Last week, Jensen Huang said that China is “nanoseconds behind” the US in chipmaking. Is he right? Today, Chris McGuire joins ChinaTalk for a US-China AI hardware net assessment. Chris spent a decade as a civil servant in the State Department, serving as Deputy Senior Director for Technology and National Security on the NSC during the Biden administration and back at State for the initial months of Trump 2.0.

Today, our conversation covers:

• Huawei vs Nvidia, and whether China can compete with US AI chip production,

• Signs that chip export controls are working,

• Why Jensen is full of it when he says China is “nanoseconds behind”

• What sets AI chips apart from other industries China has indigenized,

• How the US has escalation dominance in a trade war with China, and the significance of BIS’s 50% rule,

• Chris’s advice for young professionals, including why they should still consider working in government.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

Math vs Headlines

Jordan Schneider: When thinking about AI hardware between China and America — or the global friends manufacturing ecosystem — what are the relevant variables?

Chris McGuire: You’ve got separate production ecosystems. There’s the US production ecosystem that is largely designed in the United States and manufactured largely in Taiwan. Then there’s the Chinese AI ecosystem, especially for AI chips, because we’ve separated them through regulations. Chinese AI chips are made in China. They’re not made at TSMC anymore; they’re designed in China. We’re talking about two separate ecosystems.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the quantity of chips they can make and the quality of those chips. The important thing here is what matters. There are a number of variables, but the key factor is the aggregate amount of computing power. You can aggregate large numbers of worse chips to a point — not like Pentium II chips, but assuming you’re talking about reasonably sophisticated AI chips, you can aggregate large numbers of them to produce very large amounts of computing power. What matters is the aggregate quantity of computing power, which is a function of quality times quantity of the chips.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s start with quality, because we had some interesting news come out of Huawei over the past week. Alongside Alibaba, they announced their roadmap for their AI accelerators over the next few years. It’s interesting because there are numbers attached to what they’re promising their engineers and customers that you can then compare to what Nvidia has told its customers and investors. What was your read on what Huawei is projecting on the quality side to be able to do over the coming years?

Chris McGuire: There’s a lot of hullabaloo around this announcement. Huawei was projecting out to 2028 and saying they’re going to make all these great AI chips. But actually, a lot of the coverage didn’t dig into the details of the announcement that much. When you do that, especially when you compare it to Nvidia, AMD, or other American companies, you see that they’re stalled. This makes sense because they’re probably stalled at the 7-nanometer node, which means they’re not going to benefit from increasing transistor density in the ways that ours are. They have to find other ways to make their chips better, and that’s very hard. There’s a huge avenue of quality improvement where they’re stalled out.

To give you an idea — their best chip today is the Ascend 910C, which is two 910B processors that are packaged together into a single chip. On paper, that has around the performance on paper of an H100, though a little worse. There’s a lot of reason to believe that, in terms of actual performance, it performs quite a bit worse. But if we’re looking at the stated teraflops of the chip and also the memory bandwidth, it’s around the same, a little bit worse.

Given that, the question is where they go from here. The interesting thing is their roadmaps for the chips are coming out. Keep in mind, the H100 was a chip that came out three years ago, and the best Nvidia chip now is about four times as powerful as that. If you look at where their roadmap goes, they won’t produce a chip that’s better than their best chip today until the end of 2027. The chips they’re making next year are going to be actually lower in terms of performance and lower in terms of memory bandwidth — at least one of them will be — than the 910C.

There could be some technical reasons for that. It could be that they’re moving to a one-die rather than two, so maybe they have one die that is slightly better than the 910B die. There could be other reasons for that. We don’t know how many 910Bs were made at SMIC. We know that a lot of them were made at TSMC and illegally smuggled in, which is a longstanding enforcement issue — there was a big problem there. We know that, but we don’t know how many were made at SMIC. Maybe a lot more of them were made at TSMC than we think, which would be bad from an enforcement perspective and pose a strategic problem. But from a question of what SMIC’s capacity looks like going forward, that would be good news for the United States. It means they’re struggling to make chips. Again, we don’t know that, but it’s a possibility.

The key takeaway is China’s not going to make a chip as good as the H100 until 2027 — late 2027, Q4 2027 — so they’ll be five years behind at that point.

Meanwhile, if you look at Nvidia’s roadmap, the chip they’ll make in Q3 2027 is projected to be 26 times the performance of the Huawei chip they’ll release the same year. What we’re seeing is a huge performance gap. There’s a big performance gap right now — probably around 4x between our best chip and their best chip. Based on the stated roadmaps of Nvidia and Huawei, that’s stated to increase by a factor of six or seven over the next two years. That’s significant.

Jordan Schneider: The Huawei fanboys would come back at you, Chris, and say, “Chips, who needs them anyway? We’re talking about racks and the Huawei AI CloudMatrix. Huawei’s got some optical magic to take their chips, and even though they’re not as power performant, we’ll dam up some new rivers and figure that out on the backend.”

From a quality perspective, how much can you make up the gap, abstracting up one level from chip to system?

Chris McGuire: There’s a big question of how much you can aggregate chips together. When we were doing this analysis in the government in 2024 at the NSC when I was last there, and also in the analysis I was doing at the State Department earlier this year, the operating assumption was that there’s not a cost to aggregation. There could be some, but it’s difficult to model. Frankly, that seems to be something that the Chinese could overcome. I don’t doubt that they’re making good improvements on the CloudMatrix system.

But the key thing there is, number one, we always assumed that they would be able to aggregate the chips without any loss. The lack of loss is not that surprising. But number two, what matters is how many racks can you make. It doesn’t matter how many chips you can put in a rack if you can’t make that many racks. It comes down to the production quantity question. If they’re putting 15,000 chips in a rack but can only make four racks, then it doesn’t give them that much advantage.

Jordan Schneider: It’s fair to say that there are other design firms in China making AI chips, but we can round them down to zero. No one is going to be doing stuff dramatically better than Huawei anytime soon. With that in mind, let’s turn to the quantity side of the ledger. Where do you want to start us, Chris?

Chris McGuire: This is an area where there is some fierce debate publicly. The US Dept. of Commerce said Huawei can only make 200,000 chips this year. Many others say they could make millions of chips this year. There’s legitimate uncertainty here. Personally, if the government put out a number, there’s probably good reason for that. But let’s entertain the uncertainty.

The number of chips they can make is a function of what their yield is on the fabrication, what the yield is on the packaging, and their allocation of AI chips to other 7-nanometer needs — smartphone chips, et cetera — where there’s huge production. They do have a huge interest in having a domestic smartphone industry. We’ve seen that they make over 50 million smartphone chips a year. When you combine all that, the question is: how many can they actually make?

My takeaway from Huawei’s roadmap is that because they are not getting significant scaling advantages on chip quality — which again makes sense given they’re not advancing in node — and they also face other significant constraints that we haven’t talked about yet on HBM, which they’d have to supply domestically, they’re more or less stuck on chip quality and advancing very slowly. They have to massively ramp production quantity in order to compete with the United States.

It’s unknown where they are right now, but let’s say that they’re 10x behind us. It could be closer to 50 to 100x. If the gap between us is then increasing by a factor of six or seven over the next two years, they’re going to have to make up 60 to 70x times production — assuming they’re at 10x — to reach our level of aggregate compute capability. That’s probably impossible. The quantity that they would need to scale to is so high that it presents significant strategic problems.

Jordan Schneider: This is the key distinction that folks don’t price in when they try to make the EV or solar or even telecom analogy. You have the entire weight of global capital now pouring into Nvidia chips manufactured with TSMC. That isn’t the same as with Nortel and Ericsson, or Ford not caring about EVs, or solar companies barely existing in US manufacturing. We are ramping on both a quality and quantity perspective at a truly world-historic scale.

It’s not that China is competing with a zombie industry in the West or something that China has identified as the future that the West hasn’t. Huawei and SMIC are having to compete with the flagship of global capitalism at the moment. While having the challenge — there are loopholes, there are challenges with the export control regime — the fact that you are not allowed to get tailwinds from TSMC anymore, or there are hiccups in what tools you are and aren’t allowed to buy, makes it a tall order to replicate all this domestically at scale when you are competing with the rest of the world as a collective unit.

Chris McGuire: That’s exactly right. It is not all those industries where they’ve been able to leapfrog in production or where we have ceded our interest to China. This is the linchpin of the global economy right now. Not only do they have to catch up from way behind, but they also have to do it without the equipment that we’re using. The equipment that we’re using, to be clear, that the Chinese don’t have — these are the most sophisticated machines that humans have ever made.

There’s a logical argument here: “Hey, China’s good at indigenizing stuff.” They are. They’re great at it. We’ve seen this in industry after industry.

But this is the single hardest thing on earth for them to indigenize, because the tools that they have to use to make the chips are the thing that they can’t access.

Those are the most complicated machines on earth. They could do everything — it’s logically possible they could indigenize everything on earth except for an EUV machine, not to mention many of the other tools that are also sophisticated and used in the production process. That’s why this is a unique sector.

We have to be on guard because it is super important. It is the foundation of US technological supremacy. It’s an area where we should take few risks, because if this one goes away, a lot of other things follow from there and it becomes problematic. But we are protecting it decently right now, and we should make sure we have 100% confidence in that. But I don’t see the numbers here — the Huawei chip design numbers or their production numbers — and think there’s about to be an all-out competition where they’re going to equal our companies and we’re going to be on equal footing globally, competing for markets around the world. When you do the math and look at it, that doesn’t become a realistic possibility.

They will be able to produce significant numbers of chips, but not enough to be able to meet domestic demand for AI, given that the compute demands for AI are also increasing so rapidly. To understand this, you have multiple exponentials working at the same time. You have exponentials in terms of chip design getting better. There’s exponentials in terms of production capacity, although that one’s more linear. And then there’s also exponentials in terms of compute demand. It’s very hard for China to make up all of those simultaneously, which is good news. That’s great for us.

The fact that there’s so many headlines celebrating the breakthroughs — it’s all relative to where they are. Look at the Bloomberg headline yesterday that said Huawei is going to make 600,000 Ascend chips next year and that’s going to be double their production. This shows that they’re doubling production and they’re competing. That means that they’re making 300,000 chips this year, if that’s true, which validates Commerce’s numbers of 200,000. You’re in the same ballpark. And that is a very low number.

600,000 GPUs is not going to be enough to fill the Colossus 2 data center that Elon Musk is building. Keep in mind, these are also substantially worse chips. Nvidia is making — Jensen said this year — 5 million GPUs total, and then each of those is probably five to six times better right now. But next year might be 10 times better than each Huawei chip. You’re getting to the point where we’re making 50 times more chips than they are.

It’s important for people to keep that in mind when they’re seeing all these headlines that say they’re catching up. But the math doesn’t check out when you see that. It’s possible there are breakthroughs and that number goes down, but we have a huge buffer. If we’re at 50x or 20x China or even 10x China, we’re in good shape relative to them. Again, my risk tolerance is very low and we should push that number as high as possible in the gap. But the headlines aren’t consistent with the math.

Jordan Schneider: Are there more numbers you want to talk about?

Chris McGuire: To give an idea of the quantity: if you assume Nvidia is making 7 to 8 million chips in 2027 based on current roadmaps, which is a 25% increase over 4 to 5 million in each of the next two years, that seems reasonable. We can nitpick with that, but it’s in the ballpark.

Let’s operate under the assumption, for the sake of simplicity — which is probably not accurate — that all the chips Huawei and Nvidia are making are their best chips. What that comes out to is Huawei would need to make about 200 million chips in 2027 to equal Nvidia.

In terms of production quantity, let’s be generous and say they’re at 30% fabrication yield, 75% packaging, and 50% allocation. That means they would need 11 million wafers — most of TSMC’s total production, which is 17 million wafers a year, devoted to Ascends.

If those numbers go down a little — and they’re probably lower than that — if you say it’s 10% yield, which is low but could be right, 50% packaging yield, and 25% allocation, then China needs to stand up an entire TSMC across all of TSMC’s production devoted to Ascends in order to make enough to equal Nvidia. That is not possible. It’s not possible that they can get the tools and have the capacity to do that quickly.

History’s Most Complicated Supply Chain

Jordan Schneider: Is this the right variable to be focusing on — Huawei total production versus Nvidia total production? Nvidia sells to the world — well, maybe not to China, TBD — but from a balance of national power perspective, should we only be counting the GPUs that are in the U.S.? Should we only be counting the GPUs that are in U.S.-owned hyperscalers?

Chris McGuire: That’s a fair question. Maybe we are providing for the world and they’re providing just for themselves. There’s a lot of debate and concern about whether China is going to be able to export AI to compete with us globally, which is absolutely something we should think about and consider. But for them to do that, they still need to fill their domestic market.

Their domestic market is going to be huge. Our domestic market is huge. A huge percentage of Nvidia’s production is going to the U.S. market right now. We’re at well over 50% of global compute.

Even if you slice it up a little bit and say, “Okay, China’s going to put all these efforts into a single firm, they’re not going to do anything internationally,” does that give them the capacity to maybe support one AI firm to be a real competitor in the Chinese market? Potentially. But you’re talking about significant constraints on their ecosystem there. It’s going to be very hard to compete with our robust and dynamic ecosystem at that point, and it’s still going to be difficult. That’s giving them a lot of generous assumptions.

Also, as the compute continues to scale, it’s scaling faster than China can scale production. There’s a fundamental problem they’ll face. In the next generation of models in 2028, 2029 — absent a massive indigenization of tooling — this problem will get worse for them, not better. Unless the United States lets up on its vice grip on tools and compute.

Jordan Schneider: It’s such a wonderful irony that America has been beaten on scale in so many industries over the past few decades. But once people get focused and once there’s enough money in it, then this is Rush Doshi’s “allied scale ” idea. Maybe America couldn’t do it on its own. Intel isn’t the one pulling their weight here. But when you add up the global ecosystem — what the European toolmakers can provide, the manufacturing out of Taiwan and Korea, the Japanese tool makers, and the design capabilities coming out of the U.S. — it adds up to something that China cannot be self-sufficient in at a scale which can compete over the long term globally with what America and friends have to offer.

Chris McGuire: This is the most complicated supply chain in human history. They’re very good at indigenizing supply chains — they’ve done that in numerous industries. But if there’s one that’s going to be the hardest for them to fully indigenize, it’s this one. The evidence says that they’re struggling.

They’re struggling partly because it’s hard, and partly because the United States, over multiple administrations of both parties, has taken some good steps to prevent them from moving up the value chain, and Huawei’s roadmap shows that it’s working.

It’s interesting because when you look at where Huawei was, designing chips is not a problem. The Ascend 910A in 2020 had better specs than the V100, which was the leading Nvidia chip at the time before the A100 came out in 2020.

Huawei designed, on paper, the most powerful AI chip in the world in 2019, and they made it at TSMC. What’s changed? They didn’t make any AI chips until 2024 because they got cut off from TSMC.

Then the chip that they made was substantially worse. They’ve been forced to rely on their domestic production, which has been very hard for them to scale from a quality or quantity perspective to compete with the West.

Jordan Schneider: Cards on the table — I find this very compelling. A lot of your assumptions you’re taking from Huawei bulls. The 600,000 to 700,000 estimate is something that Dylan Patel wouldn’t disagree with, something he said in his own piece.

But the headlines that Huawei has been able to generate from its reporting — from having 100 chips in Malaysia to White House officials tweeting, “China’s expanding abroad” — what is it about Huawei’s messaging, American views of China, lack of technical sophistication among reporters? How have they been able to build themselves up as such a heavy hitter in this space when they’re really in single-A compared to the TSMC and Nvidia ecosystem?

Chris McGuire: There’s not a good understanding of how good our chips are. You could say maybe there’s not a good understanding of how bad Chinese chips are, but I’d flip that. Nvidia is an amazing company doing amazing things. They’re producing unbelievably powerful chips that keep getting better every year, and they’re also increasing the rate at which they’re coming out. They were previously on a two-year cycle; now they’re on a one-year cycle.

There’s a reason why the demand for these chips is completely through the roof, why they’ve become the most valuable company on Earth, and why all the next five most valuable companies are scrambling over themselves to get their product. They’re good, and no one else is able to do what they do. No discredit to AMD and others that are also making great chips — American companies are doing incredible stuff in this space, and that’s not fully appreciated.

Jordan Schneider: When you have Jensen Huang saying, “They could never build AI chips.” That sounded insane, and when he said, “China can’t manufacture.” China can’t manufacture? If there’s one thing they can do, it’s manufacture. Or when he said, “They’re years behind us.” Is it two years? Three years? Come on. They’re nanoseconds behind us. Nanoseconds.

When you have him saying that China is nanoseconds behind, it’s not true. He knows it, and his engineers know it. I’m sure they’ve done teardowns galore of Huawei architecture, and they know the same thing. What you’ve talked about over the past 30 minutes, Chris, is not secret. The reason that Nvidia is valued at $4 trillion is because of that fact. This is a widely held opinion. But you have their CEO — because he’s trying to shape a narrative that he needs to sell into China — saying something patently false.

Chris McGuire: I agree it’s patently false. You look at the data and it’s patently false. I will also say that everything I was saying was focused on total processing performance. You could make a valid point that memory bandwidth is also important. That’s what everyone’s saying about why the H20 needs to be controlled, which is correct.

How do they stack up in memory bandwidth? There is still a significant gap there as well. The Nvidia chips, even looking at the two roadmaps, are going to be 4x better, potentially 8x better on memory bandwidth too. I want to clarify: Franklin says, “Well, he’s just looking at one part of it.” If you look across the stack, the gap is increasing.

But to your question, we’ve created this perverse incentive structure. When we said, “You can’t export, this is the line, you can’t cross it. End of story.” It was simple. That’s the line. That’s it. That was the kind of “as large of a lead as possible” approach, because you need to hold the line and then the gains will compound over time.

Now that the logic has changed, we’re saying, “We can sell chips, but only if they’re slightly better than the best Chinese chip.” It created this incentive for industry to completely overhype the capabilities of Chinese chips in quality and quantity in order to get access to the Chinese market. That incentive structure is perverse.

If there’s a legitimate need for it, that’d be one thing. If there was massive quantity of these chips, especially if China was able to fill its domestic demand for AI compute with domestic chips, it would be a different conversation. We should think about what American companies should be able to export there. But that’s not the world we’re in because of the constraints on their production and because of the increases in AI compute needs. We’ve created this incentive structure for companies to overhype China.

There is one other element that’s significant, that we should be real about — there is a significant Chinese propaganda campaign about this. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan even said that publicly once in 2024 at an event. We know that part of China’s strategy is to convince the West that their measures are futile and that they’re not working. Every single time there’s a breakthrough, there are five South China Morning Post stories talking about how amazing it is and how China’s crushing the West, et cetera. But that doesn’t make it true. That doesn’t change the math. It doesn’t change the dynamics. But we are susceptible to that.

The nature of our system is such that it gets traction here. Math is hard. It’s a convenient narrative that also fits the correct narrative in a lot of other industries. It’s easy to convince us that this is the same when, in fact, it’s quite different.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about policy changes that could dramatically allow Huawei, SMIC, and CXMT — the Chinese memory provider — to inflect in a way that would make the multiples that you’re projecting for Nvidia plus TSMC to be ahead of them different over time. How would you rank the things you would be most worried about if the West started to ease off export controls and what it could do to the curves that Matthew laid out?

Chris McGuire: Number one is something that Dylan Patel highlighted in his piece and something that we haven’t even talked about here but is significant. Everything that I’m talking about is looking at logic die production, and that is a constraint. It probably is a constraint at a higher level because I’m assuming that they can scale that at 10x. It’s still going to be 5-10x below where we are.

But that’s something where, okay, maybe they can use the tools they have and keep acquiring equipment given the regime to build out their fab base significantly. They’re still going to be constrained by HBM because HBM is their number one constraint now. They previously had unrestricted access. They don’t anymore. HBM stacked exports have been cut off, so they’re running through their stockpile now. That will run out. They don’t produce very much HBM domestically. They’re going to be very constrained. CXMT has had some problems being able to produce HBM3 at all.

If CXMT is allowed to produce large amounts of HBM, that’d be a problem. Or if HBM controls are rolled back in the context of a negotiation and we change the policy so we can export HBM to China, that removes the biggest constraint that’s on top of everything I said that could push things down even further. That is probably the number one biggest obstacle they face right now, and maintaining that is very important.

The second thing is there are still a lot of tools that are going through. When I look at this, what I see is the controls have probably been more effective than the media narrative suggests because they seem to be struggling to produce very large numbers. If they’re making 600,000 chips next year, that’s a very low number and it’s not a competitive number for a national AI industry at the quality of chips that they’re making. That means that the controls are working now.

We should not take any risk. There’s some risk that they’re able to figure out much more effective means of producing chips. We could zero out that risk by clamping down on SME exports to China significantly. But that’s where we are now. They are still able to get a lot of tools, especially for non-restricted fabs. There’s a subset of tools that will make it next to impossible for them to advance, especially for them to do 5 nanometers.

But they could order very large numbers of tools and then scale their 7-nanometer production and large amounts of 5-nanometer production. The math means that’s still going to be insufficient. But why take that chance? If the status quo happens and they continue to buy large numbers and divert, that’s probably the point when they’re going to struggle. But can DeepSeek continue to make good, if not frontier models, while the rest of the ecosystem suffers? If they really centralize all efforts into one entity for the next one to two years, but not after that?

Jordan Schneider: The other way the balance of chips changes is if Nvidia gets to export to China. We had a very interesting arc over the first few months of the Trump administration where it seemed like they were going to ban H20 exports, then they unbanned them, and then China said, “No thank you — we actually don’t want this stuff anyway.” Chris, what is your read on that arc?

Chris McGuire: The most likely explanation is that this is a negotiating ploy. It would be foolish to turn down chips that would help them. There’s so much demand for AI compute that having H20s allows them to have their cake and eat it too. There would still be room for every single domestic chip.

