked at their balance sheet?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > The same stealing accusation they level at China.
|
| If you cant beat 'em join 'em. Makes sense to me.
| coliveira wrote:
| The US will justify any means to achieve its goals. If it
| doesn't work through democracy, human rights, capitalism, it
| will invent other more sinister methods to attempt to subjugate
| other nations.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| It's worth noting that this is just the current winds of change
| with the current administration and not how the US has always
| acted. Every major economy uses tariffs. This particular use of
| tariffs is the Trump Administration v1 and v2's preferred magic
| hammer for whatever nail they want to hit.
| osnium123 wrote:
| If proposal 2 goes through, it means that Intel will shut down
| any development activity in Oregon and rely only on TSMC for
| next generation technology. It might be warranted given Intel
| abysmal track record for developing nodes but still unfortunate
| for the thousands of engineers who will get let go.
| palmotea wrote:
| > When US can't compete, they have to blackmail/steal/sanction
| to rescue their failed corporations. The same stealing
| accusation they level at China.
|
| I'm glad the US is learning some positive lessons here. China
| has shown that joint ventures and forced technology transfers
| are the way to go, and the US has shown that an uncritical
| embrace of the free market/free trade sets you up on a glide
| path to national vulnerability and eventual irrelevance (while
| a few dudes get very rich in the process).
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| "Free market" has disappeared from right wing political
| discourse for decades now. It was used to get both achieve
| desired deregulation and simultaneously regulatory capture to
| attain cartel/monopoly status in almost all markets.
|
| The free trade era is definitely ending. I though Zeihan was
| nuts saying piracy and sea security would degrade back to
| mercantilist/privateer days, but it does appear that will
| happen especially with the Ukraine war showing littoral
| theater dominance of cheap drones.
|
| Also, free trade and free seas was predicated on the US
| needing oil. With shale oil, alt energy, and the rise of the
| EV, the strategic significance of oil will plummet over the
| next decade. Why have a dozen carrier groups? Why have three?
| palmotea wrote:
| > "Free market" has disappeared from right wing political
| discourse for decades now.
|
| "Disappeared for decades" is pushing it, but I'd give you
| "reduced in prominence for a decade" (e.g. since Trump's
| rise).
|
| That said, "an uncritical embrace of the free market/free
| trade" is still a pretty common stance on HN.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Is this the same China that requires the government to do
| source code reviews on technical products being manufactured in
| China? Or the one that forces you to share the majority of your
| company with a Chinese partner? I hear you, but both are bad.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| This sounds like a "reciprocal" play against China. Everyone has
| been saying China uses this tactic to steal IP. The dirty little
| secret is that they did this to Tesla (suddenly they have all
| this homegrown EV tech after they let Tesla into the country),
| and I think Elmo is pissed. The other dirty not so secret is that
| Deepseek just trained against OpenAI (stole it).
|
| It's a Cold War.
| alephnerd wrote:
| There were murmurs about something like this even during the
| Biden administration. There is bipartisan support for bringing
| as much manufacturing capacity back to the US as possible -
| especially in packaging which is almost entirely outsourced
| because of unit economics and outsized subsidies by APAC
| players.
|
| The main difference is that a lot of the hardball tactics flew
| under the radar during the Biden admin.
|
| Also, Taiwan ain't China.
| 7speter wrote:
| This was probably drawn up as an option, but is everyone here
| gonna ignore that theres a new administration in the
| whitehouse and Intels previous CEO (who, at least publicly,
| was very optimistic that Intel could pull a turnaround all on
| its own) was recently ousted?
| alephnerd wrote:
| Intel's leadership has been lobbying for this at a
| bipartisan level for almost half a decade now. This saga
| has been going on since 2018-19 and Pat Gelsinger is
| himself Republican leaning.
| bluGill wrote:
| Chips are too imporant to modern war for any country to be
| unable to make them. I mean the entire chip not just a
| part. the entire chain from raw minerals to a complete
| circuit board needs to be in your county. don't forget to
| design the above too.
|
| Small countries better join something like the eu and nato
| because they cannot ro alone.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Chips are too imporant to modern war for any country to
| be unable to make them
|
| The chips being used in weapons systems are largely
| fabbed on legacy nodes (28nm/48nm) or 14nm at the latest.
