Nvidia's CEO says it has US approval to sell its H20 AI computer chips in China
'Today, I'm announcing that the U.S. government has approved for us filing licenses to start shipping H20s,' Huang told reporters in Beijing. He noted that half of the world's AI researchers are in China.
Advertisement
'It's so innovative and dynamic here in China that it's really important that American companies are able to compete and serve the market here in China,' he said.
The White House announced in April that it would restrict sales of Nvidia's H20 chips and AMD's MI308 chips to China.
Nvidia had said the tighter export controls would cost the company an extra $5.5 billion.
Huang and other technology leaders have been lobbying President Donald Trump to reverse the restrictions. They argue that such limits hinder U.S. competition in a leading edge sector in one of the world's largest markets for technology.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
7 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Advised Zelensky to Take the Fight to Russia, Senior Ukrainian Official Says
KYIV, Ukraine—President Trump counseled Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to take the war to Russia and asked whether Kyiv was able to hit Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to a senior Ukrainian official familiar with the exchange. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday offered a different account of the call between the two leaders on July 4. Asked about it, Leavitt said Trump 'was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing.' She said he was 'working tirelessly' to stop the war.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
AI Hiring Favors Women Over Equally Qualified Men, Study Finds
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As artificial intelligence takes on a bigger role in corporate hiring — with many companies touting its impartiality — one researcher's findings suggest the technology may be more biased than humans, and is alread favoring women over equally qualified men. David Rozado, an associate professor at the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology and a well-known AI researcher, tested 22 large language models (LLMs)—including popular, consumer-facing apps like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok—using pairs of identical résumés that differed only by gendered names. His findings revealed that every single LLM was more likely to select the female-named candidate over the equally qualified male candidate. "This pattern may reflect complex interactions between model pre-training corpora, annotation processes during preference tuning, or even system-level guardrails for production deployments," Rozado told Newsweek. "But the exact source of the behavior is currently unclear." A Problem With Men? Rozado's findings reveal not just that AI models tend to favor women for jobs over men, but also how nuanced and pervasive those biases can be. Across more than 30,000 simulated hiring decisions, female-named candidates were chosen 56.9 percent of the time — a statistically significant deviation from gender neutrality, which would have resulted in a 50–50 split. When an explicit gender field was added to a CV — a practice common in countries like Germany and Japan — the preference for women became even stronger. Rozado warned that although the disparities were relatively modest, they could accumulate over time and unfairly disadvantage male candidates. "These tendencies persisted regardless of model size or the amount of compute leveraged," Rozado noted. "This strongly suggests that model bias in the context of hiring decisions is not determined by the size of the model or the amount of 'reasoning' employed. The problem is systemic." The models also exhibited other quirks. Many showed a slight preference for candidates who included preferred pronouns. Adding terms such as "she/her" or "he/him" to a CV slightly increased a candidate's chances of being selected. "My experimental design ensured that candidate qualifications were distributed equally across genders, so ideally, there would be no systematic difference in selection rates. However, the results indicate that LLMs may sometimes make hiring decisions based on factors unrelated to candidate qualifications, such as gender or the position of the candidates in the prompt," he said. Rozado, who is also a regular collaborator with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, emphasized that the biggest takeaway is that LLMs, like human decision-makers, can sometimes rely on irrelevant features when the task is overdetermined and/or underdetermined. "Over many decisions, even small disparities can accumulate and impact the overall fairness of a process," he said. However, Rozado also acknowledged a key limitation of his study: it used synthetic CVs and job descriptions rather than real-world applications, which may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of authentic résumés. Additionally, because all CVs were closely matched in qualifications to isolate gender effects, the findings may not reflect how AI behaves when candidates' skills vary more widely. "It is important to interpret these results carefully. The intention is not to overstate the magnitude of harm, but rather to highlight the need for careful evaluation and mitigation of any bias in automated decision tools," Rozado added. AI Is Already Reshaping the Hiring Process Even as researchers debate the biases in AI systems, many employers have already embraced the technology to streamline hiring. A New York Times report this month described how AI-powered interviewer bots now speak directly with candidates, asking questions and even simulating human pauses and filler words. Jennifer Dunn, a marketing professional