
Good for Google, Bad for America - AndrewBissell
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/opinion/peter-thiel-google.html
======
espeed
Eric Schmidt chairs the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) [1], the US government
knows about the Google/IBM China relationship.

One big concern is with the China/Google/IBM OpenPOWER [2,3] collaboration.
Advanced hardware chip technology is one big thing China currently does not
have.

The US doesn't want the Google/IBM OpenPOWER Foundation to hand China the keys
to the kingdom in the form of advanced microprocessor chip technology and
know-how, thus giving away the US hardware chip advantage, i.e. gifting the
gap...

~> IBM Venture with China Stirs Concerns (2015)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/ibm-project-
in-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/ibm-project-in-china-
raises-us-concerns.html)

~> China has never had a real chip industry. Making AI chips could change that
(2018) [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612569/china-has-never-
ha...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612569/china-has-never-had-a-real-
chip-industry-making-ai-chips-could-change-that/)

[1] [https://innovation.defense.gov](https://innovation.defense.gov)

[2] [https://openpowerfoundation.org](https://openpowerfoundation.org)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPOWER_Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPOWER_Foundation)

~~~
addicted
China arguably is even further behind in software.

So we should make sure that all open source software development is shut down,
especially since software’s role in military technology s only growing, lest
China gets access to it.

I’m all in favor of Gothub being banned, and while we’re at it let’s get rid
of the AOSP as well. And Linux is clearly a curse and while we’re at it let’s
jail Microsoft execs for open sourcing .Net as well.

~~~
espeed
Some things are more significant than others. Like giving someone fire for the
first time. Epochs mark the era before and after. Gifting the gap changes the
game.

------
decoyworker
'At its core, artificial intelligence is a military technology.'

False premise. How is it a military technology at its core as opposed to any
other technology? Or every technology is a military technology at its core, in
which case, so what?

~~~
unethical_ban
I am dumbfounded at how many people are missing his point.

\- When airplanes came out, their first application was military.

\- When networks and computers came out, their first application was military.

\- When satellites were first developed, their first application was military.

A.I. has a lot of uses, but it is another new technology, a whole new field of
computer science that is rapidly evolving and has clear, identifiable military
applications. And its early stage of development means that each breakthrough
can pose a strategic military advantage.

This is true whether you agree with his point about the morality of Google
partnering with China.

~~~
debatem1
New medicines also find their way into militaries. Should we hoard those?

What about agricultural technology? Modern farming methods feed a billion
people, but armies march on their stomachs. Should they all go hungry?

~~~
espeed
Funny you bring up the meds thing.

One of the problems that just surfaced in the news yesterday is the
realization that almost all prescription meds are manufactured in China. The
risk that poses to the US population and DoD is incalculable. How do we get
off China meds?

~~~
debatem1
I note you avoided the question.

In your view, should we hoard medical technology? Doing so will lead to
countless unnecessary deaths and tremendous suffering. Is that worth it in
your eyes to preserve a military advantage?

~~~
unethical_ban
It is also clear that not every technology is permanently hoarded or seen
exclusively as a military advantage.

If the Chinese were known to have stockpiles of Mustard Gas (a bio weapon not
otherwise applicable to civilian life), then perhaps the US having exclusive
knowledge of a cure or preventative substance would be a military advantage.

Your premise is that AI at its current stage is equivalent to a cure for
cancer. I disagree.

~~~
debatem1
A few points.

First, mustard gas is not a bioweapon. It's a chemical agent. There will never
be a cure because it's like saying that you have a cure for fire.

Second, the point raised above is that things like food preservation
technology implicitly confer military advantage. The same is true of many
lifesaving medical technologies, especially things like celox that treat
trauma.

And then there's cryptography. I find it hard to believe that you (or anyone
on HN) support Joe Biden's approach to restrictions there. But that's quite
clearly a dual use technology.

Finally, I never said it was equivalent to a cure for cancer. I don't believe
that, and it's disingenuous to put words in my mouth. But things like self
driving cars probably will actually save lives, and even independent of that I
think it's worth examining very critically what restrictions we as a free
society are willing to impose to gain military advantage.

------
skybrian
Wait until he finds out that Google researchers publish scientific papers
about the latest machine learning advances for the entire world to read. And
so do universities! Heck, teenagers are learning about this stuff! Why allow
that?

