While to the average person this regulator sounds like he's bullish on national security, to those who know either computer science, engineering, or even tool and die work, he sounds rather naive. In the first place, a ban on selling Nvidia chips to China won't prevent China from acquiring them, and in the second place, selling them chips won't help China make them.
The process of lithography for producing chips is by this time well understood. When I built my lathe from scratch, the most amazing part of the process was that through geometry, through relatively simple and crude tools, I could create a machine capable of greater precision than the tools which made it. A similar principle exists with the lithographic process; it is not as if China doesn't have scientists which understand physics, or is somehow incapable of building their own chip making machines. It is simply not a priority for the communist party. The Chinese are content to forego building their own fabs as long as they can buy the chips from the US. If we stop supplying chips, they will build fabs; if we don't sell them the machines, they will build their own.
And the quip about AI sounds ridiculous to anyone with a computer science degree. AI is not some magic weapon, and it's usefulness is primarily a function of the algorithms employed, not the hardware on which it runs. While Nvidia has done a good job with its graphics cards, the fact remains that any computer engineering grad could produce a faster AI chip with a modern FPGA. Generally speaking, purpose-built chips will always outperform general computing platforms every time. Any use of AI in a weapons platform ( with national security implications) would be built around a purpose built platform, rather than a gaming one. It just so happens that the same processes useful for game rendering are also useful in the AI algorithms du jour, but additional research could nullify that. There are AI algorithms more efficient than massive matrix operations, but the latter are more easily trained, whereas the former are more useful in time sensitive applications (such as weapons systems). Giving China gaming chips won't improve their weapons capability, but getting Chinese teenagers addicted to video games will prevent them from developing the muscle mass and visual acuity required of a soldier.
In the end, this regulator is making the textbook case for libertarianism: his regulations sound good on the surface, but when one investigates the consequences of his actions, it becomes apparent that the regulation serves neither the greater public interest, nor the interest of the parties regulated. However, it well serves the interests of a social climbing bureaucrat with political ambitions who seeks to exert power over others.