The door looks closed. Everyone can see it. But over time, I have learned that many closed doors are not locked. They are simply unattended. No one is inside waiting to respond to a knock. In such moments, knocking endlessly is an exercise in frustration. What is required is a push.

Life has many of these doors. Careers. Markets. Opportunities. We stand outside, knocking politely, hoping someone powerful will open. Often, nothing happens, not because the answer is “no,” but because no one is listening.

There is a difference between a knock and a push.

“Sir, may I review this work for you?” is a knock. The answer may be silence or a polite dismissal.

“Sir, this is my review of the work” is a push. Suddenly, you are inside the room.

A push demonstrates value. It collapses distance. It removes the burden of decision from the gatekeeper. Markets reward action, not permission-seeking. Power rarely opens doors; it responds to utility.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the easiest way to get the attention of the powerful is not to ask for help, but to help them win. When you contribute to the growth of an empire, you earn a tent within it. The rich do not open doors for people, they open doors for leverage. Knocking is emotional. Pushing is strategic.

Simply, the best way to get help from the rich is finding a way to help them make more money! And that means you PUSH: “Chairman, with my understanding of this industry and technology vectors, here is a 5-page outlook for CoyA”. He or she reads that, and will then connect you to the MD or CEO or Director. Right there, you are IN.

China has authorized three of its largest technology firms—ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent—to purchase Nvidia’s high-performance H200 AI chips, signaling a careful balancing act between meeting domestic AI demand and promoting homegrown semiconductor development.

According to sources familiar with the matter, who spoke to Reuters, the approvals cover more than 400,000 units, though the licenses are conditional, and exact terms are still being finalized. The news follows Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s recent visit to China, during which he engaged with regulators and company executives.

While the U.S. had already cleared Nvidia to export the H200 to China, Beijing’s approval remained the key barrier. Chinese regulators appear intent on limiting the amount of foreign technology entering the country without undermining domestic innovation, highlighting the strategic importance of the H200 in global AI development.

The approvals come with significant caveats. Chinese firms have yet to convert them into purchase orders, and sources said the licenses may include requirements to purchase domestic chips alongside imported H200 units. Previous reports suggested Beijing could enforce quotas to ensure foreign semiconductors complement, rather than replace, domestic production.

This is a clear signal that China intends to nurture its own semiconductor ecosystem even as it accelerates AI capabilities among its top internet companies.

Other firms remain in a queue for future approvals, suggesting a phased approach designed to prioritize the largest players while maintaining regulatory oversight. Chinese customs recently blocked H200 chips from entering the country pending approval, emphasizing the government’s careful control of the supply chain. Meanwhile, domestic companies have collectively placed orders exceeding two million H200 chips, far beyond Nvidia’s inventory, underscoring the intense demand for high-performance AI hardware.

The H200 represents a major leap in AI computing power. Delivering roughly six times the performance of Nvidia’s H20 chip, it allows firms to train and deploy large-scale generative AI models, process massive datasets, and run AI services at speeds previously unattainable.

While Chinese firms such as Huawei now produce chips that can rival the H20, they remain significantly behind the H200 in raw computational throughput. This gap has made controlled access to Nvidia chips both a practical necessity and a policy tool for Beijing.

From a strategic standpoint, the H200 approvals are a rare instance where U.S. and Chinese policy goals temporarily align. U.S. export controls were designed to restrict China’s access to leading-edge AI hardware, but the conditional approvals indicate a recognition by Beijing that top domestic AI players require state-of-the-art chips to remain competitive internationally.

Analysts suggest that selective imports for major companies will accelerate AI innovation while maintaining pressure on domestic semiconductor firms to close the technology gap.

China’s Domestic AI Chip Drive

Beijing’s cautious approach is part of a broader push to strengthen domestic semiconductor capabilities. Over the past decade, Chinese authorities have invested heavily in AI chip startups and state-owned ventures, seeking to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. Even so, domestic chips remain behind in performance at the cutting edge of AI workloads, especially for large generative models and high-throughput inference tasks.

The approvals also incentivize domestic companies to accelerate innovation. Conditional purchases of foreign chips effectively create a hybrid ecosystem, where high-performance imported hardware supports immediate AI growth, while domestic chips are developed and deployed in parallel. Over time, this strategy could reduce China’s dependency on U.S.-made components, aligning with the country’s long-term industrial policy goals.

Implications for Global AI Competition

The Nvidia H200 approvals have significant ripple effects for the global AI and semiconductor landscape. China’s top firms, with access to these chips, can compete more effectively with U.S. rivals like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google. At the same time, U.S. companies supplying cutting-edge hardware gain a lucrative market, albeit one constrained by Beijing’s regulatory conditions.