China can protect markets and make clear that they’re going to ensure there’s enough demand. They can protect the market for exactly the number of chips that they’re able to make themselves. Once they guarantee all those are sold, every Nvidia chip goes in on top. That’s well within their power.

Jordan Schneider: That is a game that the Chinese industrial policy ecosystem is well practiced at. We’ve seen domestic suppliers slowly but surely eat market share as their capacity comes online — everywhere from shipbuilding to EVs to handsets. That is a normal trend.

But the retort would be that all these CNAS papers about chip backdoors have become paranoid that these are the same thing as Hezbollah beepers or something.

Chris McGuire: It’s possible, but if that were the case, then they wouldn’t want Blackwell chips either, because there’s an equal risk of Blackwell chips having backdoors as Hopper chips. It seems like they do still want Blackwell chips. That says to me that the stance on Hopper chips is more a negotiating ploy — “Hey US, if you’re so desperate to send us AI chips, then only give us the best ones. We’re not going to take the second-best ones because we think this is now a point of leverage that we have over you as opposed to the reverse.” If that’s the case, we should take that, pocket it, and move on.

There’s also a possibility that they are overestimating their own production.

If you think the Chinese system, does someone walk through this math with Xi Jinping and show him their numbers versus our numbers? Do they explain that because of the differences in quality, it’s going to be hard for them to ever catch up, and the slopes are working against them on the curves? Probably not.

That’s not going to be a briefing that people in an authoritarian system are incentivized to give their leader. They want to paint a more optimistic picture. If that’s the case, then maybe the leadership does believe that they’re going to catch up soon, in which case, more power to them — let them try. We should let them try without the benefit of massive amounts of US tooling as well. But that perception works in our favor.

Jordan Schneider: It was an interesting arc when the October 2022 export controls hit. I remember writing all these articles about what the Chinese response was going to be — certainly there would be retaliation, right? But there was reporting that they were like, “Eh, we’re fine. We’ll figure this out on our own.”

The fact that Beijing didn’t realize how big of a deal this was points to an information gap. They’re hearing about tons of shiny stuff coming during their briefings from the big fund, from people who are scared of being thrown in jail.

At that point, there’s a notable disconnect — while these restrictions are critically important for China’s semiconductor ecosystem, senior Chinese leadership and negotiators don’t seem to prioritize unwinding the Biden administration’s policies

Chris McGuire: The response at the time was “We’re going to indigenize and we’ll see you on the battlefield” — metaphorically — “We’re going to compete.” That’s admirable and is consistent with the history of most other industries. That is the response, and they’ve done very well at that.

The point here is that we think this industry is different. That was the case in 2022, and it’s the case now. The fundamentals of it are different from the industries that the Chinese have been so successful in. That doesn’t mean that they will not be successful here, but it’s going to be harder and we can’t assume it given they were able to do it in the past.

Chip Controls and Escalation Dominance

Jordan Schneider: Chris, what’s your read on why it took until Liberation Day for the rarest card to finally be put on the table?

Chris McGuire: First, Liberation Day was a significant escalation in a much broader element of the trade dynamic than anything before that. We’re talking about hundreds of percentage points of tariffs. That’s a fundamentally different escalation on the US side, so the Chinese were going to escalate to a greater degree as well.

Second, the Chinese now have a better understanding of these restrictions and have better tools to address them. They were taken by surprise in October 2022, and it took some time for them to wrap their heads around what tools they had to respond. That’s why we didn’t see any direct response in October 2022, but we did start to see a Chinese response in 2023 and 2024.

Third, this requires careful management. When the Trump administration went all out on tariffs, it became such a big escalation on both sides. But there are other cards that the United States has to deter China from retaliating against us. The Biden administration did think about that, and there was some careful messaging behind the scenes with the Chinese on this point, making them aware that we have a bunch of cards. The message was clear: we know what we’re doing. We have these actions in this space, and they’re consistent with our original objective. We’re very clear with you that this is the course of action we intend to take, and we’re continuing down that path. That doesn’t preclude various other activities that we’re discussing with you. But if you massively escalate in other areas, we have other areas where we can massively escalate as well.

The US has other ways to impose massive costs on Chinese companies in the short term. Any large Chinese technology company is still reliant on semiconductors from TSMC that are designed with US tools to continue to function and exist, and it’s within our authorities to take those off the game board immediately.

The idea that the Chinese have escalation dominance because of rare earths is incorrect. There are significant moves that the US could take but chooses not to.

But if we’re not willing to use those tools or even talk about those tools, or the Chinese don’t perceive that we’re willing to, then it becomes a lot easier for them to escalate on rare earths and get escalation dominance over us.

Major export controls against major Chinese companies would be massively painful for them. Cutting any Chinese banks off the US dollar or anything like that would be massively painful for them. The US has escalation dominance. I don’t think we’ve been willing to use it, and that has reversed the dynamics here. But again, the fundamentals massively favor us.

Jordan Schneider: There was a lot of reporting that the Trump administration was surprised that rare earths were thrown on the table — shook, even — all of a sudden the administration thought, “Oh wow, this is bad. We need to figure out what’s going on and find a response.” Then you had stuff like the MP Materials deal. Encouragingly, last week, Bessent started to sound cranky and said, “Look, aircraft engines, chemicals — we can take this in a lot of directions that you guys [China] are not going to enjoy.”

Xiaomi and every Chinese handset manufacturer need TSMC to provide reasonable domestic products and compete globally. These are things that will take a week for the pain to be felt, and where the solution to them is more painful than putting in some mines and building some refinery plants in Australia.

The idea that America has ceded escalation dominance on economic coercion because China found something that made the US feel some pain boggles the mind. I thought President Trump would say, “Fuck it. We’ll play that game.” It is unfortunate that he seems to be more willing to play this game against allies than against adversaries. But maybe this is changing with the Bessent talk and with the Putin Truth Social post from last week. We will have three and a half years of this. I am confident that we will reach a point when this game will be played again and Trump will be ready to pull more economic triggers. We’ll have to see.

Chris McGuire: To give a concrete example of where we could mirror — the controls on magnets had a significant impact on our auto industry. US auto firms were saying, “Hey, we’re going to shut down soon if this doesn’t get solved.” That is a strategic problem for the United States.

I wonder how long BYD 比亚迪 would be able to operate without access to US technology or chips from TSMC. Probably not that long. Many BYD cars use 4-nanometer chips to run their ADAS systems. BYD has done a great job indigenizing most of their supply chains, everything from legacy semiconductor fabs to the ship carriers that move the cars around the world are all owned and made by BYD. The one thing that they have not been able to indigenize that they still need for their sophisticated chips is advanced semiconductor production.

Things keep coming back to this, and it becomes a little repetitive — “Oh, you guys keep talking about chips” — but it’s because it’s the foundation of so many products and it’s the area where the US has advantages. In this example, a tit-for-tat escalation would have been: “Hey, our auto firms are about to shut down because we don’t have rare earth magnets. BYD is going to shut down because they’re not going to get chips until we resolve this.” Then we could pull both those back to make sure that we’re not taking either of those actions while continuing to take the necessary separate actions on AI. That’s one way we could have gone about it and could still if this rears its head again.

Jordan Schneider: On Trump 2.0 tea leaf reading, we had a BIS 50% rule, which is something that the Biden administration never got across the finish line. What is it? Why does it matter? And what does it imply about the future of policy?

Chris McGuire: This is a good change that BIS made this week. It’s important and will have a significant impact. It may not affect AI chips directly, but will have a substantial trickle-down effect on all of export control policy.

The way that export controls work is there are certain things that are controlled countrywide — and those are the most important and robust controls that we can implement. But for a number of other things, we control them to entities of concern. The entity goes on the entity list, and then all US exports — or many, depending on what the licensing policy is — are blocked to them.

The way it worked until this week was that every single subsidiary had to be specifically listed on the list. If it wasn’t listed, then exports were okay. It was a presumption that exports are fine unless the subsidiary is specifically listed. This creates massive loopholes and is easy to exploit. Someone can create a subsidiary that isn’t listed, and then it becomes easier to export to them. There are various due diligence requirements, but that checks a lot of boxes and makes it much easier for firms to export.

The Dept. of Commerce flipped that assumption. They said, “We’re still going to list entities and their subsidiaries for clarity, but our assumption now is that if you have knowledge that an entity is a majority-owned subsidiary of an entity on the list, then automatically all exports are blocked.”

That means any company that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Huawei or SMIC or others — CXMT, YMTC, et cetera — are now on the entity list, whereas before they were not. That’s a significant change.

This also applies globally. It applies to Russia, it applies to Iran. There was a shell game that a lot of entities played and it never made sense. The Treasury Department, with respect to sanctions, has exactly this rule. They say if we list an entity on the SDN list, then if there’s an entity that’s majority-owned by one of those firms, it’s also covered. We expect people who do business with entities to do their own research and make sure that they’re not inadvertently working with companies that are on the SDN list. If you do, then you are held responsible.

Export controls are going to work the same way now, and they should. There’s no reason why one should be fundamentally different from the other, given what we’re concerned about — the diversion risk is substantial. This is a good change. To the point of where export control policy and China policy are headed and how this will play out over the next few years, this is indicative of the fact that we don’t really know. This is a good change, filling a big loophole that the Biden administration was not able to close.

It’s something the Trump administration has talked about from the beginning. Despite all the trade talks and narrative that everyone is walking away from controls, this action was still taken. That shows that there are still people who want to rebalance the relationship in ways that are in our interest and fix the loopholes in the tools we have.

This isn’t a perfect solution. There will be Chinese counter moves. Chinese companies will create shell companies that own 51% that aren’t affiliated with the parent in order to get around it. It will still be a whack-a-mole game. That’s why technology-based controls are going to be most important, because that’s the only way we can be sure that we’re not playing whack-a-mole. This will make companies think twice. It will increase the amount of due diligence that’s necessary and closes loopholes that were being abused as of last week.

Jordan Schneider: Chris, what is your thesis on the loopholes and the fact that we would record ChinaTalk podcasts about them three days after the regulations came out, and then they would change maybe six or twelve months later?

Chris McGuire: I lived a lot of that.

One point is that government is about compromise. These things are hard, and they do have — or have the potential to have — significant impacts on US businesses. There’s a lot of lobbying from businesses. It’s one thing when you’re on the outside of the government to throw stones, but it’s different when you’re making the decisions that are going to reshape industries and economies. People are careful, particularly Democrats are careful and deliberative. That means the default is to be cautious.

The totality of the approach that has been taken — and has been taken bipartisanly in Trump 1 and Biden administrations — was an assertive and different policy than the United States typically takes with respect to technologies or economic issues, and it’s important to keep that in perspective.

There were some loopholes that people pointed out right away — things that some of us tried to fix and weren’t able to. Sometimes that’s because of US industry concerns. Sometimes it’s because of working with allies, and those were tough negotiations where we weren’t able to get everything we wanted, but we were able to get a lot. Sometimes it’s that regulating on the frontier is hard. The government has gotten better about doing that starting in 2022. There were some big fundamental errors in the first 2022 export controls that did take a long time to correct. That is a function of how long it takes to get something through the system.

The controls in 2022 had loopholes that were a result of technological developments that happened while we were developing the controls. That is something that’s going to happen in this space, and the government has to be nimble in responding. The failure on the government’s part with respect to those controls was in its slow response. We should be able to fill loopholes quickly and agilely while also admitting that they’re going to happen. We should do our best to make sure that they don’t, but as long as we’re able to fill them quickly, that’s the goal here.

Jordan Schneider: What’s your normative argument for why America should be hobbling domestic Chinese AI hardware production?

Chris McGuire: Number one, if you buy into the idea that AI is going to be one of the most important things in all elements of the economy and also for national security, then it’s an area where we need to maintain the largest possible lead as a fundamental principle. That’s the baseline here.

Our ability to control the AI ecosystem as the United States and allies is limited only by China’s ability to make an alternative ecosystem themselves.

If they don’t have a domestic semiconductor ecosystem, then their influence over the entirety of the AI ecosystem is going to be inherently either reliant on us or next to zero.

If you think this is the thing that’s going to underpin the global economy and US technological supremacy and national power generally going forward in every single element and domain, then the single biggest risk you could take to US leadership is to allow the Chinese to make advanced chips. That’s the bottom line here.

Store-Bought Supercomputers

Jordan Schneider: What’s the best answer you can give about how AI hardware matters for the military balance of power?

Chris McGuire: There are three big areas I’ll flag.

The first is backend logistics and decision making. It’s kind of boring, but the US armed forces is the world leader in backend logistics and decision making. The reason we’re able to get munitions on target anywhere in the world in 24 hours is partly because we have amazing capabilities, but it’s also that we’re good at logistics.

We’re able to position tankers around the world and they know exactly where right away. We have a lot of experience at this, and we do a lot of training and drills. If you can automate all that — that’s just one discrete example — that takes away a significant source of the US’s military advantage.

If you have optimal decision making and can make optimal use of your resources, it will allow you to have significant effects on the battlefield, regardless of the actual equipment there.

The second is cyber capabilities. A lot of people talk about AI plus cyber, but in the operational context, you can imagine how significant it would be if you have capabilities that can get around defenses easily and exploit vulnerabilities and put sophisticated malware into entities. That would allow you to do significant things that quickly change battlefield dynamics.

The third is autonomous systems, and this is where AI inference is really important. Having a good AI model that you put on a bunch of drone systems to autonomously work together and take actions in a comms-degraded environment on their own will change the battlefield. But you’re going to need massive inference capabilities to do that. The number of queries that will be needed, especially if it’s on the edge, you’re going to need all these systems to be processing these inference queries on the system. Or if it’s not in a comms-degraded environment, they’re all going to have to be going back home constantly, and that’s going to require very big inference clusters.

If we’re talking thousands or tens of thousands of drones, all of these are going to be constantly having inference-heavy requests on the AI models. You’re not only going to need a sophisticated model, but you’re going to need a lot of infrastructure to support the compute needs of your battlefield.

Those two are going to be reliant on having the hardware to make this model that’s super sophisticated and also be able to operationalize and run it in real time. The more capacity you have and the better those capabilities are, the more you’ll be able to do.

There are both military and commercial needs. If you assume that they prioritize military needs, then you could take a bite out of your commercial inference capacity in order to support that. True, but the more that you constrain this — and also as those compute needs are going to go up for the military capabilities — the more that will be a constraint going forward. That’s an area where not only do we not want American hardware supporting Chinese military processing capabilities, but we also shouldn’t want American hardware supporting the broader ecosystem that enables the Chinese to us foreign chips for commercial purposes and domestic chips to power the military purposes.

This is all an aggregate AI chip pool. If we’re contributing to the pool but not contributing to the military capabilities themselves, you’re indirectly contributing to the military capabilities.

Not to say that China should be completely cut off — maybe there are ways to aggregate that — but even if China is completely reliant on US cloud, which is a separate debate that we could have, that’s something where in the event of a conflict you could shut that off right away and which imposes hard choices on the Chinese. Whereas if you export them the chips and they have a large supply of chips, then they can slice and dice for their military and commercial purposes.

Jordan Schneider: The other important normative question that I’m going to keep asking a lot on ChinaTalk is: to what extent do you think it is America’s responsibility to keep China down economically?

It’s a bit of a false question because as you said, Chris, if this is what you are most worried about let AWS sell access to Nvidia chips into China from data centers in Malaysia and you’ll figure out the latency. The visibility that the US has on what that’s being used for — whether it’s optimizing grocery logistics or optimizing PLA logistics — is something that you can look at. In the event of a conflict, then you don’t have this strategic resource that you are able to mobilize against American interests.

Given that semiconductors are dual-use technology, how do you address the argument that U.S. export controls are primarily about constraining China’s rise rather than legitimate security concerns?

Chris McGuire: I completely agree with your point that this is a false choice because there are ways to manage the competition such that we provide access — if that’s your choice — to the full American AI stack. By “full,” I mean US chips on US cloud, potentially running US models to the Chinese in ways that allow them to benefit economically, but give you the lever in a crisis. There’s a separate question on whether, given the dual-use nature, that’s a good idea. This is a hard dynamic because the policies that we’re taking have historical precedent.

We’re preventing adversary access to supercomputers, and that has been longstanding US policy.

The US has long controlled supercomputers to the Soviet Union. There were some efforts to collaborate, but they involved intrusive verification measures. That’s an area where we have always doubled down on compute processing.

The difference is that supercomputers are now available in a box off the shelf from Nvidia, AMD, and others. That’s the dynamic that we’re responding to: what do we do in that circumstance? Whereas previously they had to have them built at US national labs and it required all sorts of specialized expertise, now they don’t. This sophisticated technology that the United States has long guarded closely has become commercialized and commoditized, which is great for innovation but poses hard policy challenges with respect to this longstanding policy of preserving our edge on supercomputers.

The question there is: what do you want to preserve? Do you want to preserve a longstanding approach that maintaining our edge in compute is key to national competitiveness? Or do you want to argue that restricting commercial products is going to have deleterious impacts on our long-term vision for the global economy? The former outweighs the latter, and it means that there are costs to this. It probably means that we can’t have our cake and eat it too with respect to Chinese AI — or the Chinese can’t have it. If we take this approach, our ecosystems are going to be further and further apart and the onus is on them to indigenize. We are going to move our separate ways.

What we should do is find other ways to make sure that the Chinese can benefit from advances in, and even the use of, US models. The Chinese could use US models to support their companies, at least right now. I know Anthropic has moved to cut that off because they have national security concerns on that front. That is a frontier where once you have concerns there, it becomes difficult. But there are multiple hurdles that we could jump over before we have to say we’re completely separate — whether it’s cloud access or model access. Maybe that’s where we end up, but it’s certainly a false choice right now.

Jordan Schneider: What’s your take on the Silicon Shield argument — the idea that keeping China dependent on Taiwanese manufacturing is what’s stopping World War III?

Chris McGuire: The Chinese view Taiwan more in a historical context than through this economic and technological context. The Chinese know that a significant action vis-à-vis Taiwan would be flipping the game board.

There would be significant actions on either side, and the ability for them to operate as normal in that environment would be limited. No matter what, the Chinese recognize this. They’re looking more at what is their military capability and their readiness and what are the political dynamics and where’s the United States going to be, rather than what does this mean for our semiconductor production or our technology companies.

They know a move on Taiwan means they would incur substantial economic costs. The question is, are they willing to bear it? But I don’t think this factors nearly as much into their decision-making as the military balance of power and the overall geopolitics and whether or not they think this is something that they can implement and execute.

Subscribe now

Jordan Schneider: The idea of cutting off BYD and Xiaomi from TSMC chips is what triggers an invasion does not make sense.

Chris McGuire: This is something that we’re going to have to grapple with. these are also scarce resources. 3-nanometer lines at TSMC are sold out and in very high demand. There are questions on whether it makes sense that we allow US tools to be used to make Xiaomi chips — Xiaomi three-nanometer chips at TSMC — when American companies would presumably use that fab capacity if they didn’t. You could have a complicated debate on this, but that’s a reasonable policy question.

Inevitably, as technology gets more important, these chips get more important and the fab capacity is not going to advance at the quantity that you need to support all the technological needs that we’re seeing, especially as you see growth in robotics and other fields that are dependent on AI. Are we going to continue to allow China to design their own chips on these lines for their own companies? It’s a separate question of whether they can have any of them. Certainly them having US chips is fundamentally better than them having custom-designed chips. But this is something that we’re going to grapple with in the next one to two years because it will be increasingly unsustainable.

Advice for Young Professionals

Jordan Schneider: Chris, what do you want to tell the kids? You had a remarkable arc in the civil service over the past decade, but this is a tricky time for young people thinking about replicating the path you took. Any reflections you want to share or advice you’d want to give?

Chris McGuire: It’s cool that ten years ago I was in grad school, writing various papers and thinking about what to do in government. Now I talk with so many people who are in grad school writing papers about the things that we did — not only the specific policies, but also this entire area. This idea of technology competition is in vogue now, and a small number of people have pushed effort and policies in the last couple administrations to make this a new topic.

That’s an amazing experience, and you can’t have that anywhere else but in government. You can write things on the outside and work at companies, but actually being able to craft the policies that design the future of technology competition — there’s nothing like it. Anyone who is interested in this space should aspire to do that because we need people who care about it and also know the details. We need people who can translate both the technical details up and the bigger picture policy descriptions.

If you’re interested in that space, please don’t look at any current headlines and say, “Well, I shouldn’t work in government.” You could think about how best to position yourselves and what angle to take, but we desperately need people in government.

It’s a tricky moment for the civil service. I dealt with my share of good and also bad civil servants, so I recognize that there’s a wide spectrum of capacity there. But I do have big concerns about the government’s technical expertise, particularly on these topics — not export controls alone, but anything with respect to AI and semiconductors and future forms of computing, quantum computing, things like that.

It’s hard to get people into government who know this stuff and care about it and can connect the dots on policy. The government needs to prioritize getting those people and keeping those people. There’s always lip service to that, but it’s not happening. Those people are leaving.

These are very hard policies to craft and implement, but they’re also hard to maintain because regulating at the frontier means that you have to constantly be updating and innovating. If we’re going to have a technology policy that actively tries to preserve America’s edge via technology protection policies, you need to be maintaining that every day. If you let it atrophy, it’s like water — it will seep through the cracks and eventually fail. That requires people who know this and are good.

I hope that the government sees that and recognizes that and prioritizes bringing those people in. I know there are people coming in who are good, and it’s a matter of prioritizing those voices and listening to them from a technical perspective, to make sure that the right information is being briefed.

We are in a difficult moment now. But we have no choice but to continue to encourage young people who are interested in this to go do it, because there’s no other US government to work for.

There’s no alternative place to do this massive policy stuff that is going to shape the future of all these industries. We need the people to be there to do it.

