
U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software - ckcheng
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-artificial-intelligence/u-s-government-limits-exports-of-artificial-intelligence-software-idUSKBN1Z21PT
======
olivierduval
It's funny: it reminds me of "strong cryptography export ban" in the 2000's
(btw, Oracle java still have it: you must download strong crypto package
separatly)...

Obviously, it failed! You can stop a single vendor with unique technology to
provide hardware components with bans, but you can't stop a whole field
spreading knowledge!!! People come and go, meet, talk, write, exchange
knowledges... so sooner or later (and more soon now as long as the internet is
not limited to US) the software will implement these ideas.

The only one that will be challenged will be "big corps" relying on IP
protection. But if i remember correctly, Google has a research center in
China... so knowledge will aleady be in China and won't even need to be
"exported"

~~~
ransom1538
I don't think the government actually wanted to stop math [1] from leaving the
border. It was just a tool to use against people they suspected being involved
espionage. Just another reason to put you in a cell.

[https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_algorithm](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_algorithm)

~~~
utopian3
> It was just a tool to use against people they suspected being involved
> espionage. Just another reason to put you in a cell.
> [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_algorithm](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_algorithm)

The wiki link you provided does not have the words "export" or "espionage".
Are you trying to imply that R,S, and A were suspected of espionage? You'll
need a real source for that..

~~~
blululu
The link is for simple English Wikipedia, which does not use those words.
Perhaps the standard English Wikipedia article would be a better reference:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_\(cryptosystem\))

------
withinrafael
Additional details are present in the unpublished rule (document 2019-27649
[1][2]).

\-- cut --

Geospatial imagery “software” “specially designed” for training a Deep
Convolutional Neural Network to automate the analysis of geospatial imagery
and point clouds, and having all of the following:

1\. Provides a graphical user interface that enables the user to identify
objects (e.g., vehicles, houses, etc.) from within geospatial imagery and
point clouds in order to extract positive and negative samples of an object of
interest;

2\. Reduces pixel variation by performing scale, color, and rotational
normalization on the positive samples;

3\. Trains a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to detect the object of
interest from the positive and negative samples; and

4\. Identifies objects in geospatial imagery using the trained Deep
Convolutional Neural Network by matching the rotational pattern from the
positive samples with the rotational pattern of objects in the geospatial
imagery.

Technical Note: A point cloud is a collection of data points defined by a
given coordinate system. A point cloud is also known as a digital surface
model.

\-- cut --

[1]
[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/06/2019-27...](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/06/2019-27649/addition-
of-software-specially-designed-to-automate-the-analysis-of-geospatial-imagery-
to-the-export)

[2] [https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.g...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-27649.pdf)

~~~
incompatible
The "graphical user interface" bit is weird. I suppose you are fine if the
software is driven entirely by keyboard shortcuts.

~~~
extropy
IMO that's an indication that this was made for a specific piece of software
and trying to limit the collateral damage.

~~~
atmosx
Same here. They are framing a specific software, possibly a very specific
business deal from happening.

------
kragen
Bernstein's case established that he had a First Amendment right to publish
source code under the law in effect at the time; he argued, successfully, that
this was the form in which his research was communicated to other researchers.
He won his case, but it took many years, and of course court cases are
political processes; they may be decided differently when different judges
have been appointed to the bench. It seems that machine-vision researchers may
now need to make the same argument. It's probably worthwhile to save the
neural network parameter vectors you currently have access to somewhere
outside the US while that is still legal.

~~~
tlb
The ethical argument for why everyone should have access to cryptography is a
lot stronger than why everyone should have access to satellite imagery
recognition algorithms.

Also, cryptography requires both sides to use the same algorithm, while
companies don't need to use the same recognition algorithms.

It also helped, in the crypto case, that you could print some version of it on
a T-shirt or mail it on a postcard. It looked like speech, while neural net
parameters don't.

So the free speech case seems much weaker.

