[ad_1]
This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. Here is a collection past columns.
Many US politicians and technologists believe that America will be better off if the government puts more subsidies into computer chips, which are like the brain or memory of everything from warplanes to refrigerators. Tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer financing proposals are on track, a little unbalanced, through Congress.
One of the main stated goals is to make more computer chips in the United States. This is unusual in two respects: the United States is philosophically helping their favorite industries, and we often think of American innovation as being physically disconnected from where it was made.
Most smartphones and computers are manufactured outside of the US, but most of the brain power and value of these technologies is in that country. There are many factories in China, and we have Apple and Microsoft. This is a great trade for the USA
Today I want to ask basic questions: What are we trying to achieve by making more chips on US soil? Are policymakers and the tech industry taking the most effective steps to achieve these goals?
There are reasonable arguments that the chips are not iPhones and that it would be good for Americans to produce more chips in the US even if it takes years. (Maybe.) But from my conversations with tech and policy experts, it’s clear that government supporters who support the computer chip industry also have scattered ambitions.
Some experts say more US-made computer chips could protect the US from China. military or technology ambitions. Others want it help clear production log jams for cars or to help the US stay on the road cutting edge of scientific research. This military wants to secure chips made in America fighter jets and laser guns.
This is a great hope for government policy, and it may not all be realistic.
“There is a lack of certainty in thought,” he said. Robert D. Atkinson, head of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a research group Supports US government funding for key technologies, including computer chips. (The group receives funding from telecom and technology companies, including US computer chip giant Intel.)
Atkinson told me he supports proposals passed by Congress for government aid for technology research and development and taxpayer subsidies for US chip factories. But he said US policy also risks seeing all domestic technology production as equally important. “Maybe we better do more. solar panels, but I don’t think it’s strategic,” he said.
Atkinson and those I’ve spoken to in the computer chip industry say there are important ways computer chips aren’t like iPhones, and it would be beneficial if more were made on US soil. About 12 percent of all chips Made in the USA
To them, manufacturing expertise depends on technological innovation, and it’s important for America to have sharp skills in computer chip manufacturing.
“We are one of the three countries in the world that can do this” Al Thompsonsaid the head of US government affairs for Intel. “We don’t want to lose that capacity.” (South Korea and Taiwan are two other countries with top chip manufacturing expertise.)
It’s hard to understand how important it is to produce more chips in US factories. I caution that investing taxpayer money into chip factories that take years to roll out products will not fix the epidemic-related chip shortage that has made it harder to buy. Ford F-150s and video game consoles.
Asian factories will also continue to dominate chip manufacturing, no matter what the US government does. If U.S. production rises to 20 percent, future pandemics or a crisis in taiwan It could leave the US economy vulnerable to chip shortages.
What happens to computer chips is part of a broad question in both US policy and our American mentality: What should the US do about a future where technology becomes less American? It is is the future. We need policymakers to ask where this is important, where it isn’t, and where the government should focus its attention to keep the country strong.
Before you go …
-
“The goal is not to win, but to cause chaos and suspicion until there is no real truth left.” My colleagues have a detailed investigation into the Chinese government. providing fees and support for a range of online personalities Those who portray the joyous aspects of life as foreigners in the country and respond to criticism of Beijing’s authoritarian rule and policies. (My colleague Paul Mozur, more in his Twitter thread.)
-
Facebook did an oopsy. Focusing on a future version of the internet, the company now called Meta (Facebook) has recently been calling it the “metaverse”. The nine-year-old Instagram account of an Australian artist was blocked by @metaverse. After contacting the New York Times, the company said it was a mistake and corrected it, Maddison Connaughton reports.
-
Old Man Yang can definitely beat me in Gran Turismo Sport: Sixth Tone, a Chinese technology publication, Older people in China, including the nicknamed Old Man Yang, who fell in love with video games and won online fans for her skills. And The Wall Street Journal spoke Senior teams in Japan Those who play competitive video games known as e-sports. (Subscription required.)
hug this
Here is a tale The adventures of Cosmo, a crow in Oregon who likes hanging out with people and talking (and swearing) at them. (Thanks to my colleague Adam Pasick for sharing this.)
We want to hear from you. Let us know what you think of this newsletter and what else you want us to discover. You can contact us at ontech@nytimes.com.
If you have not yet received this newsletter in your inbox, please register here. You can also read History in technology columns.
[ad_2]
Source link