Jordan Schneider: Another lesson of your career, which I love your take and reflection on, is the continual learning aspect. You have an MPP, you spent two years at McKinsey, not Intel. But this episode illustrates that you’ve been able to push yourself to be at and stay on the knowledge frontier when it comes to AI and technology competition for almost a decade now. That energy and that determination to stay up on this stuff is not something that you see in every civil servant and is not something that the systems in the civil service are incentivizing for. What pushed you to spend that time learning all this? And what systemically do you think can be done to encourage people to stay on the knowledge frontier?

Chris McGuire: When I joined the civil service, I wasn’t doing emerging technology. I was doing nuclear weapons policy. I started doing nuclear arms control, which was an area I was interested in and had some historical connections to.

Jordan Schneider: What are your historical connections to nuclear weapons?

Chris McGuire: My grandfather was on the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, and he lived in Hiroshima from 1947 to 1949, studying the effects of the bomb. He was a pediatric hematologist, so he focused specifically on the effects on children and wrote some of the initial papers showing that nuclear weapon exposure leads to leukemia. He did the statistical analysis that demonstrated that proof. Growing up, I talked with him about that work.

Jordan Schneider: I love this lore.

Chris McGuire: Yeah. It’s a very complicated set of decisions around nuclear weapons use, but it became ingrained in me very early that this is important to US strategy, US power, and how we shape our view of the world. It became a topic that when I left the private sector and asked myself, “What do I actually care about? What do I want to work on?” — the strategic issues around nuclear weapons were the thing that pulled me.

I went to State. I actually had the US-Russia nuclear weapons portfolio, working on the New START Treaty and the INF Treaty. I oversaw the INF withdrawal when we discovered the Russians were cheating in 2018-2019. But it became apparent to me that this was last century’s strategic competition.

The next century is in emerging tech. The arms races aren’t going to be in nuclear weapons production — they’re going to be in AI and various other technologies.

I made an active effort to pivot into that area from nuclear policy.

That background gave me the strategic logic and baseline. My job there was translating these highly technical policy measures to the Secretary of State or other principals in terms of why this matters and how it works. That’s the very same skill you need with respect to AI policy.

What was helpful to me was being entrepreneurial within the civil service. I was constantly seeking out the next opportunity to push myself forward, learn more, and move up. That’s not something that, at least in State Department civil service, is structurally encouraged. It’s more, you are in your job, you’re going to be the expert, and you’re going to be in that job for 20 years because we need an expert in this for 20 years. That’s not how the economy works anymore, and it’s not what young people want to do.

If you are in the civil service, you have to seek out those opportunities yourself. If you sit back, the default will be that you stay in place. I was lucky — being at the right place at the right time, one job leading to another. But if you’re entrepreneurial about it, you put yourself in position to get lucky. I would highly encourage anyone in that space to constantly be seeking new jobs, details, or opportunities. I definitely pushed the limits of the amount of time you could be detailed away from the State Department without working there. It was a joke for many people inside the department.

But I was always pursuing the goals of the department, the country, and the government. I was working for people who wanted me to stay, and I was always able to stay because the mission was important and we’re all ultimately on the same team in the government. Even if you have to ruffle a few feathers with various backend HR people who are frustrated — “detailed again?” — if the National Security Advisor wants you to be there, who cares what the deputy head of the HR office has to say? You have to manage all the relationships, but if you’re good and you’re wanted and you’re entrepreneurial, you can do interesting things.

Jordan Schneider: It’s really interesting comparing that missile gap analogy to the AI stuff. We had a conversation about various exponentials when it comes to AI hardware. I’ve spent a fair amount of time over the past few months listening to nuclear podcasts after all the news around what’s going to happen to the American nuclear umbrella and the rate at which the technology develops with the new launchers and missile sites and bombers or submarines.

Comparing that to a new Nvidia chip every year and four AI video models dropping this week — I’m sure it was blowing people’s minds in the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s and ’70s. There were ranges of outcomes and it was unclear who was going to be able to scale up production and deliver weapons systems. But the amount of dynamism you see with emerging technology versus the nuclear missile second-strike dance is apples and oranges in the 2020s.

Chris McGuire: It’s interesting to think back. There were some crazy ideas out there in the ’50s — let’s put nuclear reactors in everything. Let’s put them in cars, in airplanes. We’re going to use nuclear explosions to power spaceships with a giant lead shield behind the spaceship to propel it forward to Mars. People were saying, “Well, this would work,” but will the physics work in ways that don’t kill a ton of people? There was a crazy dynamic thinking in that space, but less manifested in the physical world. The manifestations in the physical world were slower but still significant in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s — not at today’s timescale.

With AI, we have yet to see many of the physical manifestations of these advancements. It’s still not real for people. But once we start to see more capability advancements in the robotic space and the coupling of that, it’s going to be real.

On your nuclear weapons point — this is a strategic issue. Our procurement timelines for nuclear delivery systems, which are super important and underpin our deterrence architecture, are 30 years. How confident are we that those systems are going to fill the need they fill today in 30 years, given advances in AI and technology? How confident are we that ballistic missile submarines are going to continue to be invulnerable second-strike capabilities in 30 years? Are they going to be undetectable still? I don’t know. It’s not that hard to imagine advances that would make it easier to detect those assets in ways you can’t right now. What does that mean for our strategic calculus? There are synergies here that are concerning. We should be thinking through these issues. There are people thinking about this, of course, but I question whether — given Pentagon procurement timelines and things — we’re going to be at the frontier of responding.

Mood Music:

is a fellow at the Oxford China Policy Lab and an MSc student at the Oxford Internet Institute.

On September 11, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission launched an inquiry into seven tech companies that make AI chatbot companion products, including Meta, OpenAI, and Character AI, over concerns that AI chatbots may prompt users, “especially children and teens,” to trust them and form unhealthy dependencies.

Four days later, China published its AI Safety Governance Framework 2.0, explicitly listing “addiction and dependence on anthropomorphized interaction (拟人化交互的沉迷依赖)” among its top ethical risks, even above concerns about AI loss of control. Interestingly, directly following the addiction risk is the risk of “challenging existing social order (挑战现行社会秩序),” including traditional “views on childbirth (生育观).”

What makes AI chatbot interaction so concerning? Why is the U.S. more worried about child interaction, whereas the Chinese government views AI companions as a threat to family-making and childbearing? The answer lies in how different societies build different types of AI companions, which then create distinct societal risks. Drawing from an original market scan of 110 global AI companion platforms and analysis of China’s domestic market, I explore here shows how similar AI technologies produce vastly different companion experiences—American AI girlfriends versus Chinese AI boyfriends—when shaped by cultural values, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical tensions.

Sexy AI girlfriends: Made in America, for the world

In my team’s recent market scan of the 110 most popular AI companion platforms as of April 2025, we turned Similarweb and Sensor Tower upside down to gather data on traffic, company profiles, and user demographics. At the expense of one teammate developing an Excel sheet allergy and the shared trauma of viewing many NSFW images, we discovered that American AI girlfriends rule the roost in the global market for romantic AI companions: Over half (52%) of these AI companion companies are headquartered in the U.S., drastically ahead of China (10%) in the global market.1 These products are overwhelmingly designed around heterosexual male fantasies: another similar market report this year shows that 17% of all the active apps have “girlfriends” in names, compared to 4% of those with “boyfriends.”

We estimated that dating-themed AI chatbots, designed specifically for romantic or sexual bonding, capture roughly 29 million monthly active users (MAU) and 88 million monthly visits globally across platforms. For comparison, Bluesky has 23.2 million total users and 75.8 million monthly visits as of early 2025. And our estimation is very conservative: We did not count the traffic of platforms containing other kinds of companionships, such as Character AI, which offers AI tutors, pets, and friends, though we think many people go there to use AI boy/girlfriends. We did not count AI companion app downloads, which have reached 220 million since 2022. Nor did we include parasocial engagement with general-purpose AI like GPT-4o, which some people apparently have also fallen in love with.

Behind the explosive popularity of AI companions are two main engagement models. On one side are community-oriented platforms like Fam AI, where users create and share AI companions, such as customizable “girlfriends” in anime or photorealistic styles. These platforms thrive on user-generated content, offering adjustable body types, personalities, and voice/video modes to deepen connections. Users can create new AI characters with just a few paragraphs instructing the model how to act, similar to personalizing a copy of ChatGPT. Many of these platforms use affiliate programs — for example, craveu.ai pays users $120–180 for creating high-engagement characters. The abundance of options and the competition for attention encourage users to frequently switch between different AI companions, creating more transient digital relationships.

In contrast, product-oriented platforms like Replika offer a single evolving AI partners with deeper and longer emotional ties. On Replika’s subreddit, many users report using Replika for years, and some seriously consider themselves “bonded” and “married” to their Replika partner. People also grieve for the loss of their Replika when they sense a subtle personality change and suspect the system behind had reset their chatbots.

Despite differences in engagement style, both models seek to capitalize on sexuality to attract and retain users. The monetization of sexuality is done mainly through “freemium” models, offering a few free basic functions while charging for advanced features or additional services. Among the top ten most-visited AI companion platforms in our scan, 8 opt for freemium models, with only one currently free and one choosing advertising and in-app currency. Premium accounts typically offer unrestricted interaction and access to unblurred explicit images. They also allow the user to have longer conversations and improve memory capacity for previous conversations. Many mating companion platforms promote explicit ‘NSFW’ (not safe for work) companions, images, and roleplay features as part of the premium features.

Dynamic AI boyfriends: Made in China, for China

On the other side of the Great Firewall, AI is also probing the emotional boundaries of humans. While the underlying LLMs may not differ drastically from their English-speaking counterparts, the fictional worlds and characters that users build around them are strikingly distinct.

One of the most notable contrasts lies in gender dynamics. In the Chinese AI companion market, male characters dominate: most trending products are marketed as AI boyfriends, and leading platforms prominently feature male characters on their main displays, while female characters occupy a more marginal space.

But looks are not everything that makes humans appealing–the same holds for AI characters. While many platforms still follow the community-oriented model where users create and share AI characters, apps like MiniMax’s Xingye (星野), Tencent-backed Zhumeng Dao (Dream-Building Island 筑梦岛), and Duxiang (独响), built by a startup, go beyond the basics. In addition to customizing AI companions’ personalities, users can generate themes, plots, and side stories, deepening immersion for themselves and others. Conversations are no longer limited to 1:1 exchanges: users can participate in group chats with multiple AI companions (1:N), and AI characters may even send messages to users when they are not using the app, similar to app notifications.

These AI companion products also draw insights from existing popular gaming cultures in China, such as card-drawing games that already have million-dollar markets. For example, Xingye allows users to generate 18 cartoon cards for one fictional character, adapting Japan’s popular gacha game mechanics and trading card culture for AI companions. In gacha games, players pay to randomly draw digital cards or characters, with rare editions commanding premium value. Chinese livestreamers have imported this model, streaming card draws on social media while viewers pay to test their luck for limited-edition collectibles tied to major intellectual properties. Similar to gacha games, AI-generated cards add an element of mystery and excitement when revealed. Users can also create and trade AI character photos on the platform, mimicking real-world card-collecting transactions.

The real monetary transactions occur through a combination of in-app currency and freemium models. Users purchase currency to buy cards and can upgrade to a monthly premium for more chances to generate AI cards, additional free in-app currency, and shorter wait times for conversations (a delay partly caused by limited compute capacity for Chinese LLMs). Card creators can also earn 2% of the revenue from the cards they sell.

Other AI companion companies also leverage users’ existing social behaviors. For instance, Duxiang’s AI WeChat Friend Circle allows AI partners to actively post on social media and interact with both users and other AI characters, mimicking real Chinese social media patterns. The company has even developed a wristband with Near-Field Communication (NFC) chips2 that connects to specific AI characters. When tapped on a phone, the AI character will appear on the screen to provide updates or show care, which builds physical connection in existing digital relationships.

You can also read ChinaTalk’s previous article to know more about other AI companion products and user experiences.

Product Managing AI companions: users, regulations, and geopolitics.

While Xingye/Talkie show some Character AI traits, such as community-oriented strategies and chatbot-based engagement, they differ in significant ways. These products illustrate Kai-fu Lee’s point: Chinese tech entrepreneurs, inspired by American innovation, developed new product features to achieve success. They are good product managers, even if not radical innovators. And good product managers understand their users while navigating local regulations and global geopolitical tensions, all of which shape product design.

Users: Who is longing for AI’s love?

Young men. This is the most common user base for English-speaking AI companion products, according to our market scan. SimilarWeb data shows the top 55 AI companion platforms globally attract predominantly male users (7:3 ratio), with 18-24-year-olds representing the largest demographic at an even more skewed 8:2 male-to-female ratio. Social media metrics again reinforce this gender pattern, with Reddit’s AI girlfriend community (r/AIGirlfriend) having 44k members compared to fewer than 100 in male-focused AI companion subreddits. Moreover, roughly one-third of the children falsely declared a social media age of 18+, so it is possible that a significant portion of the reported 18-24 users are underage.

A recent Reuters-covered report from an AI girlfriend platform further supports our findings: 50% of young men prefer dating AI partners due to fear of rejection, and 31% of U.S. men aged 18–30 already chat with AI girlfriends. Behind the fear of human rejection lies the manosphere. The “manosphere” is a network of online forums, influencers, and subcultures centered on men’s issues, which has become increasingly popular among young men and boys as their go-to place for advice on approaching intimacy. While the manosphere originated primarily in Western contexts, its discourses have increasingly spread to, and been adapted within, countries across Africa and Asia through social media. In these online spaces, frustrations over dating and shifting gender norms are common, often coupled with narratives portraying women as unreliable or rejecting. AI companions offer a controllable, judgment-free alternative to real-life relationships, aligning with manosphere ideals of feminine compliance and emotional availability. On the subreddit r/MensRights (374k members), users largely endorse the findings of the Reuters report and even celebrate the shift from human to AI relationships.

The desire for a controllable relationship is further illustrated through the many Japanese aesthetics and anime-inspired avatars on AI companion platforms. Even Grok’s Ani bears striking similarity to Misa Amane from the 2006 anime Death Note. These designs often present highly idealized forms of femininity, historically marketed to heterosexual male audiences. In Western contexts, anime-inspired aesthetics intersect with techno-orientalist fantasies, reinforcing the image of East Asia as a hyper-technological land and East Asian femininity as exotic, compliant, and unthreatening. This imagination extends to hypersexualized representations of AI and robots in East Asian forms. The orientalist fantasy of female partners who are cute, devoted, exotic, and endlessly available mirrors the appeal of AI girlfriends celebrated on many “men’s rights” subreddit forums. In essence, the combination of East Asian aesthetics + AI creates a perfect bundle for men who fear rejection or resist the demands of real-life relationships.

In China, however, AI companions have a markedly different user demographic: adult women. Although comprehensive user data for China’s AI companion market remains limited, many market analysts believe domestic AI companion products are primarily female-oriented. Many product managers also set their user portrait as women aged between 25 and 35, with some reaching 40+.

Why are adult women believed to be the main drivers of AI companionship? To answer this, we need to understand three trends: 1. Marriage rates have continued to fall to record lows, with 2024 experiencing a 20% decrease from 2023; 2. There are more males than females in China (1.045:1 in 2024, compared to 0.97:1 in the US); 3. There are millions of unmarried rural Chinese men, while their female peers get better education and move to the city. This has created a social landscape in which many unmarried people are unmarried educated women in the city and less-educated men, with fewer pathways for forming traditional romantic bonds.

While the two groups are both arguably longing for relationships, unmarried, educated women in cities are more likely to encounter and adopt new technologies like AI companionship. In contrast, less-educated rural men, despite also similarly longing for relationships, have fewer resources, less exposure to AI, and limited familiarity with parasocial interactions, making AI companions less immediately appealing. Influenced by the strong patriarchal culture in rural areas, most men prioritize finding a real-life partner to marry, have children, and continue the family line.

The gender imbalance, combined with growing resistance in China to traditional patriarchal family structures — driven by concerns over rising domestic abuse or feminist ideals — has led many urban, educated women to seek parasocial forms of romance. AI companions are not the first ones to profit from this demand. Originating in Japan, otome games (乙女ゲーム in Japanese or 乙女游戏/乙游 in Chinese) are storyline-based romance games targeted at women, where players interact with multiple fictional male characters through plots and events. In 2024, it was reported to account for 75% of the total gaming revenue in China, with Tencent-backed game Love and Deepspace (恋与深空) earning $82.9 million (600 million RMB) in its first month of release.

That said, demand and supply are a classic chicken-and-egg problem. While trends in AI boyfriends or girlfriends suggest some gendered differences in interest, these preferences are also shaped by what products are available. Historically, women’s sexual desires have often been overlooked, and men’s longing for subtle companionship is sometimes dismissed as “too feminine,” which could also explain the scarcity of hypersexual AI boyfriends and dynamic AI girlfriends. Thus, the two different markets may reflect not only inherent differences in demand but also the constraints and biases of what’s offered.

Domestic Regulation: Child Porn and Patriarchal Gaze

The user base is not the only difference between AI companion companies in the U.S. vs. China. It is unlikely that Chinese AI companion companies aren’t sexualizing their products only because hypersexual companions are less appealing to young Chinese people than global audiences. It is more likely that they simply cannot offer such functions.

In June, Shanghai Cyberspace Administration demanded a regulatory talk with Zhumengdao, as the app was exposed for containing sexually suggestive content involving minors. Even when users explicitly stated that they were 10 years old, the AI still sent them text messages that are considered sexually explicit in China (footnote: These contents are close to soft porn (known as 擦边, literally “near the e,dge”), meaning they approach but do not reach the explicitness of actual pornography, which is banned in China even for users over 18). Before the talk, the app’s teenage protection mode had to be manually activated by users. Three days later, the app released an updated version that automates the teenage protection mode. If users declare they are over 18, they will be asked to register their real names.

This talk is not a Zhumengdao issue but a warning for the whole AI companion market in China. Liang Zheng (梁正), Deputy Director of the Institute for International Governance of Artificial Intelligence at Tsinghua University, recently commented on this regulatory talk, stating that if AI companion companies do not have enough self-regulations, it will harm the whole industry. Liang also argues that AI chatbot applications must meet a series of requirements, including “content accuracy, consumer privacy protection, compliance with public order and good morals, and special safety considerations for minors”.

But is safety for minors the only concern for AI boyfriends in China? Unlikely. If we take one step further on Liang’s statement on “compliance with public order and good morals,” there is another motivation for the Chinese government to regulate AI boyfriends — the demographic crisis.

There is no secret that the government is extremely worried about the birth rate: most recently, they offered $1,500 per child in a bid to boost births. A decade ago, they coined the term “leftover women” in the hope of pushing highly educated unmarried women into marriage by stigmatizing their existence. In a traditional patriarchal perspective, AI companions — especially those handsome AI boyfriends that divert women from human-to-human relationships — can be threatening. Yet, like otome games, AI companions also represent a potential economic boon, which can help offset other societal pressures for the state. In recent years, several local governments have cancelled fandom celebrations for otome characters, including thematic subway decorations and parades in Shanghai, Nanjing, and Chongqing — arguably the most “open-minded” cities in China. These actions suggest that, although AI companions, like otome games, provide substantial economic benefits, they remain subject to selective censorship due to the state’s priorities around promoting marriage and childbirth, in addition to the outright bans on soft-pornographic material in China.

Geopolitical Constraint: from TikTok to Talkie

Talkie is Xingye’s overseas twin by Minimax, one of the six most promising AI startups in China. For the U.S., Minimax’s Talkie is probably as threatening as their M1 model, if not more. In the first half of 2024, Talkie was the fourth most-downloaded AI app in the U.S., ahead of Google-backed Character AI, which was in 10th place by number of downloads.

Then, Talkie mysteriously disappeared from the U.S. app store in December 2024. The company attributed the removal to “unspecified technical reasons.” Think of Talkie as a more powerful TikTok, in the sense that it has both manipulation and data commitment problems. While TikTok is accused of influencing users through algorithmically tailored content to achieve political aims, Talkie can potentially persuade users through direct conversations, a risk amplified by the emotional and romantic bonds and trust users form with their AI companions. This makes any AI companion from an untrusted region a potential national security concern.

In addition, as a Chinese app, Talkie also faces data-commitment issues,3 arguably more serious than TikTok’s — especially if your AI partner knows you more intimately than your social media accounts. TikTok now plans to create a new U.S. entity to secure all U.S. user data on Oracle servers and license the existing recommendation algorithm for the U.S. to retrain from the ground up. Will Minimax, ByteDance, or any other Chinese AI companion companies targeting Western markets follow the TikTok template, sacrificing a large commercial interest to settle for a minority stake? Or will they do nothing and hope to find a profitable niche that is not famous enough to attract the intense national security scrutiny that crippled TikTok? These questions remain unresolved as the next generation of Chinese AI boyfriends — or AI girlfriends designed for overseas markets — begins competing with American AI girlfriends in the global app marketplace.

Talkie is back on the app store now, but concerns around data privacy, national security, and potential CCP-backed influence continue. Currently, Talkie AI’s privacy policy states that all data will be transferred and stored in the U.S.

Why We Turn to AI

Regardless of whether they’re made in China or America, AI companions represent another pivotal crossroads in human-computer interaction. TikTok faces geopolitical challenges, as social media and short-form videos have fundamentally transformed daily life for both Americans and Chinese. Similarly, AI companionship is both a national security and geopolitical concern, and a deeply human issue for most of us with the privilege to access AI and the internet.

Made-in-America AI girlfriends and made-in-China AI boyfriends are strikingly different, and so are the social contexts and regulatory environments in which they exist. Yet one thing both markets share is the tension with real-life relationships. Whether healthy or not, frustrations with human interaction and broadly polarized gender dynamics are leading many men and women, regardless of nationality, to turn to AI.