|
| You don't need much more than a mid-2010s comparable
| Intel i5 or Nvidia Maxwell for most defense or weapons
| systems applications.
| amluto wrote:
| Was there actually interesting EV tech to steal? Even when
| Tesla was new, there were various experimental EVs around, and
| it wasn't _that_ hard to build one. Tesla's real innovations
| seem to have been packaging existing 18650 cells into giant
| packs in an economical manner and putting everything together
| into a package that looked nice.
|
| And now there's BYD, which, as I understand it:
|
| - Uses a highly integrated drive system that does not have any
| particular resemblance to Tesla's
|
| - Uses prismatic LFP cells. Those cells and battery packs are
| very different from what Tesla uses, at least in the US. And
| Tesla has never actually been a heavyweight in the battery tech
| space despite periodic PR pieces from management.
|
| The rest is ... just a car?
|
| What did BYD steal from Tesla exactly, other than market share?
| bloomingkales wrote:
| https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tesla-trade-
| secret...
|
| Before you go "well how could two people cause all of this",
| it's the two people we heard about.
|
| There's no suing in China to protect your shit.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Just being a pedant, but _technically_ , Taiwan is not China.
|
| Having said that, yeah, it's not too hard to see a future where
| asian nations begin to see a lot more possibilities in
| cooperation than they see in competition with each other.
|
| Just as they have a right to develop their strategic postures,
| we, also, have a right to adjust our posture to serve us best
| in the largest possible number of future outcomes.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Taiwan is ROC (republic of china) China is PRC (people's
| republic of china)
|
| Until the day China finally invades Taiwan and stablishes its
| laws there.
| pests wrote:
| > Just being a pedant, but technically, Taiwan is not China.
|
| I think this is wrong? Both PRC and ROC claim ownership of
| all of China, including Taiwan. The PRC calling Taiwan a
| rouge territory and the ROC claiming to be a government in
| exile.
|
| The ROC has never denied otherwise as claiming to be
| sovereign would upset the balancing act they play.
|
| To sum it up, I would say the official position of Taiwan is
| that _it is_ China.
| jamesdutc wrote:
| This is not a comment that correctly describes how these
| two entities realistically operate and interact. I don't
| know why people keep repeating this as though it were
| insightful.
|
| Whatever your own position on this matter may be, it is
| important that we factually describe the positions of the
| parties directly involved.
|
| Hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to spread a
| more accurate description of the dynamics at play.
|
| For reference, here is a speech by William Lai Qing De
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ching-te) outlining the
| position under which he operates. The phrasing he uses is
| one that is consistent across all of his public remarks;
| consistent with remarks by Louise Xiao Mei Qin
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim) and other
| close associates of William Lai Qing De ; consistent with
| remarks made by Cai Ying Wen
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen); and
| consistent with how the structures in Taiwan have operated
| over at least the last decade.
|
| <<Lai Qing De Jiu Zhi Yan Shuo :Liang An [Hu Bu Li Shu ] >>
| : https://youtu.be/oLO5bYF8lDs?t=139
|
| The relevant remark is: [You Ci Ke Jian ,Zhong Hua Min Guo
| Yu Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo {Hu Bu Li Shu } ]
|
| Here is my (manual) translation: "From this it can be seen
| that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of
| China are 'not subordinate to each other.'"
|
| Here is a Whisper-generated transcript of the entire
| speech, with an OpenAI generated translation inline. I
| skimmed the translation, and it adequately conveys the
| speaker's meaning and intention. (It does fail to convey
| the delicacy, careful phrasing, and specific rhetorical
| choices made by the speaker that are extremely clearly
| visible in the Chinese. However, this aspects are harder to
| convey if you don't have minimal prior knowledge on this
| topic.) https://pastebin.com/fGxHUpXN
|
| It is true that there are historical positions,
| (historical) on-paper claims, and even a variety of
| differing positions and lively debate on this issue across
| all of the populations involved. But the conclusion one
| might draw from the comment above is wholly incorrect. It
| simply isn't the framing within which William Lai Qing De
| and associated parties are actually navigating this issue.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Did Deepseek steal anything or use what was made available
| publicly? I don't agree that theft took place.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| I don't know. Imagine a giant library, and a big corporation
| comes and steals it (OpenAI training on the internet/books).