The logical conclusion of "we shouldn't let China have machine learning" is
that it should be locked down like nuclear weapons research. But it would be
even more difficult to control, because you only need graphics cards, not
uranium.

~~~
buboard
We cannot know what research they don't publish. Google also patents DL stuff,
sometimes ridiculously broad like the patent for Dropout. And they gobble up
any companies that have a chance to rival them, like DeepMind. Google is an
advertising company though, it's where they make their money. I doubt we ll
see real AI or weapons from them.

------
remontoire
I find it more than a little surprising that no one here has an issue with
google starting an AI lab in China. Instead all I see pointed out are the
motives of the author.

------
tantalor
_The screwdriver is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy; what is
powerful about actually existing screwdrivers is its application to relatively
mundane tasks like driving screws and carpentry. Though less uncanny than
Frankenstein’s monster, these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army._

~~~
Symmetry
I think using screwdrivers as an analogy underplays the potential importance
of AI. Electricity would be a better analogy.

~~~
alkibiades
nukes is the best.

------
avsteele
The premises here range from true to arguable.

1) AI/ML is a dual use technology, one with both civilian and military
uses...plausible. Worth noting that ITAR* already restricts transfer of a
variety of technologies to others. Maybe AI/ML should count? 2) China is the
enemy of the US...debatable 3) Google's presence in China gives it government
greater access to these tech's than it otherwise would have...plausible

Seems like a generic opinion piece to me.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations)

~~~
curt15
> 3) Google's presence in China gives it government greater access to these
> tech's than it otherwise would have...plausible

Even if Google didn't have an office in China, Chinese researchers could just
as well learn from NIPS proceedings, etc.

~~~
espeed
This is not about NIPS proceedings. It's about advanced nextgen chip hardware
capability, something China does not have. It would be like giving someone a
rocketship when they don't know how to build and pilot a plane. Inorganic
technology transfers -- phase shifts like this -- are ripe for disaster.
Without internal time-tested checks and balances, gifting the gap is a recipe
for chaos -- NOT a recipe for containment. How long will the chaos last? Hard
to see. Does anyone have a model for that? It could lead to their undoing, and
others' too. Haven't we learned that lesson yet?

------
AzzieElbab
Lots of noise about who Thiel is, not a blip on why he is wrong. Usually a
good bet for him being right

------
alkibiades
you know someone’s right when people attack them as a person instead of their
message

------
dsjoerg
Should nations regulate AI like they regulate advanced military technologies?
Or like they do crypto?

I say no, the genie is way too far out of the bottle for this to be effective.
Any nation that wants an advantage in AI will have to secretly develop their
own advances and rely on secrecy rather than regulation to preserve their
advantage.

Any nation that attempts to regulate AI tech for military purposes will only
be hurting themselves, and gaining little.

~~~
espeed
Hardware asymmetry is one of the things that secures your advantage. 10th
generation chips vs 5th generation chips gives you asymmetric advantage, just
like 5th generation fighters vs 3rd generation fighters are no contest. The
ability to design and manufacture your own chips guarantees supply and the
control to optimize and scale production capacity as demand requires.

We invented the microprocessor and SV has 40+ years of accumulated knowledge
and hard-earned experience built into every chip. When an adversary is 40
years behind and has not yet developed the capability to make their own chips,
that's significant. We rode that curve from beginning to end, and catching a
ride on an exponential rocketship gives you a massive a head start -- a secure
long-term advantage, one that's almost insurmountable if you don't give it
away. So let's not do that. There's an optimal path. Let's find it.

~~~
debatem1
China has extensive fab capacity down to 28nm and in-country access to
processes as low as 16nm. That puts them roughly where we were in 2011. They
also have market access to 10nm and will likely have market access to 3nm
before the US has in-country access to it. Furthermore, the actual location of
those advanced fabs are all in SE Asia, particularly Taiwan and South Korea.
Tech transfer is inevitable, market access will continue to exist in
peacetime, and in the event of any conflict they will simply take what they
want. Meanwhile, the US is basically stalled around 7nm and has been for quite
some time.

Taken together that means that we have at most an 8 year lead on what is in
play literally right now in china. Given their investment level it's pretty
likely that they will hit parity within two years. And Huawei was first to
market with a 7nm CPU design. This is what you term a "secure long-term
advantage"?

~~~
espeed
You watching the news?

~~~
debatem1
Is there something on that dragged your attention away from the fact that your
earlier assertions about the US's continued dominance of semiconductor fab
were incorrect?

~~~
espeed
You mapped out a trajectory you think things are going to follow. Things
change. No more technology transfer. Protecting IP is the key to what happened
yesterday.

~~~
debatem1
Things do change. That doesn't make your specific prediction of what they will
change into correct. Given that your previous assertions about the past and
present were wrong, I doubt you are correct about the shape of the future.

Happy to bet on it, though.

~~~
espeed
You're referring to part of the process, I'm referring to the whole process --
i.e. full independent capability / self-sufficiency -- and currently China has
zero capability to manufacture advanced chips independently [0] ...

    
    
      Huawei would love to source its chips and other components 
      purely from Chinese suppliers, but as of today it is unable 
      to do so ... There is no production line in China that uses 
      only equipment made in China, so it is very difficult to make 
      any chipsets without U.S. equipment.
    