But questions remain about AI companion products: Are they safe? Are they manipulative? Do they cure or amplify loneliness? Are they private enough? Are they responsible for mental health and suicide? Amid these debates about the technology itself, one question is often missing: where does the demand come from? If AI companions are truly unsafe, manipulative, or harmful, why do so many still turn to them? Psychologists, lawyers, national security experts, and AI safety researchers have many important questions to tackle about AI companions as products. But perhaps we should also ask ourselves: what gaps in our society make human relationships feel undesirable? AI companionship is a new problem, but misogyny, gender violence, social isolation, and racial stereotypes are not — in China and America alike.

Acknowledgement: a wholehearted thank you to my market scan teammates Mari Izumikawa, Fiona Lodge, and Angelo Leone, for splitting the mental trauma of reviewing many AI companion platforms. We are also looking for potential support to continue updating the market scan (for the English-speaking side) and conduct related research, so please reach out if you are interested.

Jeff Alstott is the fairy godfather of D.C. AI policy. He’s the founding Director at RAND’s Center for Technology and Security Policy (TASP). He worked at the NSC, NSF, and IARPA. He has a PhD in Complex Networks.

We discuss:

• How spreadsheets and tables on computer chips and energy policy change White House and Pentagon decision-making.

• Why AI companions could be as normal as having a phone or mitochondria in your cells.

• The risks of hacked AI “best friends” and emotional manipulation at scale.

• The benefits and trade-offs of AI-augmented decision-making in high places

Have a listen in your favorite podcast app.

Why Facts Still Matter

Jordan Schneider: We’ll start with a meta question. What is the point of facts in technology and national security policy?

Jeff Alstott: The point of facts is really the point of analysis writ large. Analysis is most critical for lowering the activation energy required for a policy to be selected and enacted.There are many policies that could be enacted, and for any given policy, it’s useful to consider how much activation energy exists for that policy to get enacted.

In a democracy like the United States, this involves some amount of political will, and different actors have different policy budgets, whether political budgets or otherwise. They may be able to take actions that have higher activation energy, but in general, we would all agree there are policies that are easier for policymakers to pursue versus harder for policymakers to pursue. Analysis is one of the things that either helps the policymaker decide upon a given policy or makes the argument to others for the policy, which then lowers the activation energy for them selecting that policy.

Jordan Schneider: Some would say that we are in a post-truth, post-facts era where charts and data don’t matter. I don’t happen to agree with that, but I’m curious about your response to that line of thinking when looking at the American political system today.

Jeff Alstott: I don’t consider it to be notably post-facts or post-truth or post-data compared to randomly selected other periods of American history. I do think that we have radically diverging attention, which is often related to diverging values but also diverging mental models of the world. A lot of disagreement stems from which of those we should prioritize and which we should focus on first. People often confuse differences in focus, attention, or prioritization with differences in attending to “the facts.”

That doesn’t mean that facts are always attended to — not at all. I’m not asserting that. Importantly, it also doesn’t mean that “the facts” are actually the facts. There have definitely been periods over both the past several years and past several decades where “the experts” have asked people to “trust the facts,” and then it turned out that the facts were wrong because science can be hard and we have error bars in our analyses. But I don’t think that we’re wildly out of step with previous eras in American history on this front.

Jordan Schneider: One interesting thing about technology and AI policy in particular is that the new variables at play and the new facts that senior policymakers in their 40s, 50s, and 60s are having to confront are different from debating Social Security, Medicare, or the national debt. With those issues, people have had years and decades to develop mental models for understanding them. At one level, this is frustrating because maybe you’re just at a deadlock and no one can agree to move forward on anything. But it also provides a really interesting and exciting opportunity for a collective like RAND to take young talent, get them to the knowledge frontier, push past it, and inform these busy policymakers who need to grasp these new concepts for which there isn’t necessarily a lot of built-in context.

Jeff Alstott: Absolutely agreed. This is not new. It’s definitely happening with AI right now, but anytime there’s been a new era of technology, there’s an education process and a getting-up-to-speed process. Those people who anticipated this issue — whatever the issue is: AI, internet policy, vaccines, or even foreign policy — become valuable.

There was an era where we didn’t think we were going to be doing anything in Vietnam, and then we were doing things in Vietnam, and the people who knew about Vietnam suddenly became very valuable. People who anticipated, “Hey, maybe we should know things about China,” have been at the tip of the spear for understanding things about China writ large, but also on China and tech.

There’s immense value for people looking ahead into the future and placing bets on what is going to matter, then spending the time ahead of time to get smart on whatever issue set is going to be coming down the pike. At TASP, we explicitly try to skate to where the puck is going. We anticipate what’s going to be happening with frontier AI capabilities, inputs, proliferation, etc., and say, “Oh, a policymaker is going to ask this question in six months or six years.” We do the work ahead of time so that when the moment arrives, we have the answers there for the policymakers.

Jordan Schneider: I’m glad you brought up Vietnam, Jeff, because I think Vietnam and Iraq in 2003 are two examples where the country’s regional experts were not listened to in the lead-up to very consequential decisions. You have these folks making very particularist arguments about their domain, and the people who actually had the power, who were in the room where it happened, were applying their generalist frameworks to the issue.

How does and doesn’t that map onto what we’re seeing with AI today? I remember in the early days when we had Senator Schumer doing his “let’s listen to all the CEOs” approach. The amount of deference that you saw on behalf of senators and congresspeople to these CEOs and researchers was really shocking to me. They were all just like, “Oh, please tell me about this. I’m really curious” — which is not generally how CEOs of giant companies are treated by the legislative branch.

As this has gone from a cool science project to a thing with big geopolitical equities, the relationship that the companies and the scientists have to the people in power is inevitably going to change. From where you sit running this group of 50 to 100 analysts trying to tease out the present and future of what AI is going to do for the US and national security: what is that realization on the part of a lot of actors in the system that this is a thing we really have to take seriously and develop our own independent views on doing for the desire for facts and analysis?

Jeff Alstott: You’re completely right that the situation now for different policymakers trying to learn things about AI or decide what to do about AI is different from how it was some number of years ago when frontier AI exploded onto the scene. What you went from is a period where nobody’s staff knew anything to now where all the staffers have known for a while that they need to know about this. They have spent time reading, studying, and marinating in these issues. Everyone now has a take. There was a period where nobody or few people had a take, and now everybody has a take, rightly or wrongly. We’re seeing congealing in different ways.

I think of this somewhat in terms of spaces being crowded or not. We have definitely at TASP repeatedly had periods where we said, “Okay, we are working on X, and now it’s the case that there are a bunch of other think tanks working on X. We don’t need to work on X; let’s go work on Y. Other people have got the ball; other people can get it done.” It’s nice from a load-sharing perspective.

In terms of your question about how facts and analysis and their role change as the audience gets more acculturated to some topic area, I think it can cut both ways. It’s really unfortunate when your audience is deeply ignorant of every word you say — they don’t know anything about anything. You can see how that would be very dangerous from a policymaking perspective. Them having more familiarity and having staff with their own mental models of things enables more sophisticated conversations, considerations, and thus policymaking. It really does.

On the other hand, as I said, people have their takes, and it can be the case that people get congealed or hardened into certain positions. Now getting them out of a position if it’s wrong is a much different mental move. It can cut both ways.

How Facts Change AI Policy

Jordan Schneider: Ok, enough of this 10,000-foot stuff. Let’s jump into some case studies. Some longtime ChinaTalk listeners would know from the repeated episodes we’ve done with Lennart Heim talking about compute and AI and geopolitics, but you guys have been up to lots of other stuff. Jeff, why don’t you do a quick intro of TASP and then jump into one case study that you’re particularly proud of — how you guys have used analysis to forward a conversation.

Jeff Alstott: TASP is a team of between 50 and 100 people, depending on how you count, where our mission is tech competition and tech risks. It’s beat China and don’t die. That has predominantly meant frontier AI issues.

One great example was our work around energy and AI. This is about the amount of energy or power that needs to get produced domestically in the US in order to keep frontier AI scaling happening in the US versus elsewhere. It happens to be the case that the US currently hosts about 75% of global frontier AI computing power. But if that frontier AI computing power continues to scale up, we just do not have the electricity on the grid to keep those chips alive. The chips are going to get deployed elsewhere.

This was an issue that frontier AI companies had started murmuring about quite some time ago — both the companies that make the AIs, but more particularly the hyperscalers that make the computers that actually do this.

It took me a little while to realize this could be a really big thing. Sometime mid-last year, I put together a team of RAND researchers who know about energy and paired them with people who knew about frontier AI computing. I said, “We are going to need a table.” That table is going to be a list of all the energy policy moves that are possible within executive power. We’re going to need for each move the amount of gigawatts that it will actually unlock on the grid.

This is not about what sounds good; this is not about what fits a particular political ideology. It is about what are the moves that unlock the most gigawatts. You can then rank the table by gigawatts, and those need to be the policies that policymakers are most attending to, putting their energies towards.

That took on the order of a year to create. The report is out now (or in op-ed form). We’ve already been briefing the results to policymakers to be able to say, “Look, you think that you have a problem over here with supply chains for natural gas turbines. That is an example of a thing that is an impediment to domestic energy production in the US. But there are other moves that would produce far more gigawatts that actually turn out to be more available. That is to say, they don’t require international supply chains; they just require domestic deregulatory moves in terms of allowing people to make better use of their power production capabilities that are already on the grid and upgrading them.” That is an example of a case study.

Make Your Own Fray

Jordan Schneider: This is the type of work that I find exciting and inspiring, especially if I am a promising 24-year-old wanting to make a dent in the universe. There are so many policy problems which are intractable where facts and analysis aren’t really that relevant anymore. You are not really going to change Trump’s mind that tariffs are useful, or you are not going to change Elizabeth Warren’s mind that more government regulation in healthcare is going to deliver positive benefits.

But there are a lot of weird niche technical corners where I don’t think a lot of politicians or regulators have super strong priors when it comes to gas turbines versus deregulating transmission lines or what have you. You are very far from the Pareto frontier where you actually have to start doing really tough trade-offs when it comes to sending GPUs to the UAE or taking Chinese investment in X, Y, or Z thing or trading off chips for rare earths. You can color under that and push out the level of goodness that anyone and their mother who’s working on these policies would want. You could probably agree on that.

Doing that type of work, especially as you’re starting out in a career in this field, gives you a really great grounding. I think it’s a corrective as well. You’re consuming so much news which is about the fights that are intractable or are about value differences where the facts and analysis aren’t quite as germane to what the final solution could be. But there are so many weird corners, particularly when it comes to more technical questions about emerging technologies, where there are positive-sum solutions. You just need to go do the work to find them because no one else is.

Jeff Alstott: Absolutely agreed. I love your metaphor of coloring underneath the Pareto frontier. There’s a famous biologist, E.O. Wilson, who died a few years ago. I remember he has this guidance about careers, and he said when there’s a bunch of people all attending to a certain issue, it can create a fray. There’s a fray of conflict, and you can leap into the fray and try to advance things, or you can go make your own fray. That phrase “make your own fray” really stuck with me.

It happens to be the case that within policy, as it gets more like politics — as you describe, where there’s more and more attention to the issue, more people are knowledgeable about the thing — then the low-hanging fruits get picked, and then the remainder are things that are on that Pareto frontier. It becomes more about differences in values. Then indeed, the relative returns go up of trying to go make your own fray on a different issue.

Jordan Schneider: Especially from an individual perspective: Can you have fun? Will your work make an impact? You can have a higher degree of confidence that the time you are spending on the thing will lead to a better outcome on the thing versus figuring out a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. It’s pretty picked over at this point. I’m not sure there’s going to be a creative technical solution which is going to get you there.

Jeff Alstott: I would say that there is a thing of staying within topics that have a bunch of attention on them but identifying those things where there’s actually a lot of agreement, but nobody is advancing the ball for reasons other than disagreement on the thing. For example, all of the policymakers’ attention is just on other stuff. It is all consumed with Israel and Palestine or Ukraine or what have you. They are simply attending to other things, and everyone would agree, “Yeah, we could do X,” if they merely had any brain power spent on it. But they don’t. That becomes your job — to move the ball forward on these things that have a fair amount of brain cells activated but still have a lot of buy-in.

Jordan Schneider: Even with Israel-Palestine, I’ve seen a really fascinating, well-done report about water sharing between the West Bank and Israel and Jordan. They just had a lot of hydrologists hang out with each other and come up with some agreement that seems reasonable. Maybe one day that will be a thing that will be useful to some folks. Even on the most emotionally charged, contentious topics, there’s always some room for thinking deeply that will be appreciated one day. We can all hope.

Anyway, Jeff, let’s break the news.

Jeff Alstott: The news is that I came to RAND nearly three years ago to create a thriving, vibrant ecosystem of policy and technology R&D on frontier AI issues and how they affect national security. My desire was always to make an ecosystem that would continue to function if I got hit by a bus.

Thanks to fantastic hires that we’ve made and various processes that we’ve created, that’s very much true. I don’t feel like I’m needed anymore for this ecosystem to continue to thrive and create the things that the US and the world needs. Within a few months, I’ll be stepping down as director of the TASP center.

Jordan Schneider: One other cool thing that RAND gets to do that CSIS or Brookings doesn’t is classified work. What’s exciting about that, Jeff?

Jeff Alstott: It’s great, and it’s one of the things that I consider a central institutional comparative advantage of RAND. RAND started as a defense contractor 70-odd years ago, and we’ve been doing classified work for the government ever since. It means that our work at TASP and elsewhere within RAND is able to move back and forth between the unclassified and classified barriers, which means we’re able to stress-test analyses in ways that can’t happen in the unclassified space. It means there are entire questions that we can seek to address that only live in the classified space.

But it’s also really critical for talent development. You mentioned that 24-year-old who is trying to break into the D.C. world. Well, them coming to RAND and doing the work and also getting a clearance will set them up better for whatever the next thing is — either another role within RAND or going to work at DoD or the intelligence community or what have you. Thankfully, we’ve got good processes for doing that classified work that I think are going to continue to be well-executed for the foreseeable future. I consider this one of the marked administrative institutional advantages of RAND, beyond all the obvious things like all the brilliant people you can talk about.

Jordan Schneider: What’s the shape of the questions that end up being done in a classified setting versus the papers that people read that TASP puts out?

Jeff Alstott: On some topics, there is intelligence collection. On some topics, there is intelligence collection that changes the conclusions. On some topics, there’s not intelligence collection that changes the conclusions. That in itself is interesting, and some audiences will care about that. If anyone wants to talk in a SCIF about which kinds of things change the sign versus not — happy to talk with them in a SCIF. We could do that someday.

Then there are also things. If you want to really do analysis on dynamic actions that the US could do, then those are things that you want to be doing in a SCIF. But as a concrete example that is not happening within TASP, literally next door in a secure facility, somebody is working on how the bombs and bullets of how a US-China conflict over Taiwan would go down.

There’s a pretty famous brief called the Overmatch Brief. We’ve had two versions of this. We’re on our third version now, which is just showing the net effect of all of Red and Blue’s capabilities being brought to bear in a Taiwan conflict. This is the briefing that goes to the White House when the White House asks, “All right, how would this happen?” It’s a classified analysis.

Jordan Schneider: We had Mick Ryan, a former Australian general, on. He recently wrote a book which is one of these near-future fiction novelizations of a US-China conflict. The way America wins in the end is they create a typhoon which they spoof out of existence from the Chinese weather buoy receivers, and then it hits the Chinese navy and they disappear. Blink twice if that is a thing that you guys have worked on at TASP.

Jeff Alstott: I’ve not worked on that at TASP.

Jordan Schneider: Good to know.

On AI Girlfriends and Politicians

Jordan Schneider: I want to give you some of my crazy AGI takes, Jeff because I don’t know who else I can do this with. My first one: we’re calling this the AI girlfriend net assessment. The thesis is that five to ten years from now, everyone is going to have an AI companion that they trust with their life. We already have the Swedish Prime Minister saying he consults ChatGPT all the time for work. You already have half of teens in America saying that they speak a few times a week with AI for emotional support.

I have an enormous degree of confidence that this is a one-way ratchet. As the technology gets better, we’re going to trust it with more and more facets of our life. From both a human intelligence perspective as well as a broader influence operations perspective, this seems like an absolutely enormous vector, both for the US to have a lot of fun with foreign leaders and populations’ AI companions abroad, as well as a vulnerability at home if someone can hack my AI companion or tweak the dials on a nation’s AI companion in order to get them to think one way or have civil unrest or vote differently.

The worries that we had with Facebook and algorithms or Twitter and TikTok and algorithms seem like child’s play compared to this threat vector that we’re going to have from having these Scarlett Johansson “Her” characters in our life that we have these strong emotional bonds with. Am I crazy?

Jeff Alstott: First, this is totally a thing that is happening. I know people of many different ages where they are increasingly incorporating LLM counselors into how they live life. I am not such a person — not yet. The thing’s not good enough for me.

Jordan Schneider: We’ll get you, Jeff. Don’t worry.

Jeff Alstott: There are several possible ways that this could play out. First, I would not be super confident that this is a one-way thing. Remember when cell phones came out and silencing your cell phones was an issue? You had to remind people at the beginning of events to silence their cell phones. Cell phones would go off all the time. People would have customized rings and there would be scandals about politicians having such and such ring tone. Now we don’t do any of that because society figured out you just have your phone on silent basically all the time. We figured out how to incorporate this technology into our lives.

Relatedly, kids and cell phones or any other devices — you’re a father, I am sure that you have had thoughts about when is the right time to give your child access to different kinds of technology. There definitely were eras where the parents hadn’t yet had time to think about it, so they were just doing stuff. Then we observed the stuff happening and then we said, “Oh wait, we need to change that.” It is not uncommon these days to see families who are just really intentional about “you’re not getting a phone until age X.”

There’s a Catholic University professor who’s now working at the State Department in the Policy Planning Office. His name is Jon Askonas and he wrote this great piece several years ago called “Why Conservatism Failed.” It’s basically identifying that within the right there is this implicit assumption that more tech of all kinds will always be good. We know this is false. We just talked about something like cell phones ringing or putting your phone in front of your infant’s face.

We have the opportunity to be intentional about how we incorporate these technologies into our lives. That includes as individuals, but also in the workplace and also as policymakers. You mentioned the Swedish Prime Minister. We’re going to get to the point where, yeah, maybe the Prime Minister has AI advisors, and the character of those AI advisors is highly inspected. We have a lot of thought about what is this AI? What is it trained to do? What are its supply chains? What is its ability to get manipulated? This is the kind of thing that we do for many areas of technology. As it gets to more critical use cases, we are more thoughtful about how we use it.

That is my claim about not assuming the ratchet. But there’s a whole other category here, and I think you would appreciate this: in all of our cells, all of our biological cells, there are these mitochondria. We all remember from school, “mitochondria — the powerhouse of the cell.” It helps you make lots of energy from respiration. What you may not recall is that there’s a fair amount of evidence that mitochondria were independently evolved organisms that we then evolved a symbiotic relationship with, where the mitochondria now live inside our cells and are reproduced as we reproduce. But they started out as a separate thing.

I think that it is totally possible that humans leveraging AI are going to end up in a cadence of life that looks a lot like the mitochondria with the cell, where indeed just what it means to be a human in an advanced technological society will be: “Of course you have your AI assistant, of course you have that,” just as “of course you have mitochondria in your cells.” The collective organism of yourself plus your technology assistance will be perceived as just as normal as the fact that you and I are both wearing glasses. Of course we wear glasses. What are you talking about?

The tech’s not there yet for me, but there will be segments of society where this is how they see themselves. I don’t have a strong bet on what timeline for that.

Jordan Schneider: The mitochondria version is the vision that — let’s give a 40% chance of happening, assuming the AI gets better and it gets smart enough that Jeff uses it more in his daily life. We haven’t even talked about how you want to automate all of your 50 TASP researchers. But the fact that that is even a thing you’re considering means that it’s going to be real.

There are a few things I want to pick up in your answer. First, it’s different from turning the cell phone ring on or having it not ring. It’s more like: we all have emotional needs and we all have jobs that change. The idea that you can be a journalist in 2025 and not be on Twitter is absurd because the world has changed. The metabolism of news is faster, and algorithmic feeds for a large percentage of humanity have outcompeted the needs for content that we had compared to going to Blockbuster and picking out a VCR from 100 videos.

It seems to me that it’s going to be really useful and powerful, and maybe we’ll get to something in 2050 where we have some good guardrails and all of our AI companions are localized and can’t be hacked by a foreign government. But we’re going to have some mess in the meantime.

Another piece of this mitochondria thing goes to my second AGI hot take: AI presidents and politicians. I think it’s probably going to first come with the CEOs, but then in the political sphere, where the ones who are using AI to augment and improve their analytical capabilities and are spinning up their own AI-powered task forces to give them the right answer to “Should I say this or that in my speech? Should I invest in that or this technology or open this or that factory?” will just have some evolutionary advantage where the people with the most money and power and influence in society are the ones that get more dependent faster on the AI.

Again, we’re assuming that AI is good enough to actually help you win that election or outcompete that company. But it seems to me like this is a very reasonable world that we could be living in 10, 20, 30 years from now where there is an evolutionary dynamic of: “Okay, if I’m the one who figures out how to work with my mitochondria best, then I can go pick more berries and have more children or whatever.” That’ll just happen for folks who learn to use leverage and ultimately just trust fall into letting the AI decide whatever they do — because humans suck and the AI is going to be really good.

Jeff Alstott: You’re speaking my language. A long time ago I was an evolutionary biologist, and I attend a lot to things outcompeting other things and the effects that has on the system. One of the ways in which this may shake out is that compared to a lot of other foreign policy and certainly national security people, I attend to hard power way more than I attend to soft power. I absolutely agree with your view of “dude, if you use the thing, you’re going to be better, so you’re going to win.”