| Then imagine another corporation comes and walks into the
| stolen library and scans each book so they have a copy (of
| the whole library ).
|
| The reason you don't consider it theft is because we're into
| deep level treachery here where right and wrong are beyond
| blurred.
|
| Just to add a slight bit of friction to all of this, I'll
| just note that money and profit is involved. Lots of it.
|
| But when I said _I don't know_ , I really meant it. It seems
| obvious to me, but how could it be that obvious? I must be
| going crazy.
| pphysch wrote:
| That implies DeepSeek waltzed in and stole something
| resembling (ill-begotten) "trade secrets".
|
| It's more like DeepSeek legally bought OpenAI's public
| product, tore it apart and successfully RE'd it / used it
| to bootstrap their own thing. Like many other innovators
| and tinkerers.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _China uses this tactic to steal IP. The dirty little secret
| is that they did this to Tesla_
|
| China bought its way into batteries by buying our bankrupt A123
| [1]. We weren't fleeced, we gave it away.
|
| > _It's a Cold War_
|
| It's a stupid Cold War. Literally search public property
| records for mortgage liens and join to senior people who have
| just been fired. Offer them a consulting contract so they don't
| even know they're an intelligence asset.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems
| notahacker wrote:
| > It's a stupid Cold War.
|
| Yeah. Short of nuking themselves, the US couldn't really be
| trying harder to lose in every possible aspect right now.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > 3. Allowing Intel to handle the packaging process for TSMC's
| Arizona-based operations.
|
| WTF does that achieve? TSMC fabs all the advanced chips and Intel
| becomes just a packager? Window dressing.
| silisili wrote:
| For anyone else like me who wasn't familiar with what
| semiconductor packaging is -
|
| https://news.skhynix.com/semiconductor-back-end-process-epis...
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Packaging is gobbling up more and more of the backend process,
| especially for chiplets.
| inverted_flag wrote:
| Currently, all the Arizona-made chips have to be sent back to
| Taiwan for packaging, which defeats the purpose of having the
| fab in the US in the first place.
| nullbyte wrote:
| Hmmm that's an important point
| TSUTiger wrote:
| That's definitely going to impact the new Amkor facility out
| there
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| Isn't this sort of like Ford announcing they'll just package
| Toyota engines into cars? I don't think anyone would call a car
| window dressing? Packaging has become far more than just coat
| chip in epoxy/plastic and bond wires onto die.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| What would be the result of the 100% tariff? Making the imports
| more expensive OR buying even more tech from China.
|
| The second one sounds like the worst possible result I can
| Imagine.
|
| Stablishing the packaging plant in the US sounds like the best
| option. The US would be copying what China does, but much better
| than partnering with a US company in the fab space. Technology
| transfer is unacceptable for Taiwan's survival (geopolitics)
| wmf wrote:
| When it comes to chips, China doesn't have what the market
| wants. Most TSMC customers would just pay the tariff while some
| would switch to Samsung Foundry.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| Apart as mentioned the tariff is a bluff, it's clear which option
| TSMC has to take isn't it?
| code51 wrote:
| How convenient that insiders jumped on INTC with this "rumor" 3
| days ago.
|
| They made about 25% from this in 3 days. Easiest money from a
| rumor.
| baq wrote:
| The SEC really doesn't like such plays.
|
| No wait that was a couple months ago.
| mrbluecoat wrote:
| Is the SEC still around? I thought Elon announced he was
| eliminating all federal agencies this month containing a
| letter in the word Valentine.
| sangnoir wrote:
| The husk of the SEC with its brains scooped out is a useful
| tool to sic upon one's competitors or ideological enemies.
| I wouldn't be surprised by an SEC investigation into OpenAI
| in the next few years.
| outside1234 wrote:
| The SEC will probably still exist to punish enemies.
|
| So update your bio with a MAGA photo and something racist.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| If this was a real thing that would play out, the stock would
| go up far more than 25%. Still time for normal laymen to get
| in. Or it's not going to happen, by which case, it's going to
| go back down.