~~~
kragen
Lawyers have made strong cases on both sides of the cryptography argument;
probably they can on both sides of the satellite-imagery argument as well.
Maps are the primary result of satellite imagery recognition and are a public
good. Most covert activity visible on satellite imagery is environmental
damage, which is often illegal and generally harms the public. Satellite image
processing can be very useful for increasing agricultural production;
restricting that to one country, or granting one country's companies an
effective worldwide monopoly on increasing agricultural production, would be
ethically unconscionable — in times of drought, it amounts to letting people
starve instead of telling them how to raise adequate food.

But Bernstein's case didn't hinge on the likely consequences of strong
cryptography being widely available; rather, he argued that he had a First
Amendment right to publish his research.

------
peter303
I recall similar happening during Bush admin during 2000s. Many of our
software customers were international. To obtain an export license we were
required to scan our source code with an approved Dept of Commerce scan
software vendor to look for all kinds of inappropriate code like a too strong
cryptography algorithm in the licensing portion and plagarism of copyrighted
code. The first couple of releases this was done were brutal. Many of the
developers not far our of the university were used to taking anything from the
internet/open source if it saved effort. There was not a clear company policy
about this until the export restrictions. Sometimes there would be a half
dozen chain of borrowing before a culprit turned up. We muddled through and
fixed hundreds of flags. If I was the program manager, I'd schedule and export
code scan every week to avoid late problems.

AI code is just another layer in this odorous process.

~~~
Aperocky
lmao this is hilarious. Imagine dealing with such stupidity while other
countries don’t have to, instant competitive disadvantage

------
roenxi
We're in an early and explosive growth stage of AI where well-established
statistical knowledge is having an unreasonable effect when combined with
computing power. I've yet to see any AI platform that is mindbending vs doing
basic math with a multivariate normal distribution. The eyewatering stuff is
the number of Hz of computing power being thrown into simulating Go games,
etc, etc.

Assuming that among 1.4 billion people there are a few good coder/statistician
people and using supercomputers [0] as a rough proxy for available computing
power, it isn't obvious the US is even going to inconvenience the Chinese
military. Presumably they are going to have a parallel AI effort anyway given
that they have been investing in the area.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_countries)

~~~
pp34
They are Dumb and they are just Reacting out of some "fuck we have to do
something" instinct driven by jobless fucks like Peter Thiel/Graham
Allison/Kai-Fu Lee constant rhetoric about AI and falling behind and how its
going to effect everyone.

This is Fear based Decision Making 101. All it leads to is more absurd
outcomes such as Endless Wars, Huge Monopolies, More consolidation of power
and resources in the hand of few therefore more inequality.

These people and this thinking style would have more credibility if they had
stopped Wars, reduced inequality, disrupted monopoly and oligopolies. They
have not done that.

The can't imagine a Chinese AI team and American AI team working together to
solve problems in humane way. They can't imagine constructing orgs that push
that through. They can't imagine punishing their own who cross lines out of
fear that the other side wont.

When we allow Fear based thinking to dominate decision making Imagination
dies. Outcomes are consistently shit. And way below the potential of what
people collaborating and communicating across artificial bullshit boundaries
are capable off.

Pick a side and don't back Fear based Decsion makers in your org. These guys
hold back progress, are the reason climate change research is hidden, endless
Wars keep getting funded and monopolies cling to power way past their expiry
date.

How can it be the age of information and knowledge when fear wins?

~~~
hanniabu
> All it leads to is more absurd outcomes such as Endless Wars, Huge
> Monopolies, More consolidation of power and resources in the hand of few
> therefore more inequality

This is going to persist regardless of this decision

------
astatine
Unlike the space race, where Russia and the US were significantly ahead of
everyone else, the field is far more level in AI. Arguably there will be areas
where the US could even be behind in some areas.

Wonder what the real world impact of this will be. Not much, I expect.

~~~
_iyig
>Wonder what the real world impact of this will be. Not much, I expect.

