Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the security risks associated with the H20 chip from Nvidia, particularly focusing on the potential for backdoors and the implications of U.S. government policies regarding chip exports to China [3][4][24]. Group 1: Security Risks and Backdoors - The National Internet Information Office of China recently addressed Nvidia regarding security risks related to the H20 chip, suggesting concerns over potential backdoors [3]. - Nvidia's response emphasized that the chip does not contain backdoors, referencing the historical "Clipper chip" incident as a cautionary tale [4][6]. - A recent U.S. legislative proposal led by Congressman Bill Foster aims to mandate U.S. chip companies to incorporate backdoors in export-controlled chips, indicating a shift in policy towards more overt government control [8][10]. Group 2: Technical Aspects of Backdoors - Backdoors can be categorized into hardware and software types, with hardware backdoors being physical circuits left during design or manufacturing, while software backdoors involve implanted instructions in software [11][12]. - The H20 chip's power management module could theoretically implement a remote shutdown feature by embedding a circuit that triggers under specific conditions, such as usage time or environmental factors [14][15]. - The potential for software-based backdoors exists through updates to the CUDA ecosystem, which could allow for tracking and data collection functionalities [16][17]. Group 3: U.S. Government Control Mechanisms - The U.S. government has proposed a "chip governance mechanism" to coordinate chip design and production, ensuring compliance with national security requirements [19][20]. - This mechanism includes features such as license locking, tracking, usage monitoring, and usage restrictions, which could effectively control the deployment of chips like the H20 [20][23]. - Reports indicate that Nvidia's AI chips already possess many of the functionalities required for this governance mechanism, raising concerns about their safety and reliability for foreign markets [21][23]. Group 4: Performance and Environmental Concerns - The H20 chip is deemed not only unsafe but also technologically inferior, with only about 20% of the performance of its standard counterpart, the H100, and a 41% reduction in GPU core count [27]. - Environmental efficiency is also a concern, as the H20's energy efficiency ratio is approximately 0.37 TFLOPS/W, failing to meet the required 0.5 TFLOPS/W for energy-efficient GPUs [28]. - Given its lack of safety, technological advancement, and environmental compliance, the H20 chip is not considered a viable option for consumers [29][30].