Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

While I strongly agree with the blog post and letter, I believe the letter would be more effective if it spent more time explaining how the proposed restrictions will most likely backfire, i.e., put the US in a less advantageous position to defend its dominance in CPU technology with regard to China.<p>No politician or regulator would like to be labelled as someone who favored a foreign competitor country.

Letter in question<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;evo-subsites&#x2F;selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;evo-media-document&#x2F;11.1.23-riscv-letter.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;evo-subsites...</a>

So correct me if I&#x27;m wrong, but you&#x27;ll still be allowed to push public commits to a public RISC-V related repo, but you&#x27;ll need a special government license to resolve issues opened by anyone related to China?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;evo-subsites&#x2F;selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;evo-media-document&#x2F;11.1.23-riscv-letter.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;evo-subsites...</a><p>&quot;Urgent action is needed to prevent U.S. technology and technical know-how from contributing to the PRC’s utilization of this technology.&quot;<p>&quot;the United States should build a robust ecosystem for open-source collaboration among the U.S. and our allies while ensuring the PRC is unable to benefit from that work.&quot;<p>tfw lawyers don&#x27;t understand what &quot;open source&quot; means :facepalm:

China should stop stealing our IP and create their own technology<p>wait no not like that

End of globalisation is coming, ironically forcing countries to invest into their technology stacks like during the cold war, with plenty of 8 and 16 bit computer clones to chose from.

Does anyone know what restrictions have actually been proposed? Media reporting on it is uselessly vague.

Headlines so weird, you have to click...<p>I was thinking to myself, there&#x27;s no way that someone&#x27;s acting like it&#x27;s 1988 again, and we have to embargo this from leaving the country for fear Saddam Hussein will use it to construct a 50 megaflops supercomputer with which to pre-calculate artillery firing solution tables.<p>Then I clicked, and it really is that dumb. Way to go Congress.

Oh noes! The Chinese are using some tech. Better prevent American companies from competing with them!

I imagine both IP and export restrictions on x86 and other processor technology have been instrumental in motivating adoption of RISC-V in China.<p>And I imagine Nvidia export restrictions will accelerate the continued development of alternative technologies for AI&#x2F;ML.

Bunny’s stance would have been reasonable if someone like Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao was in power, but Xi is different.<p>Not only has Xi blocked the West from accessing China’s domestic market, but Xi has essentially helped end globalism and started decoupling with his foolish wolf warrior diplomatic policy and the belligerent nine dash line. Let’s also not forget about Xi’s invasion plans for Taiwan ie we’re likely headed for war <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;plHRRFHZ_f0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;plHRRFHZ_f0</a><p>You cannot ignore those issues if you want people to take your position seriously.

If China&#x27;s military use is the concern here, then it is worth remembering that most weapons systems don&#x27;t contain the most modern chips. CPUs 10 to 20 years old are common.

I believe the reason is more sinister, it’s a rehearsal to ban RISC-V in the future, so only the backdoor-ed chips like Intel&#x2F;AMD are used.

&gt; This has long been a trade-off of American innovation philosophy: we can freely exercise our First Amendment rights to share ideas, creating a vibrant intellectual exchange, even at the risk of others benefiting from reading our textbooks, journals and patents.<p>Sometimes, we have to re-evaluate our positions. We cannot risk supplying our enemies with stuff they can turn around and use as weapons against ourselves any more. The sooner broader society wakes up and realizes that we, as collective Western nations, are <i>at war</i>, the better. It may not be a &quot;conventional&quot; war yet, but that doesn&#x27;t make it less dangerous!

When discussing a highly technical issue such as this you have to be careful to use the correct terminology:<p>This is some dumb shit.

It&#x27;s amazing that the move of RISC-V Foundation to Switzerland (as RISC-V International) was actually called for.<p>Even more amazing is US lawmakers <i>continuing</i> to try &amp; shoot the US in the foot.<p>RISC-V is now globally developed, that ship has sailed. Same for products based on it. The US can&#x27;t prevent its &#x27;proliferation&#x27;. Only reduce the degree to which US entities are part of, and profit from that.<p>Are US lawmakers <i>that</i> dumb? (ok I guess that&#x27;s a rhetorical question).

Site is partially hugged to death. It has a copy of a letter that Andrew ‘bunnie’ Huang sent<p>&gt; Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V<p>&gt; A bipartisan group of 18 lawmakers in the US Congress have recently amplified a request to the White House and the Secretary of Commerce to place restrictions on Americans working with RISC-V (see also the initial request from the Senate) in order to prevent China from gaining dominance in CPU technology.<p>&gt; The request is facially misguided; any restrictions would only serve to reduce American participation in an important emerging technology, while bolstering ARM’s position as an incumbent near-monopoly provider of embedded CPUs.<p>&gt; When the first report came out, I hoped it was just a blip that would go away, but with the broader bi-partisan group asking for restrictions, I felt I could no longer just stand by and watch: I am an active participant in the RISC-V ecosystem. I’m also subject to US law.<p>&gt; I did the one thing any American can do, which is write a letter summarizing my thoughts on the issue, and sending it to the White House, Department of Commerce, and the relevant members of Congress

The numbers aren&#x27;t large, but it&#x27;s worth noting that 7 out of 18 signatories of the original letter received donatations from Intel&#x27;s PAC in 2022 [0]:<p>Mike Gallagher: $6000<p>Marco Rubio: $2500<p>Haley Stevens: $2000<p>Carlos Gimenez: $5000<p>Darin LaHood: $7000<p>Andy Barr: $2000<p>Ashley Hinson: $10000<p>Total: $34500<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.opensecrets.org&#x2F;political-action-committees-pacs&#x2F;intel-corp&#x2F;C00125641&#x2F;candidate-recipients&#x2F;2022?t1-search=Marco&amp;t0-search=Hinson" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.opensecrets.org&#x2F;political-action-committees-pacs...</a>

Bunnie wrote this well by putting the important part right up front: &quot;The request is facially misguided; any restrictions would only serve to reduce American participation in an important emerging technology&quot;.<p>This is a problem the USA experienced (and was widely discussed) during the cold war. It&#x27;s so discouraging to see this self-destructive approach being revived.

Wasn’t RISC-V developed in the US? And the first company to produce chips with this ISA, SiFive is US based too.<p>Why would it make sense to ban it in the US? They literally invented it.

It blows my mind that the US keeps treating China, its biggest trade partner, as an enemy. There is no way that China would ever initiate a war against the US. It feels like, if anything, this insistence on treating China as an enemy <i>increases</i> risk for the US.

The fact that RISC-V jumped to Switzerland after being funded by the US during its development makes me inclined to say screw RISC-V.<p>It also makes RISC-V foreign just as the author complains that ARM is foreign.<p>I think placing restrictions on Americans working with PRC on RISC-V related stuff is a pretty reasonable thing to do.