The approvals represent both an opportunity and a challenge for Nvidia. This is because Chinese demand for the H200 underscores the company’s dominant position in high-end AI chips. Also, the conditional nature of the approvals and potential bundling requirements introduces uncertainty in forecasting sales and supply chain management. With over two million units ordered by domestic firms, demand far exceeds supply, highlighting the tightness of the AI memory and compute market.

The approvals also underpin how semiconductor supply chains have become a central geopolitical issue. The U.S. aims to maintain technological leadership while limiting China’s access to top-tier chips, while China balances the need for competitiveness with the desire to grow its domestic industry. The result is a controlled, highly strategic flow of technology that could reshape AI development timelines, commercial competition, and cross-border technology cooperation.

The unfolding situation sets the stage for a new phase in the U.S.-China AI competition. Conditional imports of H200 chips enable immediate growth for top Chinese AI firms while reinforcing the government’s emphasis on domestic semiconductor development.

But China’s hybrid strategy—allowing conditional foreign imports while fostering domestic innovation—is likely to continue as both a safeguard and an accelerant for AI growth.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has issued a blunt warning to his peers in the artificial intelligence industry over their perception of the technology and attitude toward it.

In his warning, Amodei challenged his peers to dismiss public anxiety about AI at [your] peril, or risk triggering a political and social backlash that could reshape the sector in far harsher ways than many executives expect.

“You can’t just go around saying we’re going to create all this abundance, a lot of it is going to go to us, and we’re going to be trillionaires, and no one’s going to complain about that,” Amodei said in an interview with Axios. “Look, you’re going to get a mob coming for you if you don’t do this in the right way.”

The comments followed the publication of Amodei’s 19,000-word essay, The Adolescence of Technology, a sweeping meditation on how artificial intelligence could transform economies, politics, and social contracts. In it, Amodei argues that AI should be treated not as just another productivity tool, but as a “serious civilizational challenge” on par with industrialization or the advent of nuclear power.

At the center of his argument is a stark forecast about wealth concentration. Amodei openly predicts that AI will create unprecedented levels of economic output and efficiency, but that much of this new value will accrue to a narrow set of companies and individuals who control the most powerful models, data, and infrastructure. In his telling, the emergence of trillionaires is not a rhetorical flourish but a plausible outcome of AI-driven markets.

That prospect, he argues, makes traditional political assumptions about taxation and redistribution obsolete.

“I don’t think this is the tax policies of old,” Amodei said. “This is for a world where people are trillionaires.”

While Amodei stops short of proposing a specific framework, his essay suggests that new forms of taxation may need to be either broadly applied or explicitly targeted at AI companies. The alternative, he warns, is not the absence of redistribution, but the arrival of poorly designed, reactionary policies driven by public anger once the scale of inequality becomes politically impossible to ignore.

His intervention sets him apart from many technology leaders who emphasize AI’s potential to lower costs, boost growth, and raise living standards, often downplaying the distributional consequences. Amodei does not dispute the promise of abundance. Instead, he frames the central question as who ultimately benefits from it.

In both the essay and the interview, he urges policymakers to act early, not only on taxation but also on transparency and governance. He says he has advised lawmakers to push for stronger AI transparency laws, which would give regulators and the public clearer insight into how powerful systems are trained and deployed.

He has also backed continued restrictions on the export of advanced AI chips to China, arguing that controlling access to compute remains a key lever in managing global AI competition and security risks.

Amodei’s tone reflects his reputation as one of the industry’s more cautious voices. Often described as holding a “doomer” outlook, he has long emphasized existential and systemic risks from advanced AI. Yet he is careful to distinguish between what he sees as misdirected fears and what he considers the real stakes.

He dismisses claims that data centers are draining water supplies, saying they “don’t use that much water,” and characterizes anxiety over rising electricity bills as understandable but secondary.

“I think in the long run, it’s not about power bills,” he said. “It’s about enormous abundance, and whether they get their piece of the abundance.”

That framing places Amodei’s warning squarely in the realm of political economy rather than science fiction. His concern is less about machines turning hostile than about societies fracturing if AI-driven gains accrue too narrowly, leaving large segments of the population feeling excluded from a transformation they were promised would benefit everyone.

Amodei’s message adds pressure on both policymakers and industry leaders to confront uncomfortable questions early, especially as governments around the world scramble to regulate AI. In his view, ignoring those questions risks turning today’s optimism about AI into tomorrow’s backlash, with consequences that could be far more disruptive than any carefully designed reform.