The day that Deepseek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation. >> Why is that? Cuz I mean, currently you can have a model like Deep Seek that can run on any accelerator. Why would that stop being the case in the future? >> Well, suppose it doesn’t. Suppose it optimized for Huawei. Suppose it optimized for their architecture. It would put us at a disadvantage. You described the situation. A company develops software, developed an AI model, and it runs best on the American tech stack. I saw that as good news. You you set it up as a premise that it was bad news. I’m going to give you the bad news that AI models around the world are developed and they run best on not American hardware. That is bad news for us. >> But there’s a reason they’re buying it from you, right? >> Because our chips are better. Can you acknowledge that Huawei had a record year? Can you acknowledge that a whole bunch of chip companies have gone public? Can you acknowledge that? Can you acknowledge that? Can you can also acknowledge that the fact that we used to have a very large share in that market and we no longer have the large share in that market. We can also acknowledge that China is about 40% of the world’s technology industry. To
[00:01:00] leave that market, concede that market for United States technology industry is a disservice to our country. Your argument starts from extremes that if we give them any compute at all, we will lose everything. >> No, I think what my argument is >> those extremes they’re childish. >> The idea is any marginal compute is helpful, right? So if you have more compute, you can train a better model. If the AI models that run on those chips, >> yeah, >> are capable of cyber offensive capabilities. It enables a weapon of a kind. >> The the the logic that you use, you might as well say it to microprocessors and DRAMs, you might as well say it to electricity. >> It feels like you’re making two different statements. One is that we’re going to win this competition with Huawei because our chips are going to be way better if we’re allowed to compete. And another is that they would be doing the same exact thing without us anyways, right? How can those two things be the same at the same time? >> It’s obviously true. In the absence of a better choice, you’ll take the only choice you have. How is that illogical? It’s so logical. >> The reason they want NVIDIA chips is they’re better. Better is more compute. More compute means you can train better.
[00:02:01]
It’s better. It’s better because it’s easier to program. It’s e we have a better ecosystem. Whatever the better is, whatever the better is. And of course, we’re going to send them compute. So what? So what the fact of the matter is we get the benefit of developers working on the American tech stack. We get the benefit as those AI models diffuse out into the rest of the world. The American tech stack is therefore the best for it. We can continue to advance and diffuse American technology. That I believe is a positive. It’s a very important part of American technology leadership. The policy that you’re advocating resulted in the American telecommunication industry being policied out of basically the world to the point where we don’t control our own telecommunications anymore. I don’t see that as smart. It’s a little narrow-minded and it led to un unintended consequences that I’m describing to you right now that you seem you seem to have a very hard time understanding.