Then it becomes a question of: “All right, but does it actually make you better?” As you mentioned, we’re wanting to automate a lot of tasks at RAND, and we could talk about that in more depth. But one very simple thing is using LLMs to auto-write things or to revise things. You work enough with LLMs, you probably can tell when the thing is written by an LLM. It’s using all the em dashes and everything. I have a colleague who just yells at everything made by LLMs, calling it “okay writing, but it’s not good writing.” And how much effort do we want to make it be good writing?

Merely having AI do all your things for you — as you say, a trust fall — is going to pay out in some domains and not others initially. Eventually it’ll pay out in all domains. I’m with you there. But there are going to be folks who are making trust falls too early in some domains that are going to get burned, and different people can have different bets on that one.

Jordan Schneider: It’s interesting because clearly we don’t even have to go to 2075 where AI is going to be good at everything. There are things that it is going to have a comparative advantage in over time. The types of decisions that a CEO or a general or a politician does is taking in information with their eyes and their ears and processing that and then spitting out, “Okay, I think we should do A. If I see X, then we should do B. If it doesn’t work, then maybe we should go to C.” That type of thinking seems very amenable to the analysis and thought that an AI could do over time.

We can make some nice arguments in favor of humanity that we have these lived-in-body experiences, and we feel history and context, and maybe we can read humans in a deeper, more thoughtful way if Jeff is deciding to assign this person versus that person. But we’ll have your glasses with a camera on them, and the AI soon will be able to pick up on all of the micro facial reactions that Jeff does when he assigns Lennart to do biotech instead of compute, and he shrugs a little bit but then says, “Okay, fine, whatever you say, Jeff.”

You can put the camera on Mark Zuckerberg and he has to make all these decisions — at some point in the next 30 years, a lot of the executive decision-making, it seems to me an AI is just going to be really, really good at. There are some really interesting implications.

What you were saying about some people are going to get burned: if that happens in the private sector and Satya adopts this slower than Zuckerberg and then Zuck wins out and gains market share, this is fine. It’s capitalism. Companies adopt technology in different ways.

But when you abstract it up a level to politics and geopolitics — “should we do a trade deal with this country? Should we sell these arms to this country? How should I phrase my communiqué in my next meeting with the Chinese leadership?” — that’ll be really interesting because we won’t have those case studies. My contention to you, Jeff, is we’ll get into a point where we will have had politicians who’ve tried it, although I think we are still going to have a president who is a human being for a while. Just because we have a Constitution that’s probably pretty Lindy, it’ll take a while for us to get rid of that.

But there’ll be some point in history where you get elected to governor, you do a better job running your state because you’re listening to the AI, and the governor in the state next to you isn’t. You’re doing a better job in the debate because the AI is telling you what to say and then you’re more pithy and sound sharper. We end up in a system that naturally selects towards the people with AI.

Maybe once we get that, we’ll also have the AI which is good and aligned enough to pursue things in the national and broader society interest. But maybe not. Perhaps even once we get there, we’ll still get burned because it’s not good at nuclear war or something. Sorry.

Jeff Alstott: Sorry, for what?

Jordan Schneider: Sorry to my audience. Are you guys cool with this? I don’t have a lot of guests I can go here with this stuff with, so we’re putting it all on Jeff.

Jeff Alstott: I really appreciate that you’re bringing up the audience right now because this very much gets to the earlier things we were talking about — the utility of analysis and the looking ahead. You are doing exactly the right thing, which is looking ahead to a place that most people are not looking ahead to or don’t want to go to. You’re trying to beat the market of ideas by being early. If you can do that well, that gives you time to have thought about the issues more, do more research and analysis, so that when this issue is no longer weird and enters the Overton window, then Jordan’s thought about it and Jordan’s there to be giving as good of informed analysis as possible. Not just Jordan, but Jordan’s audience.

There is this issue of how we select which unusual futures to lean into, especially when we have uncertainty about the future. You said some dates; I said some other dates. My median prediction for an AGI that can do every economically and militarily relevant task as well as a human is in the early 2040s.

But it’s totally reasonable to say that’s too far in the future. “I need to make bets on other nearer-term things that are still maybe eight years away so that I can be hitting those policy windows in eight years as they appear.” It’s worthwhile for there to be a portfolio either at the level of an individual or at the level of a center or a society in terms of we have some FTEs allocated to these different timelines and different scenarios.

The Utility of Expertise

Jordan Schneider: We’ve talked mostly about this in a technology context, but peering over the event horizon in a China context is also shockingly easy if you’re doing it — way easier than this AGI stuff. If you were someone who followed China at all, Bytedance was a company that you knew about in 2017 because it was the biggest app in China. If you followed China at all, you knew that they were building a lot of electric vehicles. You knew they were building a lot of solar panels.

This is the fun part of my little niche. Am I going to have a more informed opinion than you or Lennart about when AI is going to be able to make every militarily relevant decision? Not really. And by the way, that’s kind of an impossible question. But things about China are just happening today. Because of the language, because it’s halfway across the world, because the Chinese government is opaque (not really), but China’s confusing and hard and you need to put a little homework in before you understand what the deal is with some things.

It is so easy to tell people things that are going to wash up against their political event horizon activation energies over a six-month to two-year horizon. Which is why this niche is so fun, and you guys should come up with cool stuff and either work for Jeff or write for ChinaTalk. I’ll put the link in the show notes. We’re just pitching stuff here.

Jeff Alstott: I love how you describe this thing of “man, all you had to do was pay attention. It was easy.” The fact is, as we said earlier, people’s attention is on other things. All you had to do is be paying attention.

Just to get to the union of China issues and AI issues: DeepSeek. Many people who were paying attention were telling folks for many months before the DeepSeek models came out, “This team is awesome. We need to be recruiting them; we need to be doing everything we can to get them out of China and get them to the US or allies.” Now we can’t because their passports have been taken away.

Similarly, we knew the existence of a Chinese model of a certain level of capability at that time in history because the export controls hadn’t properly hit yet. They bought the stuff ahead of time. It’s because you were paying attention and then other people were not paying attention or were paying sufficiently little attention that their world model was sufficiently rough that they just didn’t know these things were going to be coming. This is the utility of well-placed expertise.

Jordan Schneider: It was very funny for the ChinaTalk team to live through the DeepSeek moment because we have been covering DeepSeek as a company and the Chinese AI ecosystem broadly ever since ChatGPT, basically. I’ve been screaming at people in Washington and in Silicon Valley, “These guys are really good. They can make models. You’re not smarter than them, I don’t think. Or they’re smart enough to fast-follow if you’re not going to give them enough credit.”

It wasn’t a hunch. The models were there. You could play with them and they were really good. It was remarkable to me to watch the world wake up to that. We gained a few extra points. I think we got 20,000 new free subscribers on the newsletter, which is cool. It probably helped us raise a little bit of philanthropic funding. There was some material and clout gain from being “right” or early to this.

But more what I have been reflecting on is: could I have screamed louder? Could I have screamed in a different color? What could I have done differently in terms of our coverage and writing and podcasting to get this message (which I had with 95% confidence) out to the world faster?

It’s funny because you can be right in some fields and very straightforwardly make money off of it. But being right in this field, you don’t want to be “I told you so,” and it’s an iterated game. It makes it easier next time. But I still reflect on that a lot about how my team and the ChinaTalk audience was aware of this company and the fact of the capability of Chinese model makers and AI researchers, and it still was a big shock to the broader ecosystem.

Jeff Alstott: Completely agreed. I love how you’re thinking about “what should I have done differently so that people acted.” This issue is relevant to the questions that you had at the top about the role of analysis or the effect of analysis. It is possible to do fantastic analysis that’s totally right and have no effect because you didn’t consider your audience.

There are definitely researchers in think tanks who write 300-page reports when what the policymaker needs is a page, and they get really detailed into their method when what they needed was the answer. They are speaking to an audience that turns out isn’t the audience that is actually at the levers of power.

There’s a variety of strategies of essentially how broad versus how targeted you are in disseminating your analysis. This can affect what analysis you choose to do and how to design it. That’s the thing that we focused on a lot at TASP and RAND.

Earlier you talked about the classified work. An advantage of that is that we’re able to engage with policymakers in ways that are difficult to otherwise. We’re running war games and tabletop exercises that may be unclassified or classified, and it enables you to engage with people otherwise. But it’s not just the classified work. Because RAND’s a defense contractor, we’re engaging with policymakers directly, frequently. It helps you build up a mental model of: “No, Bob sitting in that chair is the person who is going to make the decision. In order to inform Bob, I need to present the analysis in a way that is interpretable to Bob.” It’s not whoever my 10 million followers on X are; it’s Bob.

There’s this tension about where you place your bets along that Pareto frontier of being more targeted to certain audiences versus broader. Both are valuable, but it’s useful to have a portfolio approach again.

Jordan Schneider: I think you wouldn’t mind me claiming that I’m probably a third standard deviation policy communicator person in this little world and have learned a lot of the lessons that you have. I’ve built my career around a lot of the pitfalls that you’ve identified — not writing the 300-page thing — and somehow lived both on doing the original research and being the “popularizer” and writing in a way which is engaging and accessible and making the show hopefully fun as well as informative.

Maybe the answer is that I went too far in that direction and wasn’t hanging out with Bob. Maybe Bob isn’t someone in the Defense Department. Maybe Bob is a New York Times reporter or a Senate staffer. Actually, it’s probably not a Senate staffer. Let’s talk more about Bob because in the DeepSeek case, he wouldn’t be Marc Andreessen, right? Bob wasn’t anyone in the AI labs — they were all aware of this as well. Maybe there was just enough money on the other side of this discussion that it was too inconvenient a fact to internalize. What do you think?

Jeff Alstott: Who Bob is depends upon what exact policy move is relevant here. You just mentioned both people in government and people out of government. The frontier AI companies — probably any one of them could have, with sufficient will, tried to go headhunt every member of the DeepSeek team. They had the legal authority to do this and possibly enough cash, whereas government would have different abilities but not, ironically, a ready-made answer for just “hey, we’re going to come employ you.” The US government does not currently have anything like an Operation Paperclip, as was done with German scientists after World War II. The fact that it doesn’t have such a thing means that its moves available to it for handling a DeepSeek crew is more limited.

Who Bob is depends upon the exact policy move that you want. For what it’s worth, you made the suggestion that maybe you’ve gone too far in one direction; I’ve gone too far in the other direction, which is part of why we like each other — because we’re both doing these complementary things where I’m not on X, I have no social media presence, I’m from the intelligence community. My job is knowing the middle name of the relevant staffer because that allows you to infer what their email address is because the middle initial is in there, and who reports to whom and the palace intrigue and that kind of thing. It’s useful for what it is, but it’s only one kind of usefulness.

Another shout-out for anybody who’s looking to apply to TASP: our conversations and impact are much broader than the public publications that we have on our website because of this bias that I have had. But maybe it’s the case that we ought to be leaning into publishing more than we have been.

Jordan Schneider: All right, I want to close on the vision for automating this. We’ve talked about automating AI presidents, but what’s next?

Jeff Alstott: Right now at TASP and within RAND, we’re working to find ways to use the latest AI technology to automate steps in our research processes to achieve greater speed and scale. There are at least two ways to approach this: automating research management and automating research execution.

Research management involves office processes: ensuring documents go to the right person, checking that documents follow proper structures and templates, routing them to publications with the correct billing codes, and other administrative tasks. Much of this automation doesn’t require AI and can use standard tools, though adding LLMs enables us to plug key steps where human intervention is no longer needed. This allows processes to go from almost fully automated to completely automated, which is excellent. We’re continuing to build this out.

The more interesting aspect for your audience is research execution: figuring out facts about the external world and what they mean for policy options, what we call analysis. We’re currently exploring two areas, both leveraging the fact that while LLMs can be weak in their world modeling and the context they bring to problems, when provided with proper context, they can automate and iterate effectively.

First is quality assurance. We have an LLM review documents to identify problems: Is any of this incorrect? Is the math wrong? Are the numbers accurate? Does this reference match that reference? When a claim cites a particular source, we have the AI read the citation to verify whether the claim is actually supported. With 100 citations, you can process them quickly. We’re working to speed up our QA processes. This won’t be perfect with today’s technology, but it will help significantly.

The second area is what we call a “living analysis document.” Once humans have completed their analysis, written it up, and made critical high-context decisions about how to structure the analysis — what data to use, how to set up the model, what the actual issues are and how they interplay — once humans have done all that and produced the paper, can we have an AI repeat the analysis a year later with the latest data automatically? This automatic extension and continuation of analysis seems like potentially low-hanging fruit that’s doable, at least partially, with today’s technologies.

I’m hoping this will enable us to do not just more analysis in areas where we currently work, but by freeing up human labor, we’ll be able to embark on new analyses in new areas, expanding where we focus our attention.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s close with some reading homework. Give the people something substantial.

Jeff Alstott: I just watched K-Pop Demon Hunters last night. It was awesome. I have a rule: no work or high cognitive effort activities after 8 PM. There are people like yourself who read dense books late into the evening, but that’s just not me. It’s K-Pop Demon Hunters for me.

All right, let me think of something substantive that folks might want.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah, last night I was reading Stormtroop Tactics — thank you, Mick Ryan, for taking over my brain. It’s about the evolution of German infiltration operations from 1914 to 1918. It’s pretty well written. What’s cute is that the dad wrote it and dedicated it to his son, who was a colonel at the time. He was like, “I wrote you this book so you can learn about tactics better.”

Jeff Alstott: My recommendation is “The Extended Mind” by Andy Clark and David Chalmers. There may be just an article, but there’s also a book on the extended mind by Andy Clark. This is a classic cognitive science piece.

Because I’m a cognitive scientist, which was my original training, I assert that if you’re thinking about AI futures, what’s happening with the human condition and AI, and what’s possible, much of the older cognitive science work will be more helpful for making accurate predictions and bets than the particulars of machine learning today. The machine learning particulars may matter too, but if you’re looking more than five years out, certainly more than ten years in the future, you shouldn’t focus on LLMs specifically, but rather on more fundamental cognitive science concepts.

The concept of the extended mind, which people were thinking about decades ago in cognitive science, relates directly to the issues you brought up about AI companions. It’s essentially about how we think about what our mind is, where it lives, and where it’s physically instantiated. This includes obvious things like notes. You write down notes and they become part of your mind. Your brain remembers pointers to the notes, but not the contents themselves. There are definitely people who are diminished when they don’t have their notes available. Books, AIs, and other tools are all part of your extended mind system.

If you want to think about how different AI futures could work, cognitive science in general, and if you care about the AI companions issue for presidents or otherwise, then “The Extended Mind” in particular is essential reading.

Jordan Schneider: That’s a beautiful thought. I’ve done a lot of self-promotion on this episode, but we’ll close with it being an honor and a pleasure to be part of this audience’s collective mind. Thank you for your time and for trusting the show, the team, and my guests to create content that stretches your extended mind in interesting and useful ways. Thanks so much for being part of ChinaTalk, Jeff.

Zhao Gu Gammage is a recent graduate from Haverford College, where she majored in East Asian Languages and Cultures, and minored in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies. She’ll be starting a Boren scholarship for intensive Mandarin language training in Taiwan this fall.

Arafat Arrives in Beijing, March 1970

Thousands waited by the time Yasser Arafat stepped onto the tarmac of Beijing Capital Airport. Vice Premier Li Xiannian 李先念, along with other Chinese bureaucrats, orchestrated the whole affair: soldiers waited to enthusiastically wave Palestinian and Chinese flags, civilians waited to chant slogans expressing support for Palestine, and even foreign diplomats waited to shake hands and exchange greetings.

The Chinese people called the Palestinian people “heroic” (向英勇) and their struggle for liberation “just” (正义).1 They connected the Palestinian struggle with liberation movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, denouncing American imperialism and Zionism.

Arafat championed Palestinian nationalism through his decades-long leadership of multiple Palestinian groups, including the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah, which he co-founded. He had recently returned from the USSR, where his 10-day stay was low-key, with no Soviet media coverage or meetings with upper-level officials. His trip ended with a devastating blow: Soviet aid was announced to support “Arab states,” an obvious snub that excluded guerrilla “liberation groups,” like Fatah.2

In China, however, he received front-page features in the People’s Daily (人民日报), a meeting with Zhou Enlai, and a promise that the People’s Republic of China would send cash and arms to the PLO.

The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas dominates news coverage and demonstrates America's sustained influence in the region. However, very little is known about China’s diplomacy in the Middle East, much less with Palestine. Even among scholars, China-Middle East research has just begun to emerge, with China-Palestine relations only recently becoming a hot topic because of the war. To find accounts of Arafat’s first China visit, l paired Mandarin-language digital archives of the People’s Daily with English-language academic publications.

China’s Developing Stance on Israel-Palestine

Immediately after the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949, the PRC focused more on domestic stability and stability with their neighbors than with places like the Middle East. At the time, Arab countries were either struggling for independence or maintaining ties with the Nationalists in Taiwan.

China remained decidedly neutral on Israel-Palestine even after Israel’s recognition of the PRC in 1950 – the first in the region to do so. It would be another 40 years until China returned the favor.

On the eve of the Bandung Conference, the 1955 affair that assembled leaders from Africa and Asia, China finally developed its stance. China gave unequivocal support to Palestine in the hopes of gaining Arab allies. They noticed the importance that Palestine held to Gamal Abdel Nasser, then-president of Egypt and leader of Arab nationalism, and considered support for Palestine as key to winning over the Arab world.

The conference presented an opportunity for China to circumvent American containment — by 1955, American troops were in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Forging international alliances was a useful tool for gaining recognition at the United Nations. Here, Zhou Enlai bonded with Nasser over their shared goal of Palestinian statehood, which led to the recognition of the PRC by the Arab world not long after. The PRC compared Palestine and China as two places with a common struggle against American imperialism. Like how the PRC claimed Taiwan as historically belonging to China, so too with Palestine and Israel. The PRC viewed Taiwan and Israel as agents of American imperialism. Portraying the Israeli state and Zionism as one facet of American imperialism paired with support for Palestinian freedom allowed China to build solidarity with Palestine and, on a larger scale, with the Arab world.

China and Anti-Imperialism

From the moment Arafat stepped onto the tarmac, he immediately understood that China viewed Palestine as the anti-imperialist struggle in the Middle East.

The anti-imperialist rhetoric from the “revolutionary masses” (革命群众数) had two sides.3 One expressed Chinese solidarity with countries to rule independently of colonial ties. The slogan “Firmly support the liberation struggle of the Asian, African, and Latin American people!” (坚决支持亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲各国人民的解放斗争！) does exactly this.4 It placed Palestine within the larger global context of other liberatory struggles happening simultaneously. Thus, the slogan enables China to cast itself as supporting not just Palestine but the whole world.

Arafat played into this anti-imperial rhetoric as well. He considered China as the “fundamental pillar” (基本支柱) of the Palestinian revolution.5 He cited China’s military support for Fatah — and China’s status as the first country to offer such support — as a reminder of the struggle and friendship (战斗友谊) between them.6 Additionally, he coined the phrase “revolution grows out of the barrel of a gun” (胜利只有通过枪杆子才能赢得), a nod to Mao’s famous saying, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (枪杆子里面出政权).7

Portraying Western imperialist countries as the enemy was something Arafat and the Palestinians easily agreed with. Arafat repeatedly heard the slogan, “Firmly support Palestinian and Arab people’s just struggle against American imperialism and Zionism” (“坚决支持巴勒斯坦人民和阿拉伯各国人民反对美帝国主义和犹太复国主义的正义斗争”).8 Through united opposition to Zionism and American imperialism, this slogan created a common enemy between the people of China with the people of Palestine.

Coincidentally, when Arafat was in China, the Chinese Red Cross’ donation finally arrived in Palestine. The donation of medical equipment, medicine, and clothes worth around 100,000 RMB was dispatched the previous year to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. In return, the Palestinians thanked the Chinese, reiterating their shared struggle and writing, “Our two countries both suffered from the common force — the pain caused by American imperialism.” (我们两国都遭受到共同的武力——即美帝国主义所造成的痛苦).9

Subscribe now

Throughout his visit, Arafat saw China’s ability to mobilize the masses towards “grasping revolution” (抓革命).10 Arafat saw the blue knee-high socks and matching uniforms dance across the stage of the Red Detachment of Women, the ballet epitomizing the Chinese Communist Revolution and revolutionary spirit under Mao. At the Huangtuguang’s People’s Commune, tucked in the Beijing suburbs, commune members repeated to Arafat the same anti-imperialist slogans that he had heard on the tarmac. Here, Arafat and his delegation observed the commune’s health center, factory, and school. At the PLA unit, Arafat again saw the PLA troops waving flags and chanting slogans, along with a coordinated weapons shooting.

Arafat’s meeting with Zhou Enlai on his penultimate day in China was perhaps the culmination of his visit. Despite little news coverage of the conversation, the talk was “cordial” (亲切).11

Limits of Solidarity

Arafat’s week in China was marked by banquets and handshakes, but what did it actually accomplish? While the Chinese media created fanfare around his visit, he was in reality given a modest reception. Five years prior, in 1965, Ahmad Shukeiri, the then-chairman of the PLO, met with the top of the CCP, including Mao, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, whereas Arafat was handled by lower-level officials, such as Li Xiannian, meeting only briefly with Zhou Enlai. Arafat left China for North Vietnam, but returned to China many times before his death in 2004.

CAC Stressed About China’s Feelings

Last week I stumbled on a fascinating new release from CAC that gives a sense of just what the Chinese government is worried its citizens are feelings. Cyberspace Affairs Commission pushed out a new iteration of its years-long content purge campaign, Qing Lang 清朗, that targets “malicious incitement of negative emotions” (恶意挑动负面情绪). On the surface it reads like a regular cleanse of party criticism in the name of boosting “positive energy,” but this go-around feels even weirder.

from the brilliant substack Active Faults delivers the Straussian read below. Block quotes are translated from the Sept 22 CAC post itself, and the commentary is Em’s.