Here's a thought experiment I use to imagine the impact of AI:

Imagine you've got a million people at your disposal. At zero cost and with no
downtime, these people can remotely operate robots, understand text, interact
using natural language, or classify objects in images, all with human-level
intelligence and accuracy. Now what?

Obviously there are areas where AI can outperform humans, like mechanical
accuracy and mathematical computation. But in general, I find this experiment
works pretty well.

~~~
tomp
Now imagine doing crowd control. 10 frames per second, 100k people, if you
need just 1 second to recognize a face, you’ve just saturated your 1m human-
AI. The point of digital AI is that it can scale, almost indefinitely.

~~~
_iyig
OK, then imagine 100 billion people. Scale isn't the point of the experiment -
the point is bounding expectations based on probable (maximal?) capabilities.

Perhaps a post-Singularity AI will have wild capabilities beyond our
comprehension, but that is outside the scope of this experiment.

------
nl
This is pretty bad. Or good depending on your perspective.

I'm based in Australia, and we started playing today with analysis of
geospatial imagery for bush fire imagery (because the country is on fire).

ECCN0D521No.1 from [https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.g...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-27649.pdf) covers pretty much everything
I'm doing.

I guess if I want to look at the positive side, it means I don't have to
compete with any US vendors if I want to sell my work.

~~~
skissane
> I guess if I want to look at the positive side, it means I don't have to
> compete with any US vendors if I want to sell my work.

Until the Australian government gets the same idea

------
Fragoel2
Seems way more narrow than the title implies

"The rule will likely be welcomed by industry, Lewis said, because it had
feared a much broader crackdown on exports of most artificial intelligence
hardware and software"

~~~
colejohnson66
That doesn’t make it ok. It’s just the Overton Window[0]. Say something
ridiculous so what you really want is deemed “not as bad.”

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

------
Animats
This assumes the US is ahead of China in image recognition. Is there any
justification for that?

~~~
naniwaduni
It is meaningful if the US is ahead of any cooperating bloc of powers in any
covered area of image recognition. This is much broader than being ahead of
specifically China on the whole. For it to not be true would essentially imply
that no new research is happening in the US.

~~~
tomc1985
I doubt the US is ahead in this area. China gains heaps upon heaps or
practical experience in CV by sheer virtue of the breadth of its surveillance
networks. Not to say we aren't doing the same here in the US, but efforts seem
to be much more scattered

~~~
Tempest1981
I can see the surveillance network providing vastly more training data. But
isn't that orthogonal with developing the algorithms?

Or is it that training data provides experience, which improves the
algorithms? Or the application of the algorithms?

~~~
whoevercares
It’s a positive loop. More effective surveillance network -> Larger investment
(from government or government contract) -> more application/startup/new
programs -> more research funding/aggressive hiring -> higher recognition for
CV/ML researchers/Engineers -> More and more people doing CV/ML -> More data,
algorithms and applications-> more effective surveillance network. Btw it got
deployed at scale in real world which is a huge advantage for progressing any
CVML research

Not to mention nowadays Deep learning is pretty much a big data game.

------
andrei_says_
Seems like China is way ahead in the AI game, including by applying it for
mass surveillance and oppression.

I highly recommend the Frontline documentary on AI in China.

[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/in-the-age-of-
ai/](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/in-the-age-of-ai/)

They see AI as the next industrial revolution and have decided to make sure
they are at its forefront. And likely they will, which means that we’ll be the
ones trying to import their tech.

------
blackrock
Didn’t the most advanced AI research come straight out of China?

The ResNet Project [1] of 2015. It was used as the core algorithm behind
Google’s AlphaGo in 2017.

The 4 computer scientists behind the paper were Chinese nationals. They were
all educated by the Chinese educational system, and got their PhD there (one
guy was from Hong Kong). They worked at Microsoft at the time, so Microsoft
paid them a salary for their work, but I think Microsoft benefited more from
their research, as did the other Silicon Valley and American companies.

Three of them went to start or lead other Chinese unicorn companies, and one
guy went to Facebook in Silicon Valley, so Facebook benefited here.

