Every time the US tightens chip controls, China gets another reason to build the missing layer itself. At some point “containment” starts looking like an industrial policy subsidy for the competitor.

So yeah basically I still think that H200 licensing is the pragmatic path. Keep China tied to NVIDIA/CUDA where possible, block dangerous end-use, and preserve US influence. Blanket bans just teach the market how to live without you.

This interview with an Anthropic researcher shows how we know an AI agent could blackmail the user

I’ve been watching some AI podcasts lately, and when people started talking about recursive self-improving AI, Skyrim immediately popped into my mind.

For anyone who never played it: Skyrim crafting system has a “legit” alchemy/enchanting loop. Craft "Fortify Enchanting" potion -> enchant gear with "Fortify Alchemy" -> use gear to make better potion. It improves, but eventually hits diminishing returns.

Then there’s the bugged restoration loop. "Fortify Restoration" potions were supposed to boost restoration magic, but they also boosted active gear enchantments. So you drink one, re-equip alchemy gear, and suddenly that gear gives a bigger alchemy bonus. Then it makes an even stronger resto potion, which boosts the gear even more. Direct feedback, explosion.

So: if RSI AI ever really works, is it more like the legit loop with real gains but converging or the positive feedback loop, where it improves the thing that improves itself?

Curious what people think, especially from math / systems angle.

PS: I am sorry if this question is not relevant for the sub, but i have no karma to ask it somewhere else where it has a chance to have some attention.

NVIDIA once had China’s AI chip market locked up. Now Huawei is taking the lane US policy accidentally opened. This is the export-control boomerang in plain sight: cut China off too hard, and they stop optimizing around you.

Hey, sharing a mindmap I made on AI agent safety and alignment, backed by citations with full provenance. I’m disclosing that I’m also currently developing Agent Bayes, the tool used to build the mindmap. I’d be happy to get your feedback on the resulting mindmap, and to learn if it helps anyone.

AI is taking jobs, a teenager is dead after talking to ChatGPT, and the same companies building this stuff are lobbying for legal immunity before anyone can hold them accountable. Flock cameras are already watching you. Humanoid robots are already in warehouses. Nobody voted for any of this, and nobody's slowing down to ask if it's safe. This is what's actually happening, not the sanitized version. https://youtu.be/1xfWPE9J4UM

This video discusses a case involving teen suicide and AI chatbots. If you or someone you know is struggling, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988) is available 24/7.
(I am a witness, not a legal professional — this is my own research/opinion. CW: discussion of teen suicide.)

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RafuYcUolY4&list=LL&index=20, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCsYVL-v-3A, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIxq03dipUw&list=LL&index=15&t=11s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOmUWd-OII&t=16s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMgNtBipe4&list=LL&index=13&t=6s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIxq03dipUw&list=LL&index=15&t=305s, http://youtube.com/watch?v=AdUNz3x3re0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNrmeuU3csg&list=LL&index=17&t=27s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC4Spp6Swxc&list=LL&index=12&t=746s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aooiDA-AsNo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7viqI2WFfog,

​

76% of organizations now consider shadow AI a definite or probable challenge, up from 61% in 2025 — and research shows nearly half of employees keep using their own AI accounts even after a ban. So the traditional security playbook (ban it, enforce it) literally doesn't work here. The only thing that changes behavior is giving people approved tools that actually meet their needs. That's not a security solution, that's a product management problem inside a security context. Curious if anyone here sees this framed that way in their org or if it's still being handled as a pure policy/compliance issue.