To address problems such as maliciously inciting confrontation and promoting violent and hostile sentiments—and to foster a more civil and rational online environment—the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) has recently issued a notice launching a two-month nationwide “Clean & Healthy: Special Campaign to Curb the Malicious Stirring of Negative Emotions.”

A CAC official said the campaign will focus on social networks, short-video and livestreaming platforms, conducting comprehensive inspections of key features such as topics, rankings, recommendations, bullet comments, and comment sections, and will target the following issues:

1) Incitement of extreme and contrarian feelings between groups.
Exploiting viral news stories to forcibly tag or stigmatize people by identity, geographical area, gender, etc., thereby stoking conflicts between groups. Using media content, stand-up comedies and sports events to egg on “fan-circle” factions to maliciously belittle others, attack, abuse, or organize mass reporting. Certain ACG subgroups and “trolling youth” communities inciting confrontation or even doxxing, or teaching how to buy and sell doxxing services.

I’m hardly surprised at this hyperspecific whip-cracking. Chinese entertainment has seen some of the most radically feminist movies, comedy sets, and drama series in the past two years alone than all previous years combined. Beyond entertainment, numerous high-profile news stories in 2025 provoked intense discussions among members of the public, like the lead poisoning controversy in a Gansu kindergarten, or the sexual harrassment incident at Wuhan University. General discontentment and mistrust of the authorities are boiling over, and this wave of Qing Lang needs to quell them with renewed force.

2) Spreading panic and anxiety.
Fabricating fake news about disasters, dangers, or police incidents that could affect public safety; forging government notices. Peddling supposed insider knowledge via spliced clips or coordinated account networks to concoct and spread rumors about the economy and finance, people’s livelihoods, and public policy. Inventing or distorting the causes, details, and progress of events to post sensational conspiracy theories. Assuming fake identities as “gurus” or “experts” to hawk anxiety and sell courses or products related to jobs, relationships, and education.

Problem 2 is the “amplification of panic and anxiety” in the form of “fake news”, like fabricating “insider knowledge” of upcoming policy changes or economic trends. This feels akin to an attempt at rebuilding public trust in party competence that will end up, probably, achieving the complete opposite.

3) Stoking online violence and brutality.
Planning or acting out staged fights, deliberate harassment, etc., and advocating “violence against violence” (以暴制暴). Sharing graphic, unedited images of bloody and terrifying scenes, or posting shocking videos involving animal abuse or self-harm. Using AI synthesis, video editing, or image splicing to glamorize violence and create a lurid, horror-seeking atmosphere. In livestreams, using self-harm, self-abuse, “hit-someone challenges,” or brandishing weapons as gimmicks to gain followers; organizing online brawls and livestreaming mutual insults or physical fights arranged offline.

Problem 3 is the “incitement of violence and hostility”, which I suspect is a jab at the dopamine-inducing micro-dramas (短剧) on short-video platforms. They normally feature a simple but satisfying plot of power reversal, involving an underdog protagonist getting avenged or becoming successful. In the past year, this type of content has garnered an onslaught of profit and internet traffic, so much so that long-form entertainment content suffered a heavy blow to their viewership. What the micro-drama hype entails is what they fear: growing disillusionment in recovery. Widespread “laying-flat” sentiments. Dismissal of any real hope of prosperity. None of this “negativity” is being “incited”, but rather articulated. The choice of vocabulary is trying to frame genuine, organic expressions of vexations as secondary and induced, hence unrepresentative and indicative of (perhaps foreign) foul play.

4) Over-amplifying defeatism and pessimism.
Concentrated posting or one-sided promotion of absolutist, negative claims such as the “futility of perseverance and education” (努力无用论), or other absolutist, world-hating views (‘绝对化、消极化论调’). Maliciously re-reading social phenomena to over-inflate isolated negative cases and use them to promote defeatism. By churning out so-called trending terms, memes, stickers, and quotable lines, excessively self-denigrating or saturating feeds with listless, gloomy content that spurs imitation.

The last focus area confirms the above theory. It promises to rid the internet of “excessive pessimism and passivity”, namely content arguing for the “futility of preserverance and education”, or anything nihilistic and world-hating. There is to be no complaints about the state of the country and the quality of civilian lives. Just trust the process everyone!

Active Faults

an alternative China seen through its entertainment industry and celebrity fandom

By Em

Dispatch from Indonesian TikTok: How ByteDance deals with contentious politics around the world

Irene Zhang reports:

The world’s fourth most populous country currently finds itself in a once-in-a-generation political crisis. Indonesia has been riled by large protests since earlier this year. Beginning in February, students and civil society members organized protests to oppose President Prabowo Subianto’s budget cuts to education and the rising role of the military. More recently, a controversial measure to award lawmakers $3000-per-month housing subsidies, more than four times the country’s average monthly salary, has led to an outpouring of public anger over corruption. The protests suddenly gained momentum when, on August 29, a police vehicle killed 21-year-old delivery driver Affan Kurniawan in Jakarta. As of September 2, ten people have died in violent confrontations with police and security forces. Amid all this, Prabowo travelled to Beijing to attend the WWII commemoration military parade and meet Xi Jinping — despite saying last week that he would cancel his China trip to address domestic unrest.

Indonesia has the world’s largest TikTok user base, at 157 million — more than half of its 285 million population. Indonesians spend big on TikTok Shop, generating $6.2 billion in gross merchandise value in 2024. ByteDance has worked hard to cultivate the Indonesian market, acquiring a local e-commerce competitor and navigating complicated local government relations in the process in order to expand its market share. Indonesia is an indispensable part of its international outlook and growth prospects.

What happens when millions in your platform’s biggest user base start posting videos about political conflict and violence? On August 30, TikTok, along with Instagram, turned off livestreaming in Indonesia and sent this notification to creators in the country:

Livestreams on the platform were down from August 30 to September 2: during this time, an angry mob burned down the regional parliament building in South Sulawesi’s capital Makassar, finance minister Sri Mulyani’s home was looted, and police tear-gassed students at two universities in Bandung. Young Indonesians are heavily reliant on TikTok for news. Amid reports of TV stations being taken off air and government pressure being applied to traditional media, even more people are turning to TikTok to follow the events.

Indonesian TikTokers are still trying their best to televise the revolution without livestreams. They’re calling on international users to comment using viral words like “labubu dubai chocolate” on their videos discussing Indonesian politics, so as to fight alleged algorithmic suppression of anti-government content. They are also making very creative edits out of protest footage to fill hashtags like #demodpr (“demo” is Indonesian slang for protest, and DPR is the acronym for the Indonesian House of Representatives, the target of much ire), #indonesiagelap (“gelap” means dark), and #resetindonesia:

Turning off TikTok Live in Indonesia for four days probably cost ByteDance millions of dollars, but from its perspective, it was a worthy trade-off to maintain good relations with Jakarta’s politicians. On August 27, just days before Affan’s death rocked the massive archipelagic nation, Indonesia’s government summoned Meta and TikTok representatives to discuss content moderation. Deputy Communication and Digital Affairs Minister Angga Raka Prabowo accused TikTok and Instagram of stoking anti-government protests, urging platforms to remove content proactively. The government denies having pressured TikTok to turn off livestreaming. Even then, Indonesian creators on TikTok report that their videos about protests and anti-government action seem to be suppressed by the platform.

When it comes to censorship and regulating digital content, ByteDance’s relationship with the Indonesian government stretches back even further. Its lobbying in Jakarta faced a rocky situation in 2023, when the country briefly banned TikTok Shop in order to protect the livelihoods of local market vendors. ByteDance then acquired a majority stake in local-grown online retailer Tokopedia in order to comply with regulations and go back online, though the aftermath of the merger has been troubled. In September 2023, TikTok signed a memorandum of agreement with Indonesia’s General Election Supervisory Agency (known as Bawaslu) to moderate content in the run-up to the general election in early 2024, which elected President Prabowo. A Freedom House report shows that Bawaslu and TikTok collaborated to align the platform’s community guidelines with Bawaslu’s goals. Scholars of Indonesian media and politics have long identified networks of digital propaganda on social media platforms, including paid pro-government influencers supporting Prabowo — and his predecessor, Joko Widodo — that aren’t dissimilar to China’s “fifty-cent army”. Prabowo’s own campaign for president more directly benefited from TikTok, where the former general’s goofy dancing videos gained virality.

Online leaders of the protest movement in Indonesia have, as of September 3, formulated “17+8” demands. The evolving situation is a reminder that TikTok’s political troubles don’t end with Washington: even if it exits the US market in the near future, it will continue to deeply shape politics around the world.

Semiconductors in Costa Rica? Poland?

Lily Ottinger reports:

Last month, I attended SEMICON Taiwan, a semiconductor trade show held annually in Taipei. While Taiwanese companies had the largest presence, the exhibition also included a hall of Chinese companies, as well as pavilions for democratic nations hoping to attract new investment from Taiwanese partners.

The Chinese booths were relegated to a single corridor with a low ceiling, separated from the main exhibition halls. When I tried to interview representatives of these companies in Mandarin, I was met with extreme skepticism — although booth workers were eager to take candid photos of me, presumably for their internal write-ups of the conference.

Seeing as my questions about supply chains and provincial government support were going nowhere in the China hall, I decided to check out the democratic friendshoring candidates instead. Here are the three countries that impressed me the most.

Poland

I’ve written about Poland’s advantages as a semiconductor manufacturing location before — the country has a high quality, decentralized university system which churns out tens of thousands of stem graduates annually; the population is highly proficient in English, and many people become fluent in a third language in university; the country has fantastic transportation infrastructure and is right next door to TSMC’s new Dresden fab.

When I spoke to Arkadiusz Tarnowski, Deputy Investment Director of the Polish Investment and Trade Agency, I learned that the Polish government has a history of successful industrial policy. Government support helped convince LG to manufacture EV batteries in Poland, and today, Poland is the world’s second-largest lithium-ion battery exporter after China.

While the EU sets regional ceilings on public aid for industrial development projects, Poland has the highest limits in the EU. Companies can reimburse up to 70% of their investments in Poland on their taxes, and there are grants available for “high-quality” investments that meet certain criteria. One native Polish company that receives EU funds is VIGO Photonics, which manufactures infrared detectors for NASA, medical, and industrial applications, as well as epitaxial wafers. According to VIGO representative Karolina Sałajczyk-Stefańska, the company was granted around US$120 million in EU support for their HyperPIC project on the condition that they would invest 1.5 euros for every euro of public aid they received. If the project succeeds, Poland will be home to the world’s first foundry for mid-infrared photonic integrated circuits.

In 2023, Intel announced an investment of 4.6 billion euros to build an assembly and testing plant in Wrocław. Poland didn’t cinch this deal by promising 0% tax rates or third-world wages. In Tarnowski’s words, “It’s not about the money, it’s about the environment,” and Poland is poised to succeed thanks to long-term investments in education and infrastructure that have already borne fruit.

Correction: Intel announced in 2025 that they would not move forward with their investment in Wrocław, though this had less to do with Poland than with Intel’s financial difficulties.

Czechia

The Polish representatives plied me with coffee — the Czech representatives offered me beer.

Czechia’s strategy for attracting investment is not specific to semiconductors, but also targets environmental technology, space research, and AI. Since the EU determines investment rules, it’s difficult to offer blanket incentives like grants, so the Czech government is instead offering case-by-case “custom” incentives to attract manufacturing investment.

A side effect of this regulatory scheme is that EU countries are not fiercely competing against one another to cinch deals, but rather specializing in different areas of the supply chain. Czechia hopes to manufacture chemicals and other inputs for TSMC’s Dresden fab, forming a triangular semiconductor cluster that includes Poland.

There are some cash grants available for strategic products like semiconductors, but approval is not automatic. After an application is checked by CzechInvest (a government-affiliated agency tasked with facilitating foreign investment), it is sent to the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Grants for strategic investments must then be approved by all ministries of the Czech government in a plenary session. The representatives I spoke to explained that this mechanism is a result of the EU-imposed ceiling on state support. Since there are strict limits on industrial policy spending, the government has to be choosy about which projects get funding. The CzechInvest representatives were confident that bureaucracy would not hold back investment, and to their credit, the agency appears well-funded and well-staffed.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica wants to become a regional hub for semiconductor manufacturing, and in March of 2024, the country announced a comprehensive roadmap for semiconductor success. Under this strategy, Costa Rica is offering chip manufacturers a 0% corporate income tax, 100% exemption from tariffs and VAT, and reimbursement for employee training costs. Simultaneously, the government is investing in the educational system, particularly in semiconductor expertise, bilingualism, and electronics R&D at the university level.

Since 1982, Costa Rica has successfully attracted foreign manufacturers with similar tax mechanisms under its free trade zone regime (Regimen de Zonas Francas), and today, Costa Rica’s most valuable exports are medical instruments and orthopedic appliances, not coffee or pineapples.

Intel has had a presence in Costa Rica since 1997, though its activities have been limited since 2014. That year, the company closed its primary assembly and testing plant in Costa Rica and moved operations to East Asia. At the time, Intel’s products accounted for 6% of Costa Rica’s GDP. Intel didn’t cite specific reasons for closing the plant, but workforce quality and distance from other parts of the supply chain are clear areas where East Asia comes out on top. From this experience, Costa Rica appears to have learned that their incentives need to be extra juicy if they want to land deals. As chip companies increasingly seek to democratize their supply chains, I’m hopeful that Costa Rica can expand their share of the pie.

Over on the podcast feed we’re four episodes into a new series discussing American defense and the future of war, Second Breakfast. We had to go with something Lord of the Rings-themed and still can’t believe Palantir’s left this lane open for us. Recurring cohosts include , and Eric Robinson.

Below I’m featuring a transcript from our second show. We got into:

• Drones in Ukraine, Lebanon, and Iran and the new reality of remote warfare

• Why everyone including John Bolton walks around with TS printouts

• Why the ‘Silicon Shield’ is such an inane concept

Listen now on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast app for this episode, or scroll back over the past few weeks on the ChinaTalk feed for other episodes we’ve recently published on the future of intelligence, why China hawks are on life support, and what warrior culture has done to the Army.

Drone Bolt From The Blue Attacks

Jordan Schneider: Eric, I hear you have some feelings about the idea of an Israel-style “bolt from the blue“ drone strike on Iran happening in the US.

Eric Robinson: There are a couple of extraordinary case studies that aren’t rattling people the way they should be. The experience of Russian strategic air being on the receiving end of covertly placed Ukrainian airstrikes hasn’t been fully assessed. Nor have the US partners, allies, or people in industry thought about the implications of the Israeli Defense Force or Mossad employing covertly placed air assets against the Iranian integrated defense system.

We’re witnessing unmanned aerial systems being employed in ways that knock out strategic capabilities. Yet I haven’t seen an equivalent conversation about defending the US, our partners and allies, or critical infrastructure — shipyards, any of that — from these kinds of threats. This is opposed to Golden Dome, which is a massive spending program against a narrow-banded but obviously important threat.

Assuming Golden Dome is technologically feasible — and we know that ballistic missile intercepts are, as we’ve seen with some regularity in the Middle East — ballistic missile threats from ICBMs or MRBMs are acts of substantial war, and the US needs to be secured against that. But where is the paired effort to guard against UAS strikes moving against a natural gas facility or an airline terminal? It’s not there yet.

Jordan Schneider: Or even your Golden Dome missile battery? We can put these two together, right?

Eric Robinson: Thanks for giving me the floor. If you want to be unnerved about something, it’s that counter-UAS efforts are being treated as a tactical tool. But where’s the coastal artillery? Where is the effort to think through how a determined opponent of the US would actually get at the heart of American industrial capacity?

Whether it’s your Saronic building in Franklin, Louisiana, or your Anduril building in Ohio, you’ve got gate guards. But are people trying to surreptitiously enter your facility or go after you with a cyber profile? The only threat you haven’t considered in the modern world — and the Israelis and Ukrainians have demonstrated it — is this one.

Justin McIntosh: In a lot of ways, Jordan, this goes back to what you talked about last week or two weeks ago when we discussed critical minerals. We’ve been writing about this for 15 years — that we have this critical mineral dependency on China. We haven’t done anything about it.

The Obama administration struck Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. The USS Cole was hit by a suicide boat, which was a precursor to an unmanned suicide boat, for lack of a better term. We already saw then that there was potential for operations in countries where we haven’t declared war and don’t have a huge presence, based on intelligence gathering. How long will it take for other people to do the same thing inside the borders of the US?

To be honest, we ignored it because there was always this assumption that we were different. We had our two oceans, and we were surrounded by two oceans and weak neighbors, so we were good. Some people are finally acknowledging that those things don’t exist anymore.

Where are we on national defense? Where are we on moving off reliance on GPS, which was directed in 2000? There was an executive order that directed the US to move off reliance on GPS for assured timing. We saw zero movement on that, in part because it was an Executive Order that came out of the Trump administration and was followed by a Democratic president who wasn’t going to reinforce anything Trump had done.

Now we’re at a different point, and that’s another critical vulnerability that exists that we haven’t addressed. We have a drone critical vulnerability. We have Salt Typhoon and all the other bolt typhoons still unaddressed. Every time we start bringing them up, they get mired in conversations about who is saying we have this vulnerability or who is saying this exists. But what are we going to do about it?

Tony Stark: Two major issues haven’t been addressed. One is the changing role cyber plays in warfare. Probably since at least the 1990s, but building up after the strike against the Iranians around 2010, there was this hype that cyber was going to dominate every facet of warfare.

It does, in the sense that food regulations dominate the food industry — you have to think about it, you have to plan for it — but it is not the predominant domain of warfare in the way that a lot of people thought. How do you continue to defend against that stuff while also admitting that this is not the only form of sabotage that exists and that cyber itself is a form of reconnaissance and sabotage?

Secondly, on physical sabotage: even before the strikes on Russian strategic air, there was a back-and-forth ongoing war of sabotage in the EU and the Russian mainland. Especially in the EU, it was onset — publicly reported, people saying, “Oh, this is terrible,” and then nothing came of it, at least on the public side.

That’s a difficult conversation to have in the US, particularly now, because how do you talk about sabotage in a way that is reasonable and not immediately thrown into a red scare? When I worked on the Hill, we would talk about the threats posed by the Chinese to the US, from Guam to the mainland. You would get other staffers saying, “So this means I have to ban them from the farmland.” You’re like, “I hate to tell you, but that’s not the actual major enabling issue for sabotage operations — whether a CCP company has a farm within 100 miles of a base.”

I honestly don’t think we’re going to have this conversation in the US in a meaningful way that is neither overreach nor left of boom, shall we say.

Eric Robinson: Thankfully, the FBI recently committed to dramatically expanding its presence in counterintelligence. Did I read that correctly?

Justin McIntosh: They exercised it against John Bolton today, apparently.

Jordan Schneider: If the Trump administration starts getting people for having classified files in their houses after he wiggled out of the whole Florida thing, more power to him. John Bolton had this coming, let’s be real.

Eric Robinson: I’m going to be a bit ageist, but if you’re in the service and you are still printing material, why? I don’t understand what kind of neurons get energized when you hit print on a TS/NOFORN document and walk around with it. It is extraordinarily strange. When I was an intelligence briefer around 2012, we had iPads. There’s no need for paper anymore. It is a relic — like those stacks of etched wood that reside in Britain and tell you what happened in the 800s.

Justin McIntosh: Bolton is a dinosaur. However old he is, he’s got his own way of doing stuff. But not only him. General officers who sit at the heads of the most technically advanced military on the planet print everything out, hand-write comments, and then throw them to their staff to get answered.

Eric Robinson: It is a cultural thing. You see films, specifically American films that portray Commonwealth officers from the First or Second World War, and they always had swagger sticks. Some of these people carry them because there’s a class issue — they came up from the horse cavalry and brought these devices around that gave them some sense of authority. Napoleon had his marshals’ batons. It is an element of warfare that is completely nonsensical, like wearing a breastplate.

We do have this imperial system inside American national security where if you’re a general officer or a past Senate-confirmed official, you have some GS-12 or 13 toady like I used be, to give you your news in the morning. Some people think that if it’s not printed on paper, it doesn’t exist. We create not just opportunities for people to break the law — which is arguably what we’re seeing around Ambassador Bolton — but we’re creating this extraordinary counterintelligence vulnerability when people who are just human have these sensitive pieces of material that they shouldn’t be walking around with or shouldn’t leave the building.

It happens. It doesn’t have to elevate to the point where it’s David Petraeus trading codeword material for sex. It can just be an accident. If you’re serious about counterintelligence, pull out every hard copy printer anywhere in the Pentagon, any place in the Intelligence Community, and tell people to deal with contemporary reality. It’s 2025. You don’t have to print this stuff.

Justin McIntosh: It would drive me nuts when I would power up my computer and have an email from generally an admiral, sometimes a general — because admirals, they walk out on the deck, throw something down into the pulpit, then turn around and walk back into their office, and eventually the thing gets done that they had demanded.

You would get a scanned-in version of what had been a typed document that was emailed to a person, where he had written in marginalia something that he wanted answered. It had gone through 14 levels of bureaucracy to get down to you so that you could answer this niche fact that he wanted.

Eric Robinson: To Matt Olson’s credit — former Associate Attorney General, head of National Counterterrorism Center, Über, WilmerHale — he was not an intel pro, he was a prosecutor, but he was ready to operate in a contemporary world.

Let’s talk CENTCOM for a minute because that is the heart and soul of American national security. When I was at the National Counterterrorism Center, we had a rare hard copy of the presidential finding that authorized the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. It was not on digital at all. It was in a dedicated safe because of its classification.

