US puts limits on Huawei's AI manufacturing
Chinese technology company Huawei is restricted to developing no more than 200,000 advanced AI chips in 2025, according to U.S. exports controls official. Though the number is below the company's demand, there is still concerns within the U.S. that China is quickly catching up to their capabilities.
Since 2019, a slew of U.S. export rules aimed at curbing China's technological and military advancements have limited access by Huawei and other Chinese firms to high-end U.S. chips and the equipment needed to produce them. The issue has become a flashpoint in U.S.-China relations.
Facing those restrictions, Huawei aims to ship its Ascend 910C AI chips to Chinese customers as an alternative to those made by the United States' Nvidia, the global leader.
'Our assessment is that Huawei Ascend chip production capacity for 2025 will be at or below 200,000 and we project that most or all of that will be delivered to companies within China', Jeffrey Kessler, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security at the Commerce Department, told a congressional hearing.
Kessler said that the U.S. should not take comfort in the figure.
'China is investing huge amounts to increase its AI chip production, as well as the capabilities of the chips that it produces. So, it's critical for us not to have a false sense of security, to understand that China is catching up quickly', he told the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia subcommittee.
White House AI Czar David Sacks said on Tuesday that China was only 3-6 months behind the U.S. in AI. The White House later said he was referring to China's AI models, adding that Chinese AI chips are one to two years behind their U.S. counterparts.
Huawei's CEO Ren Zhengfei told Chinese state media on recently that the company's chips were a generation behind those of U.S. competitors, but that it invests more than $25 billion annually to improve performance.
Source: Reuters
Image Credit: Huawei
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Mahmoud Khalil: US won't release Columbia protester despite successful appeal
The Trump administration on Friday said it has no plans to release Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil after successfully appealing a recent court ruling. A federal judge this week had ruled that the White House could not use US foreign policy interests to justify its detention of Mr Khalil, whose supporters hoped would be released on Friday. "The Court did not order Respondents to release Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil," US Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a last-minute appeal, implying they could detain Mr Khalil on a different basis. "An alien like Khalil may be detained during the pendency of removal proceedings regardless of the charge of removability," they added, explaining that in their view, Mr Khalil had to convince the Department of Homeland Security to release him, and that he had failed to do so. The DOJ also asked that if federal District Judge Michael Farbiarz insisted on releasing the Columbia University student, they could pursue other legal options to keep him detained. The judge acquiesced to the DOJ's arguments. "The Respondents have now represented that the Petitioner is being detained on another, second charge," he wrote, adding that Mr Khalil retains the option of requesting bail through an application to an immigration judge presiding over his case. On Wednesday, Judge Farbiarz said Mr Khalil's legal team had shown that his continued detention was causing irreparable harm to his career, his family and his right to free speech. Mr Khalil, who played a prominent role in pro-Palestine campus protests last year, is being detained in Louisiana after his March arrest. The State Department revoked his green card under a little-used provision of immigration law granting the Secretary of State the power to seek the deportation of any non-citizen whose presence in the country is considered adverse to US foreign policy interests. The White House has accused Mr Khalil of disseminating Hamas propaganda during the protests. A judge in Louisiana previously ruled that the US government could proceed with efforts to deport him. He was denied furlough in late April to attend the birth of his first child. His arrest was part of a Trump administration crackdown on so-called anti-Semitism on university campuses. The administration has deemed pro-Palestine protests to fall under this umbrella. Mr Khalil has described himself as a political prisoner and said his arrest was indicative of anti-Palestinian racism in the US.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Coptic Orphans has been empowering Egyptian children for 40 years
The US-based non-profit is in the top 10% in the country in terms of size
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
US ambiguity shouldn't stop work on a two-state solution
On Friday, it was reported that next week's planned UN conference in New York to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict had been postponed following Israel's military strike on Iran. Originally, the meeting had been envisioned as an opportunity for several UN member states – including some permanent UN Security Council members – to recognise Palestinian statehood. That ambitious agenda has apparently been scaled back, however, with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres now indicating that the objective is 'to keep the two-state solution alive'. Not surprisingly, Washington won't attend the now-postponed UN confab. It's not that US President Donald Trump necessarily opposes Palestinian statehood. Rather, it seems his administration is largely disinterested. The conflict is just too time-consuming and intractable. During his trip to Riyadh last month, the President abjured from discussion of two states. Mr Trump didn't explicitly rule out the formula but instead talked about 'a future of safety and dignity' for the Palestinian people. In 2020, however, during his first