{"id":161057,"date":"2025-08-06T23:11:29","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T23:11:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/david-reber-cso-of-nvidia-discusses-the-remote-off-buttons-in-ai-chips\/"},"modified":"2025-08-06T23:11:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-06T23:11:31","slug":"david-reber-cso-of-nvidia-discusses-the-remote-off-buttons-in-ai-chips","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/david-reber-cso-of-nvidia-discusses-the-remote-off-buttons-in-ai-chips\/","title":{"rendered":"David Reber, CSO of Nvidia, discusses the remote off buttons in AI chips."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

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<\/a>: demand that last generation GPUs include mechanisms that prevent their initialization<\/strong> if they have been diverted from their authorized destiny. The logic behind this proposal is simple\u2014at least on paper\u2014if a chip cannot start, it cannot be used. But the involvement is much deeper.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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 its voice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

“They don’t have it. They won’t have it”: Nvidia’s Official Position<\/h2>\n

The response was swift. David Reber Jr., Security Director of Nvidia, published a blunt message<\/a>: “Our GPU does not have safety switches<\/strong>. And they should not have them.\u201d Reber defends that integrating such mechanisms into the hardware would be a strategic error, a risk to self-security, and a direct threat to global confidence in American technology.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

“Permanently integrating a ‘Kill Switch’ into a chip is something completely different: a structural failure outside the user’s control and an open invitation to disaster. It is like buying a car and having the dealership keep the remote control of the handbrake, in case one day they decide that you should not drive. That is not a sensible policy. It is an overreaction that would irreversibly damage the economic interests and national security of the United States.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is not an improvised position. For Nvidia, opening the door to remote control functions is equivalent to creating a permanent vulnerability\u2014a weak point that could be exploited by hostile actors.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The context is key to understanding Nvidia’s stance. During the last fiscal year, China represented 13% of the company’s income, amounting to approximately 17 billion dollars<\/strong>. However, those numbers are now at stake. Successive U.S. administrations have hardened chip export restrictions on products like the H100 and A100, citing national security motivations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Even so, these chips continue to arrive in China, many times through unauthorized channels. In that context, some believe the only way to address the root problem is to introduce control at the silicon level.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Chip\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

One of the prominent figures behind the most radical proposal is Bill Foster<\/a>, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois and a former particle physicist. He is not a newcomer to the hardware world; he designed chips during his scientific career and now leads a legislative proposal aiming to impose new technical requirements on manufacturers<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

On May 6, Foster declared that his intention was<\/a> to require U.S. regulators to implement systems that allow tracking chips and prevent their activation if they do not have the corresponding export license. The bill was formally presented on May 15<\/a>. While remote deactivation is not explicitly mentioned, it raises the \u201cimplementation of chip safety mechanisms\u201d as a way to detect cases of smuggling or improper use of advanced circuits.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A Law That Does Not Say Everything, but Hints Almost Everything<\/h2>\n

The project text<\/a> does not go into technical details about how each mechanism should work, but it does mark a clear direction. It states that the chips covered by law\u2014specifically, those subject to export licenses\u2014must include “security mechanisms”<\/strong> capable of helping to detect cases of smuggling or improper use. Moreover, it requires that these systems cannot be deactivated or easily altered.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n \"Nvidia
\n \"Nvidia\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The ambiguity of the text opens opportunities for interpretation but makes clear one intention: that control ceases to depend 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 hand, it knows that losing the Chinese market would be a considerable blow.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Recently, the H200 export was approved as part of a commercial agreement. However, its arrival in the Chinese market has not materialized as expected<\/strong>: there are delays associated with obtaining licenses and the bureaucratic authorization process.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n \"OpenAI\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

While the U.S. discusses the fate of the chips, China continues to advance in the opposite direction: developing its own. The objective is clear and not new: reduce technological dependence on the West, especially in critical components such as GPUs. However, a clear distinction exists between long-term strategy and current reality. As things stand, China still depends on Nvidia chips, particularly amid the global race for artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Images | Nvidia (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>) | Xataka with Gemini 2.5 Flash<\/p>\n

In Xataka | Ten Chinese companies in Chips and AI have allied with a common goal: to put an end to the dominance of Nvidia.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
General News – 2<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 their initialization if they have been diverted from their authorized destiny. The logic behind this proposal is simple\u2014at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":161058,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36399],"tags":[40119,10052,40118,8742,7911,20230,40117,15360],"class_list":["post-161057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology","tag-buttons","tag-chips","tag-cso","tag-david","tag-discusses","tag-nvidia","tag-reber","tag-remote"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161057\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/161058"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}