In certain cases, there are examples where that level of deliberation does have to be effectively firewalled, but it’s also in the environment where the CIA was deliberately obscuring its role in the torture program. Counterintelligence needs to be paired with effective oversight. Something in the back of my mind struck me as suspicious about effectively air-gapping a document that was just as vital in American legal history as Ex parte Quirin, when the US executed the German saboteurs in the Second World War.

Jordan Schneider: You heard it here first. I’m sure we’re going to get a story like that. I’m not saying torture, but something that was kept entirely off the books. We already have it — we already saw one manifestation of it with Signal-gate. We’ve got three and a half more years of this. We’re going to get more funny business for sure.

Eric Robinson: I’m absolutely fascinated to hear what happens when somebody like Steve Coll or one of these deeply resourced, deeply sourced journalists with ties in the Middle East starts getting regional services talking about the Iran war and the US pairing and conducting strikes against the Iranians. Once that whole story comes through, it will shake some assumptions.

I’m glad we’re talking about CENTCOM, because let’s capture the true spirit of American national security and the relative balance between INDOPACOM and CENTCOM. We can devote three seconds of the broadcast to SOUTHCOM if you want.

Justin McIntosh: That was it. We’re done now. SOUTHCOM complete.

There's a big development with SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM — they're talking about moving the commands to Fort Liberty. The idea is that consolidating all of the forces on one base increases organizational efficiency — though it also makes it a bigger target for enemy attacks. Texas is making a push to keep it in San Antonio, or at least to ask why they're moving it or potentially moving it. We'll see how much that accomplishes. There's my SOUTHCOM take for the day.

But circling back to the discussion of sabotage, Zero Day Attack was released last week. You know, the Taiwanese miniseries that was focused on a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. At least in the opening bits or the opening episode, focus heavily on the saboteurs and the enemy within as an underlying narrative, and it’s seeded throughout the government. Interestingly, that was the initial take from that show — we’ve got to be worried about the enemy within.

The Silicon Shield Will Not Save Taiwan

Jordan Schneider: I want to talk about Silicon Shield. , who we get to pick on because he recently left the White House and decided to go on someone else’s podcast instead of mine for his initial White House exit interview, said something to the effect of on the podcast The Cognitive Revolution that on Taiwan, the US government is explicitly executing a Silicon Shield strategy, making their semiconductor industry so indispensable that it guarantees international interest in their security.

There are a few levels to this that are different gradations of reasonable. At an international level, getting the world to understand that a war over Taiwan or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have double-digit impacts on global GDP is a way to get Japan more bought in, get the Philippines more bought in, etc. Sure, I buy that.

But basing a strategy of deterrence on economic entanglement and economic costs is something that we have seen fail over the course of all of human history. We can go back to the Peloponnesian Wars when we had big trading partners with Megara and Corinth. That’s the thing that worries me. If gold-plated deterrence is a dope military and your enemy 100% convinced that you would be willing to use it to stop them from doing whatever they’re doing, I would put this as maybe level tier 4 or tier 5 on the types of things that you would want to bring to a conversation with an adversary to convince them not to start a war.

Tony Stark: Silicon Shield was always a “nobody move or I’ll shoot myself” sort of thing for those who’ve seen Blazing Saddles. There’s no good history of using economic interdependence to prevent war.

The other thing we did when I was on the Hill was we started to push Wall Street in the direction of understanding the cost to their investment in the event that there would be a war. Part of that was understanding the costs. It wasn’t just us — RAND did some studies and others too — of the cost of what would happen if TSMC went under, etc.

The unfortunate second and third-order side effect of that was people deciding to de-risk their investments, but not de-risk policy. The needle moved, but not in the direction that we wanted with Silicon Shield. Instead of “oh, if they’re going to do that, then we’re going to find other ways around it,” we’re not going to help change the status quo or improve deterrence.

Justin McIntosh: One of the big problems with the Silicon Shield, at least from the build-up to it — and we can talk about the messaging that’s currently going on however we want — but I was in Intel’s office in their foundry in Gordon Moore Park and I was being told by their executives that they could replace a substantial portion of the production at TSMC at their foundry within a timeline of months, not a timeline of years. This was under Pat Gelsinger, and Intel’s always been a humble company that’s never over-promised anything.

Again, you’re at that point where you have one of the larger companies within the US that was counter-arguing it doesn’t even matter — we can replace it. Now you fast-forward to “we’re going to build a Silicon Shield.” But even the messaging from the administration is “we’re going to give them our third or fourth-best generation of chips and get them addicted to those,” to which you then get the Chinese coming out and saying, “Hey, we’re going to limit — we want 70% of our chips to come out of Huawei and SMIC, not out of anything that NVIDIA or TSMC is producing.” Again, you talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Even our messaging on this one has been off.

Jordan Schneider: More on Silicon Shielding. It’s a weird thing because on one level, we think that having the whole world dependent on chips coming out of TSMC is going to make war less likely. But we are also trying to force TSMC to manufacture in the US. Apparently, we’re going to take a golden share out of Intel and wave some magic wands, bang some heads together to make sure that they are a functioning entity in the decade to come.

I guess this is reassuring in the sense that Silicon Shield maxing would mean letting Intel die. But having the whole world all dependent on TSMC to live in a modern society and having some resilience may lessen the effectiveness of the Silicon Shield. But is America going to go to war in defense of Taiwan or break a blockade on Taiwan because we’re worried about semiconductor exports? If China’s smart, they just let the chips out. And then I guess we don’t care.

Eric Robinson: But let’s take it away from Taiwan for a second. Let’s borrow from Frank Herbert and Dune. People speaking of Silicon Shield are almost talking about it like it’s Arrakis — the one place in the universe you can get the spice melange that makes everything function. Dune as a setting would not be compelling if “Oh well, actually any planet can create spice. They just have to create the CHIPS Act for spice.”

There’s a lot of magical thinking going on that Taiwan is excellent at a certain set of processes, but those processes are exportable, downloadable, and replicated. The world is not going to war for Taiwan. He who controls TSMC does not control the universe.

Justin McIntosh: Why not offer all TSMC employees of a certain rank American citizenship? You’re already building a TSMC fab. We say that the problem is the American work ethic. If you read some of the stories on getting the fabs up to production level. If anything happens, you’re an American citizen, you’ll escape quickly. I kind of agree with that.

Jordan Schneider: I also think that our energy, man, the new head of DHS, the new head of USCIS, are saying, we’re going to make sure everyone on an F-1 visa knows that they’re not welcome once they graduate. Mike Gallagher is out in the streets saying, “Don’t let Chinese students come to the US and study technology.”

Justin McIntosh: You get the techno-libertarianism meets the nationalism on this one — they’re going to constantly butt heads. You’ve already seen it get Elon out of the administration, among other things.

Tony Stark: When the CHIPS legislation came out, chip companies said, “No, no, no. We have to be able to keep our facilities in China. You can’t regulate what money we spend or how we spend it. Who knows where those chips are going? We certainly don’t keep track”.

To have that been said and then, “Oh, but don’t worry, we can absolutely duplicate production elsewhere extremely quickly, at low cost. The people don’t matter,” is insane. If TSMC went under tomorrow — by a bolt of lightning or several — you would need 10 years and probably half a trillion dollars to replicate it. Right now, you don’t need to replicate it all at once, and that’s a different mathematical problem. But the point is that you’re not just moving a campsite. There’s a lot to move — supply chains, everything.

If that’s what’s being sold to the US government now — “don’t worry about it, we can pick up and move quickly” — I am extremely concerned.

Jordan Schneider: Second breakfast is — we’re very intertextual here. The Mick Ryan interview, what were your guys’ takes on that?

Tony Stark: I mostly agreed with him. I found his analysis very compelling and nuanced, which is different from a lot of the analysis about Ukraine these days. When we talk about what the future of warfare is — pre-’22 and after ’22 — people tend towards almost the mini puzzle pieces that they see as they walk, and they tend towards these lines, it’s like walking a path in the woods, and that’s how you get paths in the woods.

That’s where a lot of future predictions come into play and have issues — they see these trend lines and they want to chase the trend lines. In the 2010s, we had drone warfare, but not the type of drone warfare that we see today. You see the precision-guided, no air defense sort of thing. Or even with Ukraine, you see this “oh, everything’s going to be attrition or everything is going to be these very small UAS systems because that’s what you can build quickly,” even though they don’t have range or are not generating the effects at mass we talked about in the last podcast.

This goes back to this document that goes around — I think it was a Pentagon memo — that said, “we’ve been wrong every time about what’s going to happen in the next 10 years of warfare.” Who is the “we” in that question? Because former Marine Corps Commandant General Berger said there’s always an analyst who knows. Is that analyst heard and can the system work around that analyst to generate supporting detail?

There were a couple of analysts who knew that Russian logistics were terrible, right, in 2022. For whatever Taiwan will be, those will be the correct ones. Is the problem that we collectively cannot predict the future, or that we collectively would prefer to focus on trend lines, to what we want to be true or what sounds like it should be true, as opposed to what is true? A lot of times, that means having difficult conversations that the senior leaders who sponsor these studies and analyses don’t want to hear.

Justin McIntosh: I’ve appreciated Mick Ryan’s nuance since he started doing his Twitter serial blog posts when the Ukraine invasion started. He’s thoughtful, and he thinks through the subject in an interesting way. But I wonder if he isn’t too fixated on the idea that it’s all incremental change and that incremental change, we’re going to see it and we’re going to be able to know that based on these building blocks we’re going to get to here.

That is a retrospective viewpoint. We look back and we see it. The truth is that there have been fundamental leaps that took everyone by surprise, in part because you get cavalry officers who are absolutely wedded to the horse or you get infantry officers that are absolutely wedded to “we have to be on the offensive and the strength of the offensive,” and they miss the implications of barbed wire and the machine gun or mechanization and things like that.

He referred to, “Well, you know, in Ukraine we haven’t seen a real air war.” Man, we keep seeing that. I don’t know what blowing up strategic bombers on a runway is if not an air war or denuding that air power.

Eric Robinson: Russian attack aviation was partially decisive in blunting the so-called counteroffensive in 2023. Saying there’s no air war means there’s no dogfights. And that’s not necessarily true.

Justin McIntosh: I hear that same argument when I talk to Air Force buddies that I know or people currently in the Air Force. They say, “Well, when we get in and we establish air superiority, it’ll be different than what we’re seeing and those drones won’t be able to do all their fancy little stuff.” Those are conversations between mid and senior-level officers who grew up flying fighters or grew up flying bombers and they believe the Curtis LeMay view that “we can win through air power alone.”

Those same people have a deciding vote when it comes to some of the directions that we take. To Tony’s point, it’s a little bit disheartening when you have those people because they tend to apply that same thought process where “nobody can predict the future, so we’re just going to keep doing what we’re doing.”

Robot Warfare? Eric’s Waymo ephiphany

Jordan Schneider: Eric got his 10th Waymo ride over the past week. How did it feel?

Eric Robinson: It has become a cliche, but sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I’ve been around some high-tech institutions and was an early adopter of Uber and other platforms. But Waymo was shockingly crisp, convenient, inexpensive, and extraordinarily comfortable.

Jordan Schneider: How did that make you feel about the future of war, Eric?

Eric Robinson: There’s an Axios journalist, Colin Demarest, who runs their Future Defense newsletter. He often asks people, “When’s the first war going to be fought purely by robots?” It’s a gotcha question or icebreaker.

My disposition is that no war is ever going to be just robots. War is fundamentally a human endeavor.

War is an act of force to compel an enemy to do your will. But witnessing Waymo made me think that we are very close to battles and engagements being decided by autonomous systems. That will happen if it isn’t already underway in the Ukraine conflict.

Justin McIntosh: It’s almost a natural outgrowth. If you look at the Irish drone company that started to do coffee deliveries and things like that. Now we’ve seen in Ukraine a drone deliver a motorbike to a soldier so he could escape a firefight.

You’re starting to see autonomy on both delivery and autonomy on just movement. I would not be surprised if, in the next 10 years, you see something like the Mint 400 race out in the desert in Nevada — you see an autonomous vehicle be able to at least compete well in a race like that. Once you see that, logistics delivery over vast expanses starts to become a real possibility.

Eric Robinson: I think we’re extraordinarily close. There’s proof of concepts, and operating within the boundaries of Austin or San Francisco streetscapes is going to be comparable to warfare. In fact, probably the parameters are even tighter given baseline safety concerns.

Autonomous systems interacting with one another — from ISR to strike to sensor — is certainly going to be the future. Do I think that humans are going to be completely pulled out of the decision loop? I don’t think so. The poor bloody infantry is still going to be a fundamental component of human conflict.

Mia Zhong, who holds an MA in East Asian Studies from Stanford University and currently works in the tech industry, is our guest contributor today.

China’s State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) ecosystem primarily controls the country’s fundamental sectors, including energy, infrastructure, education, and telecommunication. A 2022 study estimated that there are more than 300,000 wholly state owned SOEs and around 1.5 million enterprises partially owned, counting all-in for roughly 68% of total capital of all Chinese firms in 2017.

Since Xi Jinping assumed power, the Party’s grip over SOEs has grown stronger. In his 2016 speech, he emphasized on “enhancing and refining the Party’s leadership over SOE.” In 2020, the central government issued a regulation that formally designate power to the Party committee over the board of directors in SOEs in “major business and management matters.”1

The following translation is a story originally published on Zhengmian Lianjie 正面连接, now deleted, which provides a rare personal account of work within an SOE and how the routines are heavily influenced by the Party building requests. The author Zhao Shuxin (赵书信) – likely an alias – is a young woman with a graduate degree and former employee in a provincial-level SOE. She started working on internal propaganda in the general affairs office in 2023 and extended her scope of work to external propaganda and other ideology-related areas.

It was a “stable, decent, easy job, an iron rice bowl,” that “gradually transformed from a spectator watching an absurd play, to an actress in the absurd play herself.” 从一个旁观荒诞剧的看客，逐渐成了荒诞剧的演员本身。In 2025, she resigned from the company and wrote a series of three articles recording her time there. The following translation is an excerpt of the second in the series, elaborating on her project to manage ideological risks on social media platforms.

Zhao’s response to the work is also characteristic of her generation: she called them “bullshit work.” The term was widely embraced by young workers after David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs was translated into Chinese in 2022, right when the working generation’s loathing for toxic work culture grew louder and fresh graduates were facing increasing unemployment.

“Ysxt” Work and My Power

It all began with what they called “online front ideological management work” (线上阵地意识形态管理工作). The so-called “online front” really just meant social media accounts. Ideological management meant monitoring the content of those accounts.

Put simply, on social media, any account that included our company’s name plus location within our province had to be managed, whether it was set up by employees or unknown individuals who simply registered in our company’s name. (for example, “N Province A Company Jiajia,” “Flower of C City A Company,” “N Province A Company F City Branch_908,” “XX Market North Gate A Company Service Hall,” or “Xihuayuan A Company Service Hall”)

Specifically, for accounts officially registered and operated by company departments, I had to monitor them in the following aspects: first, whether there was any content that were incompliant with set standards, such as content endangering national territory or sovereignty; second, to check for misuse of symbols like the Party flag, Party emblem, or Tiananmen. As for accounts created by unknown individuals in the name of our company, their mere existence was considered an ideological risk.

Interestingly, the term “ideology” sometimes turned out to be a risk and taboo itself. In all kinds of written expression, unless it was a formal institutional document, the Party-building department always referred to it as “ysxt work” (ysxt 工作).

“ysxt” are the first letters of the term ideology in Chinese Pinyin (意识形态, yi shi xing tai). Using the first letter in Pinyin is a popular rendering of certain terms online. The most used words are usually for fun and convenience, such as “xswl” (笑死我了, xiao si wo le), meaning “lol”, and “dbq” (对不起, dui bu qi), meaning “I’m sorry.” The method was later adopted to address terms that might trigger censorship for their political connotation, such as “zf” (政府, zheng fu), meaning the government, and “zzzq” (政治正确, zheng zhi zheng que), meaning political correctness. These renderings are borne out of speculation and self-censorship rather than concrete rules.

I remembered clearly how this task landed on my shoulders. One afternoon in November 2023, the Party-building department (党建工作部) suddenly demanded that a number of departments attend a meeting on “ysxt risk control across different fronts” (各个阵地ysxt风险把控). In the meeting room, the Party-building leader sat at the head of the table. Before my supervisor got a chance to talk, he spoke sternly: Internal or external, you must take serious actions against any ‘non-compliant’ new media activity. Set your rules! Clarify your measures! Swing the big stick first! As he spoke, he swung his hand forcefully through the air and clenched it into a fist.

That’s the Party-building department’s way of working. As the lead unit, they had the authority to break down their own tasks, pass them on to other departments, and act as the overall coordinator who regularly requested reports from these departments.

This way of working is an example of campaign-style mobilization 运动式治理. This type of governance breaks the formalized functional system and organizes resources and personnel to prioritize a designated task based on political purpose and mobilization. This mechanism can be observed on various campaigns and movements during the Mao era. More recent instances include mobilization control schemes during the Covid pandemic.

The social media management process went in three steps. The first was research, meaning manually searching across social media platforms to identify accounts whose names, profile pictures, or verification included our company name but were not official accounts.

The second step was rectification. We had to contact these unofficial “risky” accounts one by one through private messages, informing them that they could not use our company’s name, and requiring them to change their names or close their accounts within a set deadline. If there was no response, we had to report the account to the platform and request to close it.

If neither of these methods worked, then came the third step: recording the account in a “ledger” (台账) (what the government calls a spreadsheet) and placing it under “dynamic monitoring” (动态监管), which referred to checking the account regularly for new content posted.

Personally, I found this project utterly absurd. What right did we have to manage the social media accounts of people who had nothing to do with us? But because the task came from the Party-building department—and because Party-building evaluations and inspections could affect the company’s ratings, honors, and ultimately employee performance rating—there was no choice but to carry it out.

Upwardly, I had to report to the Party-building department and other inspection units. Downwardly, I had to lead different departments and branch offices to implement the task. My decisions would directly impact how much work each unit had to put in. Every time I asked them to submit materials, I always repeatedly expressed my apologies and gratitude.

In the first quarter of 2024, Miss Li from the D City branch company called me for advice. She wanted to know whether accounts whose owners she could neither identify nor contact still needed to be placed under dynamic monitoring.

I knew she wasn’t really asking for advice. It was more of a complaint. After all, we had already been working this way for half a year, and the rules were made clear. Out of guilt, I absorbed all her frustration and tried to appease her: I understand how everyone feels, but these are the work requirements. I’m watched closely by the Party-building office too. That wasn’t an exaggeration. In private, my self-deprecation was even sharper: I jokingly called myself an unofficial member of the Party-building office, their subordinate department, the “chamber maid of the Party building office” (党建部的丫鬟).

The departments in the provincial company were less implicit when showing their impatience. It was common for them to ignore my request for materials, and when I followed up, the person just replied with a cold snort: What can we do if they just don’t change their name or delete their account? Out of guilt and diffidence, I didn’t know how to respond when I first heard the question. But after repeatedly hitting a snag, I grew frustrated too and simply relied on the Party-building office: the Party-building rating would be deducted if issues were found, and your department manager would take you to speak directly with the head of the Party-building office. It's your choice.

Every time I compiled the spreadsheets of other departments and local branches, the hardest part was always aligning numbers. In theory, the total number of accounts in the current quarter should equal the newly added accounts plus the accounts carried over from the previous quarter. But in practice, it was common to have unmatched numbers. Sometimes there would be one or two more, sometimes one or two fewer. I knew no one would ever check the details of each account across the ledgers, so I just made up a couple accounts to smooth out the numbers.

However, the launch of the inspection and supervision work marked the end of my perfunctory work. The very same Miss Li who asked me for advice was flagged by the inspection team as an ideological risk: a non-official social media account using the company name was not included in the monitoring ledger. Our department received a “risk notice” issued by the Party-building office.

The email was sent to me and my supervisor, Miss Yuzhen, was cc’ed. At the end of the notice, it stated: “For repeated occurrences of similar problems, the Party-building office will request a meeting with the responsible person of the General Affairs Department; for issues of incomplete rectification during self-checks and self-inspections, and for repeated discovery of the same problems, the Party-building office will recommend the Party organization secretary to issue accountability measures” (对于屡次发现同类问题，党建工作部将提请对综合部相关负责人进行约谈；对于自查督查问题整改不彻底、问题屡查屡犯等情况，党建工作部将对党组织书记提出问责建议).

That threat infuriated Miss Yuzhen. She immediately called the Party-building office and sternly questioned: You said you wanted to summon my supervisor for a meeting—on what grounds? You talked about ‘repeated discovery of the same problems;’ why not ask yourself how much of the material for this work comes from us every year? This whole process of yours is nothing but formalism! She had once worked in that office, and the person who picked up the call was an old colleague of hers.

The meeting is considered a threat because it’s not a simple work meeting but a yue tan (约谈), an administrative pre-investigation meeting. It is used for information collection, warning, and investigation. Although the meeting itself doesn’t formally enforce regulatory or lawful actions, it is a strong sign of impending reprimand or actions, and therefore is taken very seriously. It started as a means of market regulation, land control, real estate control etc., and now already a procedure all state-owned institutions find handy.

Miss Yuzhen’s accusation of formalism was not referring to the artistic genre, but excessive procedural formalities (形式主义) in the context of the Party-state bureaucracy. The term refers to the idea of prioritizing formality over getting things done, and encompasses a broad range of behaviors. For example, initiating projects that might appear good on record but generate no actual benefit in reality, or designing an itinerary with performative work routines for the inspection team.

I never found out what the colleague replied, but as soon as she hung up, Miss Yuzhen dialed another number—this time, to Mr. Ren. He was now the VP of the Party-building office and was in charge of ideology work. The two of them had practically swapped positions. Her tone grew even sharper as she scolded him for being reckless: When you were in the General Affairs Department last year, did I ever send you a risk notice like this? And now, without even a word ahead of time, you start off by saying you’ll summon my supervisor? Is this really the right way to do work?