term, the President advocated for a two-state solution in his much-maligned peace plan. Alas, the Palestinians rejected the Trump proposal before the Israelis had a chance to do so. Still, the fact is that every US president since Bill Clinton has supported the two-state solution, at least rhetorically. Mr Trump hasn't articulated his current position on Palestinian statehood. Recently, the administration's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, indicated that the US no longer backed the project. His statement was quickly walked back by the State Department spokesman, who said Mr Huckabee 'speaks for himself'. The current ambiguity of administration policy contrasts with that of George W Bush, the last Republican president. During the second intifada, the Bush administration conditionally backed Palestinian statehood. In his June 24, 2002, Rose Garden speech, he said: 'If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.' This was notable in making clear that not only Israel, but also the Palestinians have obligations if a Palestinian state were to come into existence. In that same speech, Mr Bush pledged that the US, along with the EU and other international organisations, would oversee governance, financial and judicial reforms, help to create a 'working democracy', and increase humanitarian assistance 'to relieve Palestinian suffering'. In 2007, Mr Bush convened the Israelis, Palestinians and 40 countries in Annapolis to end the 'bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict'. To be sure, the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, had an impact on Mr Trump's perspective on the immediate feasibility of a Palestinian state. That day, and the nearly two years of war in Gaza that have followed, soured already-sceptical Israelis and Palestinians on the notion of peace and compromise – traditional prerequisites for statehood. Mr Trump probably doesn't see this moment as conducive for advancing the peace process. At the same time, his second term has been characterised by transactionalism, an emphasis on burden-sharing, an aversion – as he articulated in Riyadh – to 'nation-building' and a strong preference to local solutions to regional problems. The President is looking for quick foreign policy and economic wins and for partners willing to assume responsibility for solving thorny problems. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Palestine, Mr Bush was a 'nation-builder', committed to promoting democracy and American values abroad. Not only did he pledge US technical support and financial assistance to Palestinians, but his administration also helped engineer the appointment of a technocratic, non-corrupt prime minister to usher in reforms. Mr Trump opposes this type of US engagement abroad. His focus on wins explains why his first planned foreign visit was to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. The President was seeking investment deals with partners to benefit the US economy, rather than discussions about further financial, political and military commitments for Washington in the Middle East. Along these lines, Mr Trump's most successful meetings to date appear to be those in which a foreign head of state offers to do something for the US instead of asking something of Washington. To wit, King Abdullah of Jordan's Oval Office meeting in February concluded successfully after he proposed bringing sick Gazan children to Amman for treatment. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's didn't end so well. The bottom line is that the Palestine-Israel conflict offers no obvious wins to the President. In lieu of significant diplomatic investment in an improbable peace process, the Trump administration will remain narrowly focused on the urgent and important short-term goal of a Gaza ceasefire and the return of the hostages held by Hamas. Many Middle East governments are applauding Mr Trump's new approach, especially his criticism and rejection of western states 'giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs'. At the same time, there is clearly plenty of disappointment in the region with the US policy on Gaza. For better or worse, however, this is unlikely to change anytime soon. The bottom line is that the Palestine-Israel conflict offers no obvious wins to US President Donald Trump Which brings us back to the UN conference on the two-state solution. Notwithstanding signs that Mr Trump may be frustrated with the Israeli government's refusal to end the war in Gaza, expectations that his administration will pressure Israel into peace talks are misplaced. Mr Trump may eventually press harder for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to wrap up the campaign – Gaza is undermining prospects of enlarging the Abraham Accords – but he is not going to deliver the Israelis to the negotiating table right now. There will be no Annapolis II during this administration. As Mr Trump himself likes to point out, he is the antithesis of Mr Bush. The Trump administration's reaction to the conference, when it takes place, will be shaped by the meeting's outcome. Reiterating old, tired diplomatic resolutions and embracing symbolic recognitions will be met with antipathy – or at best apathy – in Washington. Alternatively, a meeting could produce a series of tangible steps outlining not only Israeli obligations, but also what Palestinians need to do. Even more importantly, the European and Arab states could put skin in the game and commit to the post-war diplomatic and financial heavy lifting, including direct engagement to ensure that the Palestinians can be an effective partner in future diplomacy. If this is the outcome of a rescheduled UN meeting, a reticent US administration might be encouraged to engage. The war in Gaza has gone on far too long. It would be a shame if such a high-level international meeting – like the last Middle East Peace Summit in 2017 hosted by then-French president Francois Hollande – failed to deliver a workable plan for a better way forward for Palestinians and Israelis.
