PRC pureplay AI only companies has same problems as openAI, that's not the same as huge tech companies like Baidu or Alibaba or Tencent (i.e. Google/Microsoft tier) who can afford to lose money on AI. And ultimately they are also not sinking 100s of billions in capex, they can't even if they tried due to sanctions. Their financial exposure is magnitude less, i.e. it matters if you're losing 500m a year vs 5 billion per year especially as systemic economic contagion risk - PRC and US bubble sizes as % of economy not the same.
In 6 months TMSC US foundries would grind to a halt without consumables from TW who still has many sole source suppliers. The reason for CONUS TSMC fabs is because that's all US industrial policy can really manage, CHIPS never pretended to be able to reshore the entire semi supply chain (unlike PRC) and until US does, or at least reshores everything sole source off TW, will remain exquisitely vulnerable.
Also TW politicians have objected to notion they'd vaporize their fabs / golden goose. That meme started by US Army War College + Colby who said US should blow up the fabs, as in it shouldn't be a TW decision. Which TW have rebuked said they will defend against US attacks. Also other shenanigans like when US suggest they would paperclip TW semi engineers, and TW basically said there's no way they'd send semi engineers to safety before children. AKA TW not retarded, they know not to toast their golden goose, because golden goose for PRC still gives TW leverage even if TW forced to capitulate. They'd still rather be wealthy semi producers than pine apple farmers under PRC.
TW missiles can't "concentrate" because TW geography = all missile flight paths travels through boost, midcourse and terminal interceptors gauntlet along PRC easter theatre command which probably has the densest IADS in the world. PRC has like 3-4x more interceptors in eastern theater (8-12x more total) than TW has missiles. That's just land based, there's also 1000s of naval picket interceptors. Imagine if all of US patriot batteries in Florida, multiplied by 3, then asking what Cuba can do to saturate. Then add in USN DDGs and the answer is realistically nothing, because the industrial math is brutally lopsided. That's assuming TW gets to coordinate salvo their entire inventory, realistically most TELs would be glassed first, every part of TW is withing 5-7 min of PRC missiles and mlrs, less if fired from strait or loitering munitions, i.e. basically faster than abbreviated TEL setup cycle TW has for their tunnel to launch strike complex.
TW doesn't have any munitions that can remotely breach gravity dam like three gorges, i.e. bunker buster, which even if they did, they wouldn't have survivable platform to deliver it (strategic bombers, too heavy for TEL). US MOP tier 30000kg penetrator munitions isn't designed to crack three gorges, TW missile inventory are like 1500kg, at most they'll inflict scabbing or break exposed components like power infra, lock gates, which is not nothing, but not remotely compromise structural integrity of dam. This not to mention TW missile trajectory is geographically constrained and overflies the densest IADS environments on earth, assuming their TELs are survivable in the first place. They're much better off trying to threaten PRC coastal nuclear, but either way gets them the Gaza treatment.
PRC veto = no algo transfer = bytedance/tiktok US can't be "sold" / total divestiture. New "sale" basically US conceded to PRC JV model, i.e. US companies operating in PRC has local data warehousing requirements, company gets to keep algo and ip, country gets technical custody over data. That's basically extend of thumb on skills PRC had to apply, they're fine with sovereign cloud etc, they weren't with forced divestiture (trying to coerce entire PRC company to flip).
What is the point of medium / long form content when you can get 80% of the dopamine for 5% of the commitment. Most "content" is mediocre, condensed short term doesn't waste your time. Most "content" TLDR down to a couple minutes pretty well, variety doom scrolling is spice of life and all.
Sure, I don't disagree but that isn't what this discussion is about. It's about a lawful publicized request. For microsoft, they don't need any leverages, they can just use a FISA order, they can force you to keep it a secret. Their leverage is federal prison.
PRC built ~550 GW of solar last year, ~300GW domestic, ~250GW export. About 4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in energy flow. Assume 30 year lifespan, everyday OF PRC solar production = ~120 million barrels of oil stock (4mbd * 30 ys) , assume 17% capacity factor = 820Twh/yr using primary energy / equivalent / substitution method of 1 unit of solar = 3 unit of oil @35% work efficiency.
For reference global oil production is ~100 mb/d. Global LNG= ~70 mb/d equivalent. Global coal = ~110 mb/d equivalent. PRC solar effectively brrrintg new emission free oil field every 24 hours that is larger than all global oil producers combined.
PRC solar capacity is like 1100 GW... lots of idle plants, but on paper PRC solar can produce more energy than all global fossil combined. But world (including PRC) can't absorb/plugin/transition that fast. Now consider solar takes PRC like 18 months to build / scale vs 7-10 year lead for oil infra from RoW.
Another point to consider is manufacturing all these panels, which are net carbon sinks, count towards PRC emissions, vs extracting oil/lng where exporters who gets to shift emission accounting onto importers/consumers. IF PRC got credited for ~100 mb/d of fossil displaced via solar (round down for conservative carbon payback), PRC emissions would be completely negated, i.e. PRC solar would avoid like 1.5x-2x more emissions than PRC generates.
Carbonbrief put out a report with a similar theme last July.
They calculated that Chinese green tech exports in 2024 reduced the rest of the world's carbon by 1%.
It's mostly solar (though they calculated EVs and some other stuff too) so assuming 25 years life that would be equivalent to 25% of the world-minus-China's CO2 emissions or about 18%.
So Chinese exports in one year cancel out 2/3rds of their yearly CO2.
PRC pureplay AI only companies has same problems as openAI, that's not the same as huge tech companies like Baidu or Alibaba or Tencent (i.e. Google/Microsoft tier) who can afford to lose money on AI. And ultimately they are also not sinking 100s of billions in capex, they can't even if they tried due to sanctions. Their financial exposure is magnitude less, i.e. it matters if you're losing 500m a year vs 5 billion per year especially as systemic economic contagion risk - PRC and US bubble sizes as % of economy not the same.
reply