[1] [https://macropolo.org/china-ai-research-
resnet/](https://macropolo.org/china-ai-research-resnet/)

------
haecceity
Considering that AI is whatever marketing folks want it to be, it'd be
interesting see their legal definition AI. Anyone have a link to the actual
document?

~~~
Rebelgecko
I think it's this: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.g...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-27649.pdf)

Page 4 and 9 have the technical definitions.

My off the cuff interpretation is that the rule would only cover convolutional
neural nets that are trained to identify _and_ determine the orientation of
specific objects in geospatial imagery. If the neural net's input/output
aren't wrapped in a GUI it sounds like they still might be OK to export
without a license

~~~
nitrogen
_1\. Provides a graphical user interface that enables the user to identify
objects (e.g., vehicles, houses, etc.) from within geospatial imagery and
point clouds in order to extract positive and negative samplesof an object of
interest;

2.Reduces pixel variation by performing scale, color, and rotational
normalization on the positive samples;

3\. Trains a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to detect the object of
interest from the positive and negative samples; and

4\. Identifies objects in geospatial imagery using the trained Deep
Convolutional Neural Network by matching the rotational pattern from the
positive samples with the rotational pattern of objects in the geospatial
imagery._

What counts as "geospatial imagery"? Could this apply to any training UI for
self-driving cars, maps, street view, etc.?

~~~
Rebelgecko
Probably anything taken from a satellite or aircraft

~~~
upwardbound
I believe you are correct and I am not sure why you are being downvoted. I
suggest that downvoters read more about the military use of these terms.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geospatial_intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geospatial_intelligence)

------
solarengineer
Naieve question: Are there any repositories (e.g. Hosted at github) that one
should mirror?

~~~
hanniabu
Good question, bumping for visibility

~~~
colejohnson66
This isn’t reddit. Replies don’t “bump” posts.

------
kresten
Other countries/companies will thank for the economic opportunity.

~~~
K0SM0S
My initial instinct exactly, because major corps are global now, which means
they can easily set up shop anywhere on Earth: subsidiaries, but also quasi-
independent structures which might only be related through distant funding or
meta-agreements.

So you can be an American company with tons of "friends" in the EU, Asia,
Latin American and now Africa, doing stuff (research, product) and you would
just happen to buy/sell from/through these independent actors. _Fiction-
Google: “Oh but that 's not us! It's Oogleg, a Swiss company! It's true 95% of
our private shareholders also have shares in Oogleg, but that's only
circumstancial, these are large funds you know... they actually have shares in
95% of businesses altogether through ETFs and mutual funds dilution. + some
legalese blabla.”_

There goes your protectionism, State governments! You'll get your import taxes
for physical goods and on-prems services but overall, it certainly won't
impede or even touch the thriving heads, the global leaders of the business
world. Not anymore. That was in another time, before global networks.

And actually, we might think Fortune 100, perhaps 1,000; but in truth it's
probably much more (cue 80% of GDP in the form of SMBs) because how do you
enforce a restriction on remoting to contribute to some repo somewhere?

Note that this is true as of 2020, factually from a technical standpoint, but
given a few decades and some generalized country-based firewalls (it's coming,
in all likelihood) + convenient surveillance and you get all the means
necessary to enforce such policies anew.