[0] [https://wccftech.com/china-is-still-multiple-generations-
beh...](https://wccftech.com/china-is-still-multiple-generations-behind-in-
chip-manufacturing/)

~~~
debatem1
Malarky. By the same measure the US can't manufacture anything at all anymore
because it can't source all the parts of any single supply chain from solely
inside the US.

China has-- currently, not theoretically-- in country fab just a few years
behind, and has been actively building plants at 10nm. We know they've already
bought equipment for 7nm. So the idea that somehow the supply chain is holding
them back is just wrong.

Not only that, but U.S. equipment doesn't lead here and hasn't for quite some
time. Taiwanese equipment does. Are you really arguing that China does not and
will not have access to Taiwanese Fab equipment? Because if so, you should
know that TSMC is already moving fab to China.

~~~
espeed
We will see.

------
thesausageking
Let me see if I understand this right: New Zealand citizen and Facebook board
member Peter Thiel criticizes UK-based DeepMind and its sister company Google
for working with non-US countries on AI technology.

In addition, there's no mention that three of Thiel's key investments (Space
X, Palantir, and Anduril) require contracts from the US government, which is
run by a President who Thiel helped get elected and is very hostile towards
China.

~~~
aloukissas
It's a huge fail by the NYT that they failed to disclose Thiel's role as a
Facebook board member, etc. This is no opinion piece, it's aiming to benefit
the writer and his interests/investments.

~~~
creaghpatr
It absolutely is an opinion piece which is why the disclosure is not required.
Why would someone write an op-ed that's not to their benefit?

~~~
aloukissas
Yup. The quality standards on opinion pieces, even at NYT has drastically
decreased.

------
kahnjw
Pretty unbelievable the times published this opinion piece by Thiel. Without
any real evidence to back his claim and given Thiel's past, its hard for me to
imagine this isn't him pushing a false narrative for some emotionally charged
ulterior motive.

~~~
AndrewBissell
What claims do you see him putting forth "without any real evidence"? I don't
see how it's at all off base to assume China might take a military interest in
AI labs Google establishes in Beijing.

EDIT: Ah, I see that Thiel said elsewhere that China already carried out
espionage inside Google and hasn't backed this up. That claim is absent from
this op-ed but it may be CYA for those comments on his part.

~~~
kahnjw
Context: Thiel originally made this claim in a speech where he claimed Google
is committing "treason." [1] Given his "evidence" that's obviously insane. A
large fractions of large multinationals have offices in China. I assume the
editors at the Times told him that was a non-starter so he toned it down a
bit.

Nowhere in the article does he disclose that he, at one point, owned 10% of
facebook, a top competitor of Google's.

Most ironically, Facebook announced they'd open an office in china over a year
ago [2].

He makes unsubstantiated claims that technology coming from this lab will be
useful in the military before all else etc. He neglects to mention Google's
public intent for the office, which has nothing to do with the military [3].

[1] [https://www.axios.com/peter-thiel-says-fbi-cia-should-
probe-...](https://www.axios.com/peter-thiel-says-fbi-cia-should-probe-
google-9846a042-e689-49bc-bdc7-595988ce5d8c.html) [2]
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-
allowed...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed-
china-censorship-ban-hangzhou-zuckerberg) [3]
[https://ai.google/research/join-us/beijing/](https://ai.google/research/join-
us/beijing/)

~~~
espeed
China currently does not have the capability to design and make advanced
hardware microprocessor chips. The Google/IBM OpenPOWER Foundation is
simultaneously researching nextgen chips and teaching China how to do so.

Giving China this capability, i.e. gifting the gap, will give China an
advanced hardware capability they do not have and did not earn. It will
undoubtedly be used by the Chinese military. The supercomputer labs is the
primary target.

The AI race is already a big unknown, and the Chinese government internal
checks and balances are inorganic and not yet tested. Remember the tenets, be
slow to speak and be wary of unearned wisdom. What is the point of
accelerating this?

------
buboard
I think we should all totally disregard Thiel as a lunatic. It's not as if he
has been right in any of his choices so far

~~~
Jyaif
He was right about funding the Trump campaign.

~~~
bobwaycott
I think there’s a difference between betting on a winning horse and making the
_right_ choices.

------
tracer4201
FWIW, I don’t take anything from the NYT (especially opeds) at face value.
Same goes for generally any media outlet, but NYT (also other outlets) and
tech companies are competitors. Keep that in mind and take the NYT’s weekly
piece on Google, FB, Amazon, Apple etc almost being the worst companies in the
world with a pinch of salt.

------
ArmandGrillet
Good for Thiel, Bad for Journalism. I expect to see people pushing for their
own agenda on Twitter, not on a journal that won 100+ Pulitzer prizes.

~~~
espeed
How many NYT op-eds has Thiel written? He's only written one tweet [1].

It's rare. The significance of that should tell you something.

[1] [https://twitter.com/peterthiel](https://twitter.com/peterthiel)