|
| Coinflips for everyone!
| code51 wrote:
| Sometimes the play is only about the announcement itself, not
| the implementation - news about a possible big news - just
| like upcoming Trump tariffs.
| budududuroiu wrote:
| Honestly, Taiwan should just start selling export controlled
| chips to China. Trump kicked UA to the side, he'll do the same to
| TW, might as well make a buck while at it, China is gonna catch
| up sooner or later anyways
| colechristensen wrote:
| I really can't think of an upper bound for US response to an
| action like that.
| budududuroiu wrote:
| The TW legislative is controlled by a slim majority that
| would support a rehash of the CSSTA [1], with the runner up
| for the presidential race calling for it on the campaign
| trail. The US is already far behind on weapons deliveries and
| owes TW more than $20bn in delayed weapons shipments. I don't
| see the lower bound to what the US response might be
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-
| Strait_Service_Trade_A...
| FpUser wrote:
| Taiwan can be friends with the US and keep selling them chips
| while keeping knowhow to themselves. Or they can be friends
| with others with the same results. Sanctions are not gonna
| help in this case. Of course the US can bomb Taiwan but I
| think it will lead straight to WWIII with all the cherries on
| top.
| snailmailstare wrote:
| I think the US is going to be inundated with thousands of
| actions going on between other countries to replace it and it
| will be able to respond to dozens of them. They can of course
| choose long preexisting legislation as a hill to die on, but
| there are going to be a lot of hills and they could also
| pretend it never mattered to them.
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| Taiwan can offer Russian advanced chips in exchange for nuclear
| weapons
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Yes, the article doesn't really seem to address the
| underlying security threat that underpins these ultimatums.
|
| Even if the US "guarantees" Taiwan security, the current
| administrations "guarantees" are not worth the even hot air
| they are made of.
|
| I'm not sure if you were joking, but it would be 100%
| justified, especially if the "negotiation" with Russia over
| Ukraine are correctly reported.
| mandevil wrote:
| Taiwan is almost certainly only a few months from completely
| indigenous nuclear weapons: they have their own nuclear power
| reactor at Maanshan, and all the way back in the 1980's the
| US estimated that they were less than two years from a
| nuclear weapon. Given (waves hand generally at the world
| around him) all of this, they have almost certainly
| undertaken quite a bit of effort to shorten that timeline
| over the past forty years.
|
| South Korea and Japan are in basically identical places,
| FWIW. The only reason we haven't seen a north-east Asia
| nuclear arms race, so far, is that several countries relied
| on their presence inside the US Nuclear arms umbrella. With
| that looking more questionable, I think the next four years
| are likely to see widespread nuclear weapons proliferation.
| Certainly the example of Iran, where the US negotiated an
| excellent treaty and then unilaterally pulled out of it and
| started violating the treaty whole-sale under Trump's last
| time as president, and the fate of Ukraine, who were invaded
| by a much larger, nuclear armed neighbor, should encourage
| all three of those countries to make nuclear weapons faster.
|
| The only reason any of them might not is domestic political
| response, which loom biggest for Japan, but I doubt that
| would stop any of those countries.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The roadblock most countries have to nuclear weapons is a
| lack of a domestic high-tech industrial base... which
| Taiwan has in spades. I'm surprised they haven't built a
| bomb already!
|
| If I were them, I would try the Israel approach of very
| carefully refusing to admit whether they do or do not
| actually have 127 bombs that can reach Beijing.
|
| Oh.. why 127? No specific reason... don't worry about it...
| maxglute wrote:
| TW nuclearizing is PRC redline, and they're thoroughly
| infiltrated by PRC intelligence (half the reason US had to
| coerce them into ending initial effort was because PRC
| intelligence knew what was up). Today, any TW nuclear
| program is 7 minutes from being cratered, they're simply
| not nuclear turn key capable anymore unless US just
| positions nukes on TW and give authority in which case
| we're in WW3 anyway.
| FpUser wrote:
| I think TSMC is better off telling them to sod off. The whole
| goal of these deals is to transfer tech and knowhow to the
| competitors in the US. Threats of tariffs is irrelevant I think
| as the US also wants to put tariffs on China. They can just wait
| it out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-13 23:02 UTC)