~~~
perl4ever
I don't understand why you mention ETFs. If Google said it was meaningless
that they were in a total market index fund with almost every other public
company, then they would be right. But whether they were or weren't they could
do business with somebody just the same. Did you think that companies can't
interact if they're not subsidiaries of the same organization? Not only can
they do whatever they want bilaterally, but often companies or other
organizations set up a joint board or company or something with
representatives to work on something of common interest. It probably has to be
done the right way to avoid antitrust, but it's done a lot, and by government
agencies too. This is not a mutual fund or ETF; the joint entity is controlled
by the members, not vice versa.

~~~
K0SM0S
Oblig. disclaimer, IANAL and not a financial advisor either.

> Did you think that companies can't interact if they're not subsidiaries of
> the same organization?

Of course not :) I however wonder if defending anti-trust from a subsidiary
strategy would work — at least in France, I'm pretty sure taking half your
execs and hiring them in a subsidiary which you control will _NOT_ get you
past anti-trust regulation.

You might say "but it's legal!" and the judge will kindly ask you not to mock
the court by disingenuously failing to address the case at hand — are you or
are you not _effectively_ in a monopoly, or cartel situation? Legal or not in
terms of legal structure doesn't matter because antitrust is 'above' in the
hierarchy of norms (so to speak, my law studies are really far away now, and I
was more into public than private law).

Case in point though, shareholding is even legally restricted in some sectors
(e.g. media, and that was a strong motivation for e.g. Facebook trying not to
be filed as a media group, at least in the EU).

I have absolutely no idea how this would fly in the US. I bow to your
expertise, here.

A good example, I think, will be the shareholding structure of Libra (if it
ever comes to fruition), where many actors essentially hide their
participation behind layers of companies, like some onion (there was a good
infographic which you might google on the topic). It's _legal_ , technically,
but would it stand in front of a supreme court antitrust case?

As far as I know from history, even legal lines tend to become blurry in major
antitrust cases because these are, by essence, out-of-bounds of 'normal'
operation, they're fringe cases that sometimes requires a new ad hoc law to
take where we want to (I seem to remember elements of Teddy Roosevelt's
opposition with Rockefeller, details of the Bell system breakup too, but I'm
really not sure. Here in the EU, it's really common —all things considered— to
just make new law whenever the current letter fails to live up to the desired
spirit).

Thank you for the remarks, I'll probably refrain from speaking about antitrust
in the US until I have a better understanding of those.

~~~
perl4ever
I don't have any expertise in either area, I was just trying to say that "X
owns Y" <> "Y owns X".

And it seems common for A, B, C, ... to jointly govern Z, without antitrust
problems, like (first thing I could find) the W3C.

------
m0zg
Seems pretty narrowly targeted, probably similar to things like ITAR, quantum,
and crypto - which already require regulatory disclosure. Probably just to
make sure that US companies aren't doing Project Maven (or the like) for
China. Currently, best I can tell, there's nothing in place to prevent such a
"collaboration".

------
myndpage
They say it doesn't apply to Canada. What prevents a Chinese company to open a
business in Canada and get access to US A.I software without the license?

~~~
hawkice
Canada counts as the US for several national security purposes. There's a lot
of cooperation to prevent this type of loophole.

~~~
La1n
Can you point to some of that cooperation or legislation regarding it, that
sounds quite interesting.

~~~
fierarul
My guess it's related to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes)

~~~
elfexec
It more likely has to do with NORAD.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command)

------
Buttons840
I used to put on my tinfoil hat and imagine that cryptography was the field to
study if you wanted secret government agents to visit you. Maybe next time I
will instead imagine that computer vision is what summons the secret agents.

More seriously, computer vision is going to be important and it appears to be
far less known than machine learning and has higher barriers to entry. I'd
exchange a few introductory machine learning books for more good computer
vision introductions.

Any suggestions on how to get started with computer vision?

------
upwardbound
As other commenters have stated, this export ban seems both very narrow and an
extremely good idea. My interpretation of the meaning & intent of the ban is
that it is banning GUI-based tools for training CNN's to automatically
identify specific types of objects in aerial imagery (e.g. distinguishing a
limousine from a different type of car). These CNN's being trained are almost
certainly intended for use in autonomous targeting of airstrikes by fully-
autonomous weaponized UAV's. Here is the text of the specific ban:
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.g...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-27649.pdf) Here is a really good book for
background on this topic: [https://www.amazon.com/Army-None-Autonomous-
Weapons-Future-e...](https://www.amazon.com/Army-None-Autonomous-Weapons-
Future-ebook/dp/B073VXYD5P)

------
quicon
I guess these guys will be affected:
[https://www.planet.com/](https://www.planet.com/)

------
paganel
Not related to AI but instead related to geo-spatial imagery, I’m pretty sure
I saw YT videos of ISIS commanders coordinating suicidal VBIED attacks in
Syria using Google Maps aerial imagery. That was happening back in 2014-2015,
when such videos were not instantly banned on /r/combatfootage and
/r/SyrianCivilWar .

