David

What if an artificial intelligence chip could not come on if it is in the wrong place? That is the idea that begins to circulate strongly in Washington: demand that last generation GPUs include mechanisms that prevent its initialization If they have been diverted from their authorized destiny. The logic behind this proposal is simple – at least on paper -: If a chip cannot start, it cannot be used. But the involvement is much deeper. It is no secret that the United States wants to avoid at all costs that this technology ends up promoting Chinese arms development, and some legislators believe that control must be integrated directly into hardware. In that context, Nvidia, one of the main global manufacturers, has raised the voice. “They don’t have it. They won’t have it”: Nvidia’s official position The answer was swift. David reber Jr., Security Director of Nvidia, published a blunt message: “Our GPU does not have safety switches. And they should not have them. ”Reber defends that integrating such mechanisms into the hardware would be a strategic error, a risk of self -security and a direct threat to global confidence in American technology. “Permanently integrating a ‘Kill Switch’ into a chip is something completely different: a structural failure outside the user control and an invitation open to disaster. It is like buying a car and that the concessionaire is left with the remote control of the hand brake, in case one day you decide that you should not drive. That is not a sensible policy. It is an overreaction that would irreversibly damage the national interests and national security of the United States. It is not an improvised position. For Nvidia, opening the door to remote control functions is equivalent to creating permanent vulnerability, a weak point that could be exploited by hostile actors. The context is key to understanding the movement of Nvidia. During the last fiscal year, China represented 13% of company’s income, about 17,000 million dollars. However, those numbers are at stake. The successive US administrations have hardening chips export restrictions such as H100 either A100alleging national security motifs. Even so, Those chips continue to arrive in Chinamany times through unauthorized channels. And before that scenario, there are those who believe that the only way to cut the root problem is to introduce control at the silicon level. One of the proper names behind the most radical proposal is Bill FosterDemocratic congressman by Illinois and former particle. He is not a newcomer to the hardware world: he designed chips during his scientific stage and now leads a legislative proposal that I am looking formpon new technical requirements for manufacturers. Last May 6, Foster declared that his intention was Require US regulators the implementation of systems that allow tracking chips and avoiding their implementation if they do not have the corresponding export license. The bill was formally presented on May 15. Although remote deactivation does not explicitly mention, it raises the “implementation of chips safety mechanisms” as a way to detect cases of smuggling or improper use of advanced circuits. A law that does not say everything, but it hints almost everything THE PROJECT TEXT It does not come into technical details about how each mechanism should work, but it does mark a clear direction. It states that the chips covered by law – that is, those subject to export licenses— They must include “security mechanisms” able to help detect cases of smuggling or improper use. In addition, it requires that these systems cannot be deactivated or easily altered. The ambiguity of the text opens margin for interpretations, but makes clear an intention: that the control stops depending only on customs and begins to be integrated into the silicon itself. In any case, Nvidia’s position is not simple. On the one hand, it must comply with the restrictions imposed by the United States. On the other, he knows that losing the Chinese market would be a huge blow. Recently, H20 export was approved as part of a commercial agreement. However, its arrival to the Chinese market It has not materialized as expected: There are delays associated with obtaining licenses and the bureaucratic authorization process. While in the US it is discussed how to control the fate of the chips, China continues to advance in the opposite direction: develop their own. The objective is clear and not new: reduce the technological dependence of the West, especially in critical components such as GPUs. But one thing is the long -term strategy and another the current reality. And the reality is that China, for the moment, continues to need Nvidia chips, especially in full global career for artificial intelligence. Images | Nvidia (1, 2, 3) | Xataka with Gemini 2.5 Flash In Xataka | Ten Chinese companies in Chips and IA have allied with a common goal: to put an end to the domain of Nvidia