in San Antonio, said her AI interview with a chatbot named Alex "felt hollow" and she ended it early. "It isn't something that feels real to me," she told the Times. Another applicant, Emily Robertson-Yeingst, wondered if her AI interview was just being used to train the underlying LLM: "It starts to make you wonder, was I just some sort of experiment?" Job seekers attends the South Florida Job Fair held at the Amerant Bank Arena on June 26, 2024 in Sunrise, Florida. More than 50 companies set up booths to recruit people from entry-level to... Job seekers attends the South Florida Job Fair held at the Amerant Bank Arena on June 26, 2024 in Sunrise, Florida. More than 50 companies set up booths to recruit people from entry-level to management. Open jobs include police officers, food service, security, sales reps, technicians, customer service, IT, teacher assistants, insurance agents, and account executives. More Photo byStill, some organizations defend the use of AI recruiters as both efficient and scalable, especially in a world where the ease of online job-searching means open positions often field hundreds if not thousands of applicants. Propel Impact told the Times their AI interviews enabled them to screen 500 applicants this year — more than triple what they managed previously. Rozado, however, warned that the very features companies find appealing — speed and efficiency — can mask underlying vulnerabilities. "Over many decisions, even small disparities can accumulate and impact the overall fairness of a process," he said. "Similarly, the finding that being listed first in the prompt increases the likelihood of selection underscores the importance of not trusting AI blindly." More Research Needed Not all research points to the same gender dynamic Rozado identified. A Brookings Institution study this year found that, in some tests, men were actually favored over women in 51.9 percent of cases, while racial bias strongly favored white-associated names over Black-associated names. Brookings' analysis stressed that intersectional identities, such as being both Black and male, often led to the greatest disadvantages. Rozado and the Brookings team agree, however, that AI hiring systems are not ready to operate autonomously in high-stakes situations. Both recommend robust audits, transparency, and clear regulatory standards to minimize unintended discrimination. "Given current evidence of bias and unpredictability, I believe LLMs should not be used in high-stakes contexts like hiring, unless their outputs have been rigorously evaluated for fairness and reliability," Rozado said. "It is essential that organizations validate and audit AI tools carefully, particularly for applications with significant real-world impact."
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Largest teachers union slams ‘unlawful' cuts to Department of Education after supreme court ruling
The president of the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, slammed the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday for siding with the Trump administration on dismantling the Department of Education. 'Everyone who cares about America's students and public schools should be appalled by the Supreme Court's premature intervention in this case today, which stays preliminary relief ordered by the lower courts. Today's decision does not resolve the underlying merits of Trump's unlawful plan to eliminate the Department of Education,' Becky Pringle said in a statement. Advertisement She added, 'Parents, educators, and community leaders won't be silent as Trump and his allies take a wrecking ball to public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America. We will continue to organize, advocate, and mobilize until all students have the opportunity to attend the well-resourced public schools where they can thrive.' 5 Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, speaks during an immigrant rights protest outside of the Department of Justice headquarters. Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images 5 The president of the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, slammed the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday. 5 Protestors holding signs in front of the U.S. Department of Education building. Advertisement The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to fire hundreds of Department of Education employees, a move that advances President Donald Trump's plans to dismantle the department. The high court's decision in McMahon v. State of New York was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The decision temporarily pauses an order by a lower court judge that had reinstated roughly 1,400 employees at the Department of Education. In March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon laid off half of the department's workforce as part of the Trump administration's broader reduction in government efforts. Later that month, Trump announced in an executive order that he planned to shutter the department altogether. 5 The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to fire hundreds of Department of Education employees. Advertisement 5 The decision temporarily pauses an order by a lower court judge that had reinstated roughly 1,400 employees at the Department of Education. The Supreme Court's order arose from two lawsuits, including one brought by 20 Democratic-led states that challenged the Education Department's layoffs and planned closure. McMahon praised the ruling, vowing that the federal agency can now 'carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to return education back to the states.' Advertisement 'Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,' McMahon said on X. 'While today's ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.'