------
mark_l_watson
I sold AI software (for building expert systems) for Xerox Lisp Machines from
1982 to 1985 and the lawyers at my company complained that the $5K license
price did not make up for the hassle for foreign sales (I sold to customers in
Japan, Norway, and Germany). So, export controls are not such a new things.

~~~
winrid
Oh that sounds interesting. What problems did your AI software solve in the
80s?

------
kick
Because this is so incredibly broad, there's a good chance that >20% of people
here will be working on something that falls under this at some point in the
next decade.

While we patiently await for a HN user (or, let's be honest, one of the
ancient cryptologist-lawyers who come out of the woodwork every time something
like this happens and sue the government) to fix this by suing the government
on free speech grounds, don't forget that git, mercurial, fossil, bazaar and
more are all decentralized, can't actually be censored at scale, and can be
effectively hosted and mirrored trivially.

I actually think it's a well-intentioned law, and it's not like it'll harm
most people, but it's still something that should be stood against on
principle.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
It actually sounds far more narrow than the title implies?

> _Under a new rule which goes into effect on Monday, companies that export
> certain types of geospatial imagery software from the United States must
> apply for a license to send it overseas except when it is being shipped to
> Canada._

~~~
kick
_The measure covers software that could be used by sensors, drones, and
satellites to automate the process of identifying targets for both military
and civilian ends, Lewis said, noting it was a boon for industry, which feared
a much broader crackdown on exports of AI hardware and software._

"sensors, drones, and satellites" used to target _anything_ means that you
can't even send a Ring camera to Europe.

------
alkonaut
What the threat (of an ability the US doesn’t want other nations to have) here
and how does geospatial imagery and point clouds fit in?

This seems to target one or a few products so they dislike that someone uses
the software for that purpose

~~~
sedachv
Most likely autonomous drone navigation (particularly very low altitude
terrain following) and targeting. That is how cruise missiles work:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERCOM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERCOM)

There was a big drone attack on a Saudi Arabian oil processing facility last
year:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_at...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack)

------
stuqqq
I have open source deep learning projects on GitHub. Should I be worried?

------
Buttons840
Prior to this "rule", was it possible to break the law and get in trouble for
doing nothing more than publishing source code to the world?

Has that now changed?

Is publishing personal code on GitHub "exporting"?

~~~
reubenmorais
In the US, at some point cryptography code was considered "munitions" and you
needed permission to export it. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States)

~~~
Buttons840
Definitely worth mentioning, thank you. However, I was aware of that and
believe there are currently no cryptography related restrictions (right?), so
I'm still wondering if this is a zero-to-one situation. Has the software
export restriction been switched from off to on?

~~~
astura
An Intel subsidiary was fined for exporting encryption between 2008 and 2011
without permission.

[https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/all-articles/107-about-
bis...](https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/all-articles/107-about-
bis/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-2014/763-intel-subsidiary-agrees-
to-750-000-penalty-for-unauthorized-encryption-exports)

------
mlthoughts2018
The reason for this has to be economics / lobbyist driven. It makes no sense
technologically (because it could not be effective) and there are far more
dangerous examples of American companies developing technology that assists
the Chinese military, such as private search engines and social credit systems
that leave the general populace unable to make democratic influence on
military actions or government policy.

------
pandaman
The main impact of these regulations is not going to be on the software
availability overseas but on the _software jobs_ availability for foreign
nationals, IMO.

I work on ITAR-regulated software and, even though, the software itself is
exported all over the world, I would not be able to write it if I had been a
national of a restricted country, working in the US on a temporary visa.

------
Abishek_Muthian
Progress in AI tech has been due to open sharing of knowledge, so much so that
even companies such as Apple which tend to keep its research under closed
doors started publishing open Machine Learning journals to attract talent.

AI tech is too powerful to be monopolised, if not democratised it might become
another 'semiconductor' industry.

------
anonu
There was a tangential discussion on SAR imagery and North Korea here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21955246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21955246)

------
FpUser
"... boost oversight of exports of sensitive technology to adversaries like
China, for _economic_ and security reasons..."

I think _economic_ is the keyword here. From what I gather this is not the
first time the US is doing something like this. I am pretty sure other
countries have done the same in their particular areas of concern. They're
just not as mighty and famous as the US so nobody pays attention. So much for
free market.

Anyways I think it is a little too late and all it will accomplish is -
opening a window of opportunity for other players.

Also because it formulated way too broad and has an escape clause (apply for a
license) then it might offer an unfair advantage right inside the US. Big
companies will get it and for smaller it nay be more difficult. Same as patent
system. Company like Apple can patent my cat with little troubles. Me: not so
much and I speak from experience.

------
csense
How could they possibly enforce legal limits on software distribution in the
age of the Internet?

Anyone can slap their code onto a private Gitlab installation in an hour.
Hosting a tarball on an HTTPS server is even more trivial.

~~~
lopmotr
Threat of punishment. Same as how any other law is enforced.

------
steve19
Does this mean Nvidia can't export GPUs to China?

~~~
perl4ever
Is that snark?

Google suggests Nvidia GPUs are probably made in Guangdong by PCPartner.

The actual chips, I don't know, but TSMC does have fabs in China.

~~~
imhoguy
I bet it is yet another law to bring back knowledge and manufacturing to US.

------
netcan
Can anyone illustrate this with current examples?

What financially or technologically significant exports are going to stop? How
military or nonmilitary are they?

------
NHQ
China doesn't need American AI technology.

------
aspectmin
Hmm. Doesn’t the point cloud and deep conv section cover a good percentage
take of self driving car tech?

------
cced
Is there anything that people outside of the US should download now in order
to get access to software?

~~~
bitminer
The rule refers to products, not freely available source code.

Companies don't sell stuff from GitHub, they sell proprietary stuff. It may
well be based on open source code, but they own it to sell (license) it.

There's lots of examples of products in the geospatial domain that are not
"AI" yet are restricted or even classified.

For example, ship detection from space-based radar. There are numerous public
papers on the topic yet any software that purports to do this is subject to
ITAR rules in the US and CGP rules in Canada.

Just because you may know how to do something doesn't prevent a government
from restricting you from selling it, or talking about it. Even if it is
"public". Machine guns are an old tech and yet are restricted. As they should
be.

------
__s
A protectionist response to the US losing power, & trying to stave off brain
drain. They should be considering any person who knows how to program with
Tensorflow a munition. Mitigating brain drain is a hopeless endeavor. US
should make their immigration more liberal to try encourage US as a
destination for brain drain, as opposed to a source. Drain or be drained

~~~
michannne
Are there any studies or reports that point to the US falling behind
technologically in regards to software research?

------
hyustan
Sounds like something straight out of Terminator movies. I think they are
afraid this technology will get out of hand in the near future and I can't
really blame them. I remember that video with the Google Assistant making a
hair dresser appointment. Pretty scary stuff

------
CMCDragonkai
When does this export ban get executed?

------
tu7001
This wrong, we are going to lose on that.

------
frankzen
These dummies never learn, do they?

------
StuffedParrot
Why not ban heuristics altogether?

------
m4r35n357
There is no such thing.

------
zerr
Is it time to label current AI stuff by its real name - statistics?

~~~
smt1
I think as opposed to classical statistics, except for the important subfield
of statistical learning theory, machine learning relates much more to
functional analysis, differential geometry/optimization over manifolds, and
measure/probability theory. "AI" is whatever marketing people want to define
it as.

------
akerro
Google, Amazon, Microsoft are in military and oil business now because of AI
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3n8txX3144](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3n8txX3144)