I knew that Miss Yuzhen was always tough when it came to drawing the line of responsibility—“clarifying the boundaries of one’s responsibility field” (厘清责任田) was something she often emphasized to me. But I had never seen her this furious.

Her anger, however, had no effect. The Party-building Department’s final response was: why could the inspection team find the problem, but the General Affairs Department could not? In the end, the matter turned inward and landed back on my shoulders.

Miss Yuzhen translated the inspection team’s message for me—they believed we didn’t put enough effort into this work. She guided me on how to implement the correction:

“Little Zhao, remember this: for this rectification of workflow, and every quarter from now on, you must send the work requirements by email. You need to make sure that every trace of work is fully documented. And in the third-quarter news bulletin, we must publicly criticize the branch offices tied to these accounts, so that they take it very, very seriously!”

In the Chinese workplace, especially conventional industries, it is a common way to address people who are younger and rank lower than you with “little” (小) plus their surname. For people who are older and/or rank higher than you, it’s common to add “big sister” (姐) and “big brother” (哥) after their name. I translated Yuzhen sister to Miss Yuzhen to avoid misinterpretation given how sister is used in the English context.

Miss Yuzhen kept one hand in her pocket, while her other hand shot forward, index finger jabbing the air. The words “very, very seriously” seemed to be squeezed out through gritted teeth.

I learnt from a few bloggers who write about workplaces to treat leaders as partners at work whenever possible, especially when facing other departments together. I complained: what exactly does it take for this work to be considered “done properly”? How could we possibly explain the platform’s search mechanisms? Even Disney allows people to register accounts with those three characters in their names—how could we stop others from registering accounts with our company’s name? Wasn’t the inspection team just demanding that we prove the impossible? Where would this kind of work ever end?

Miss Yuzhen waved her hand, giving the same reply I had once given to the branch offices: this is the way our work is done now—there’s no way around it.

I gave a bitter laugh and said nothing more. I opened the office software, ready to start drafting the rectification plan. Miss Yuzhen’s guidance was clear: when writing something for others, the most important thing was not to dig a hole for yourself—you had to write measures that could be carried out in practice. I wanted to ask Kimi to generate something for me but quickly realized I couldn’t even explain what I needed to a large language model. What kind of event was this, exactly? Could a LLM understand what “rigorous, but not digging a hole for yourself” (严谨而不给自己挖坑) looked like in practice?

The following week passed in endless rectification work. Rectification of the functional workflow naturally required the cooperation of everyone involved. To my surprise, at this point, Miss Li reached out to “discuss” with me again: couldn’t we simply exclude non-company accounts from our monitoring scope?

I had never expected her to bring up this question again right when her inadequate work had already caused me to have to rectify my work. Anger surged up inside me, and I shot back: on what basis?

She pulled out a regulation that had nothing to do with the matter. I finally dropped the patience I used to show low-level executors when I had the space to be generous. My voice turned sharp as I scolded her: why are you still asking me this? Haven’t we already made this clear? Even if you can’t identify who in the company opened the account, as long as it carries the company name and can be found through a search, it has to be monitored. After working on this for so long, how could you not know such a basic standard?

She faltered into silence. I couldn’t be bothered to say more and hung up with a “That’s it, then.” But the moment I tossed my phone onto the desk, regret set in. Just because I was being held to account, I passed on harsher demands to those below me. What else was that, if not the banality of evil? For so many moments in the past, I had been a nobody, forced to comply with rules that were inexplicable and meaningless, even suffering undeserved consequences. And now, I too had become a part of a small ecosystem of that very banality of evil.

An Endless Proliferation of Dirty Work

Shortly after, spreadsheets and data from different departments across the company were all submitted to me. I immediately set up three new folders on my computer: “Zero-Report Departments”(零报告部门), “Official Account Checks” (官方账号排查), and “Departments with Issues” (存在问题部门). Inside each folder, I created a ledger, and each ledger contained three sheets. Sheet 1 was named “Supervision, Self-Inspection, and Rectification Ledger”( 督查、自查及整改情况台账), which meant to reflect the process-oriented steps of rectification. Sheet 2 was called “Accounts Requiring Dynamic Monitoring” (需动态监测的账号) Sheet 3 was the dynamic monitoring ledger for each department, with check marks under each account by date to show it was being tracked.

After compiling the master sheet, the worst-case scenario happened. The latest spreadsheet showed 89 accounts in total, but when I added last quarter’s total to this quarter’s new accounts, the number was ten short. I didn’t want to believe it, so I reopened the spreadsheets from each unit, copied, pasted, and dragged down to sort. I tried twice, but the missing accounts still didn’t appear. Now resigned to my fate, I turned to Kimi to learn how to cross-check data in Excel on the fly, then began calling the departments whose numbers didn’t add up one by one.

One. Three. Five… By the ninth account, I got stuck again. It was already an hour past the end of the workday. Feeling overwhelmed, I pulled off my glasses, tossed them onto the desk, and slumped back in my chair with a groan. On the other end of the line, a colleague from Branch B—probably in her early thirties, usually the type to reply crisply with “I’ll handle it” or “I’ll ask around”—hesitated for once: If it really won’t add up… I still have two accounts on hand…

What kind of account is it? I straightened my back slightly.

The profile picture contains our logo, but the name doesn’t show it. The colleague from Company B replied.

I almost leapt out of my chair: Send it over, I’ll add it to last quarter’s existing accounts. Finally, that’s enough!

Seeing the numbers in the two spreadsheets finally match, I hung up the phone elatedly. I couldn’t help clenching both fists and drawing them through the air into my chest, like the final flourish of a symphony conductor.

But my celebration came too early. The next day, Miss Yuzhen came up with a new way to demonstrate our diligence: add columns for the creation date of each account and the date of its most recent post, to show the leadership that these accounts didn’t post for long, and are therefore “harmless” (无害) dead accounts.

This form of cengceng jiama(层层加码) is a typical phenomenon of policy implementation in China. Orders of policy implementation usually come top-down and in order to ensure the completion of goals and avoid punishment or failure, each layer in the system adds extra requirements or sets a higher goal for work when delegating to the lower level, eventually imbuing the grassroot level with unreasonable requests or unsustainable volumes of work. The most apparent example is the pandemic prevention during Covid, when local authorities added extra rules to prevent mobility regardless of one’s actual health status or risks of carrying the virus.

If her request hadn’t been specifically for this task, if it hadn’t been raised right before the end of Friday, if it hadn’t come after I had already finished consolidating everything, I might not have broken down. But at that moment, when I was full of hope thinking I could finally finish this dirty job, my supervisor taught me another lesson: the dirtiness of dirty work lies partly in its resilience—it always proliferates in unexpected places.

I only had enough control over my emotions to make a small “hmm” sound. The moment I sat back down, my throat felt blocked, and tears slid down my face. I didn’t want to make a sound. I randomly dabbed at my tears with tissues while notifying colleagues across the province to add the two extra columns.

A completely meaningless task got elevated to the level of ideology and was normalized, included in performance assessments and inspections, transformed into risk notices and supervision orders, and eventually turned into self-checks, audits, and spreadsheets. As long as I remained in this system, I would have to confront and solve the issues raised. Even if I didn’t want to solve them, I still needed to put in tremendous effort just to fully prove that “the responsibility isn’t mine” (责任不在我).

Because the functional departments of the provincial company did not directly bear responsibilities for production or business, they didn’t need to create new media accounts to promote operations. In practice, the bulk of investigation and correction fell on local branches. Every move I made turned into real additional workload for these grassroots units, endlessly pestering the branch secretaries who were already juggling multiple roles alongside this bullshit work.

Was it really that hard to stick only to the necessary work without adding excessive quota, and keep everyone’s lives easy? I was crushed by guilt, frustration, and helplessness all at once. The office was finally empty, and I couldn’t help but start crying out loud.

I Want to Change the System

By October, the rectification process was finally complete. In November, the Party Building Department planned to revise the company’s “Position Management Measures” 《阵地管理办法》, and Director Xiaoli reminded me that this was a prime opportunity to redefine responsibilities.

It was only then that I truly felt the reach of a “management department’s” power. If everyone in the company involved in this work had to follow my directives, the kind of work environment I could create for everyone became critically important.

I realized I had to stand up for my line and defend its boundaries. What I needed to do was straightforward in principle: prove that the General Affairs Department was “not responsible for unofficial new media accounts created in the past”. But in practice, it was far from easy. Our company’s principles meant that reasoning based on common sense alone wouldn’t suffice; that would be seen as avoiding responsibility or shirking difficulty. I had to both quote existing policies issued by our business line and identify loopholes in the Party Building Department’s rules and potential areas that could work against us.

I pulled all relevant documents, reviewed publications from the Party Building Department, consulted with the Group Office on how this work was assigned and executed at headquarters, and communicated with other provincial companies. I marked all my evidence carefully with a pen and sticky notes. Then I began drafting the materials for Miss Yuzhen to present at the meeting.

This was perhaps the most serious study of company policies I had undertaken since joining. And as I drafted the materials, I finally realized the most fundamental absurdity of this work: power had exceeded its boundaries. A company’s managerial authority only applies to its own employees—stretching one’s hand into someone else’s field, how could such work ever function? With that in mind, I drew the following conclusion in my first draft:

"According to the Group’s division of responsibilities, the General Affairs Department is responsible for managing official accounts created by various departments of the company based on business development and brand-building needs. For unofficial new media accounts whose creators are unclear, under the principle of clear accountability that ‘whoever manages is responsible, whoever uses is responsible, whoever approves supervises,’ the General Affairs Department has no approval or management authority over these accounts or their owners and bears no management responsibility. It is recommended that the Party Building Department coordinate with the Group to address these accounts."

Miss Yuzhen was generally satisfied with my materials but asked me to place the Group-level division of responsibilities at the very beginning. Since the Group Office did not handle the investigation and rectification of unofficial social media accounts, provincial companies should not be responsible for implementing Party Building Department’s related requests. The final report was therefore adjusted to two points:

1. The company’s Party Building Department should communicate with the Group’s Party Building Department to clarify the province’s ideological management responsibilities according to line management duties, implement these responsibilities, communicate management tools, and ensure consistency in line management duties.

2. According to the Group’s division of responsibilities, the General Affairs Department is responsible for filing and overseeing the province’s official accounts. For unofficial social media accounts with unclear creators, the General Affairs Department has no approval or management authority over these accounts or their owners and bears no management responsibility. It is recommended that the Party Building Department coordinate with the Group’s Party Building Department regarding these accounts.

There was nothing more I could do as an employee. I sent my leader into the meeting like a parent sending her child into an exam room. A few hours later, the moment Miss Yuzhen stepped into the office, she called out loudly: “Little Zhao, it’s settled with the Party Building Department!”

I instantly stood up and saw her fling a stack of meeting materials onto the table, announcing the result: from now on, this work would be assigned according to local responsibilities—if a municipal branch had problems, it would bear its own responsibility. The provincial company would no longer share joint responsibility for rectification.

Before Miss Yuzhen went into the meeting, I had expected that the outcome might not go entirely as I wished—but I never expected her news to diverge so completely from my intentions. I had hoped to clarify the responsibilities for the entire line and reduce the workload for municipal branches, yet the result became a way for me to shirk my own responsibilities. What faces would those who reported to me make upon seeing this new rule?

I could not accept that this work appeared as if I were “passing the buck” to subordinate units. The space atop had disappeared, and I had to start with what I could still manage to regain some control over the situation. At the end of the day, I still had decision-making power over how our line executed its work. I decided to revise the relevant internal management policies myself, removing the parts that were unfavorable to our management.

At first, I approached it by analyzing the various characteristics of the accounts. Besides the inclusion of our company’s name, another shared feature was that their follower counts were almost all in the single digits. Even if they posted content, the likelihood of anything going viral was extremely low. My proposal was conservative: “Accounts with fewer than 50 followers and no updates for over a year shall be considered low-risk zombie accounts and require no special supervision.”

But this idea was rejected during Director Xiaoli’s review: for the Party Building Department, leaving accounts unmanaged would create gaps in the work and inevitably invite criticism.

I accepted the director’s opinion and decided to return to the root of the problem: to keep authority within its proper boundaries. If an account, after verification, was found not to have been created by internal personnel, the General Affairs Department would have no management authority and bear no responsibility. This idea was eventually formalized in writing as follows:

Article 17 – Standardize the Social Media Account Investigation Mechanism. The General Affairs Department shall lead the investigation and cleanup of social media accounts. The scope of investigation primarily covers official company social media accounts and accounts created by employees related to the company. For unofficial social media accounts discovered during the investigation, if they were indeed created by company employees, the principle of local responsibility applies: whoever uses the account is responsible, and whoever manages it is responsible, and corrective actions shall be taken accordingly.

Article 18 – Strengthen Line Management of Social Media Accounts. The Marketing and Operations Department, as the department responsible for distribution operations, shall establish a management mechanism for the creation of social media accounts by distributors, ensuring full oversight down to the individual level and achieving closed-loop management.

The director approved this version, and I continued to report the revisions to Miss Yuzhen. Yingying was also called over to listen. Miss Yuzhen looked at me earnestly and asked, “Little Zhao, I just don’t understand—after all this time of rectification, why do these accounts keep popping up? Why do we need to tackle them all the time?”

This wasn’t the first time I encountered this question. Every time a new account appeared, Miss Yuzhen would ask in frustration: “I told them not to register, I told them not to register—so why are people still registering?!” At these moments, my mind would automatically recall concepts from my graduate exams: the emergence of new media, nodal behaviors… I never imagined that after leaving the exam hall, I would have to use these concepts to explain real problems. But academic explanations were meaningless here. Usually I just answered directly: Anyone can register now with just a phone number. Our name isn’t patented, so there’s nothing stopping them…

By now, I understood that what the leadership wanted was a more concrete answer. So I replied firmly: “Mainly the distributors.” Yingying added on the credibility of this claim: “Exactly—their business is a company consignment store, so it’s reasonable for them to do so.”

“Yes,” I said, “so last quarter we coordinated with marketing. They’ve already added this requirement into the distributor evaluations. If a distributor is found to have opened an account using the company’s name without authorization, they lose one point.”

The point deduction was the outcome of my discussions with colleagues in distribution management at the marketing department. When we negotiated possible measures, I only suggested vague terms of “serious handling”. My colleagues turned it into two concrete actions: first, provide relevant training for distributors; second, implement a point-deduction system. The evaluation scores determined how much funding each store would receive, which meant that opening an account would lead to a financial hit.

Of course, I knew that such strict control ran counter to the grassroots need of business development. But I ran out of energy to feel guilty. If blame was to be placed, it belonged to the Party-building office’s assignment itself. I was simply relieved to have finally found a genuinely effective way to prevent the endless appearance of new accounts, so my colleagues and I could get less entangled with this dirty work.

Miss Yuzhen said, “Now we need to be clear on one crucial point, making sure that no new accounts are opened by our own employees. If they do, we will call them out in a public notice.”

The problem had circled back to the starting point. The real difficulty was that I could never interfere with or control how any individual chose to use their personal social media accounts. I gave up any euphemism and said flatly: “That can’t be guaranteed, Leader.”

Miss Yuzhen was dissatisfied: “That won’t do.” The three words flew out of her mouth quickly. “Why? Distribution accounts are handed over to marketing, municipal accounts are handled under the principle of local responsibility, so the only ones left are the provincial company’s employees. We’ve made it clear that they’re not allowed to register accounts in their official capacity. If they knowingly break the rule, doesn’t that mean our negligence?”

I began explaining to her: in theory, social media accounts containing our company’s name could have been created by anyone living in this region or country. “Our authority only extends to company employees, not to people in society at large. If an account wasn’t registered by our employees, then it’s not our responsibility. So can’t we just leave it alone?”

“I see what you’re thinking now,” Miss Yuzhen said. “Because the Party building office pushed the responsibility onto us, you want to use this logic to remove the responsibility of municipal branches, is that right?” She still ignored common sense and returned to the framework she knew best—responsibility allocation—and directly pointed out my intention.

“Yes.” I knew the reporting was successful. As expected, she followed with: “All right, then we’ll report it to the leaders this way. You’ll come with me, Little Zhao.”

“What?” That was a surprise. I had never attended a special meeting with the leadership before. I made a joking comment about being afraid. Miss Yuzhen laughed: “Don’t be afraid. You think this is the right way to do it, so we’ll go and report it to them. Right now, the company’s leaders are still very tense about this matter. As long as we are right, it doesn’t matter even if we get scolded. We’ll just say it again and again—eventually, things will change.”

For the first time, I felt a solemn respect for Zhou Yuzhen.

More than ten days passed between drafting of the policy and its final approval at the leadership meeting. During this time, Miss Yuzhen once asked me to remove the phrase “if indeed created by company employees.” I did so. I guessed she felt that the line carried an undertone of shifting blames, which could irritate the leadership.

But right before we submitted the meeting materials, I hesitated and brought it up with her again: “Miss Yuzhen, can we keep that sentence?” I still wanted to make the boundaries of our work clear, so that colleagues in the line would not waste effort on meaningless tasks. By then, there was no one else in the office. Miss Yuzhen looked at me, weighed it for a moment, and agreed with a sigh. She figured that the leaders might not even notice that sentence.

I felt a wave of relief. Happily, I added the sentence back in. I clicked “send” on the meeting materials, then shut down my computer, stuffed my charger, glasses, and other belongings into my backpack before walking briskly out of the office building. I was filled with a sense of satisfaction: I had utilized my authority with conscience, and I had done everything within my power to create as much space as possible for the subordinate units that would have to carry out the work.

The next day I attended the meeting. though I only sat in the back row to listen to Miss Yuzhen report, I still put on my polyester work uniform and sat up straight. A few days later, however, an argument between Miss Yuzhen and a colleague from the Inspection Office plunged me into self-doubt again.

The matter itself was simple. To make one of their tasks “look good,” the colleague from the inspection office asked our department to produce a related ledger. Miss Yuzhen flew into a rage; the dispute finally ended with both sides conceding a little. Afterwards, as her anger subsided, she muttered—perhaps to comfort herself or the other colleague—that Little Zhou (the colleague from the inspection office) was a conscientious person and that he was only doing it for the work.

I had originally watched the scene for fun, but I was unexpectedly struck by the phrase “for the work.” My mind went back to the policies I drafted.

I was a conscientious person too. I was also pressured by certain people, certain systems, and certain powers, and resolved to solve this problem. But which was better: a lump of chaotic shit, or a lump of carefully thoroughly analyzed and organized shit? Had I really done something good for everyone, or was what I was proud of actually an unwitting aid to something evil? Did I leave a legacy or calamity?

We’re running a guest column from ’s excellent substack about Alibaba claiming to go all-in on AGI.

Afra’s article extends our imaged Platonic dialogue we ran in April which noted that very few leading voices in China had anything utopian to say about AI’s possibilities. Afra makes a compelling case for Ali CEO Wu as a believer, and I too thought he seemed sincere in his delivery. However, the fact that the stock popped at the growth of its cloud business and reiteration to spend $50bn over three years in AI capex probably has more explanatory power for this narrative shift than anything else. As seen across Nvidia, OpenAI, and Oracle’s valuations, global capital markets have made it clear they want to put money where AI hitting has enormous upside.

Beyond its cloud business, Alibaba has a world-class AI research team. Given that, according to ’s highly scientific tier list, their Qwen team is the only AI lab in China besides Deepseek at the frontier, leadership has every financial incentive to pump this narrative that it’s also China’s most pilled company.

It’s also a good time to remind you that even the money Alibaba, China’s biggest AI spender, will put into securing compute pales in comparison to the western hyperscalers’ buildouts. Many of the firms with big numbers on this chart like Bytedance and Ali are mostly into accessing Nvidia chips outside the PRC, as there aren’t enough Ascends being built this year or next to absorb all of this projected capex.

And now, Afra on Alibaba and China’s AGI vibe shift.

AI technologists in China are almost always utilitarian and practical. There’s an AGI “faith gap”—people don’t believe in it, but constantly talk about this buzzword. A deeper epistemological divide shapes how each culture approaches technological prophecy. Silicon Valley’s AGI discourse operates like what Kevin Kelly calls “technium” thinking—technology as an autonomous force with its own evolutionary trajectory. Chinese tech culture, by contrast, remains fundamentally instrumentalist.

The manufacturing advantage directly creates a scene where Chinese founders focus on hardware, consumer apps, SaaS (but only targeting overseas users), and open-sourced LLMs that are cheaper to train and more efficient. Less focus on debates about doomerism and superintelligence races.1 Big tech CEOs love keywords like “empowering thousands of industries” and “inclusive AI,” rarely discussing surpassing humans or cosmic ultimate questions. In China, there aren’t equivalents of polymathic leaders like Demis Hassabis or prophets like Ilya Sutskever—people who understand foundational AI technology while constructing fearsome yet alluring AI futures in others’ minds, much less a Chinese Eliezer Yudkowsky who focuses on existential risks.2

But that seems to be changing.

The Hangzhou Prophet

Today at Alibaba’s 2025 Yunqi Conference—an annual mega tech gathering since 2009, similar to WWDC or Google I/O— CEO Eddie Wu delivered an entire speech was devoted to “ASI-pilling.” This marks the first time a major Chinese tech company has seriously evangelized Artificial Super Intelligence, which is a remarkable departure from the cautious, instrumentalist rhetoric that has dominated Chinese tech discourse.

“Achieving AGI—an intelligent system with human-level general cognitive abilities—now appears to be a certainty,” Wu said. “However, AGI is not AI’s endpoint, but a new beginning. AI will not stop at AGI; it will advance toward artificial superintelligence (ASI) that surpasses humans and can self-iterate and evolve.”

Wu mentioned ASI will be able to connect to the complete raw data of the real world, instead of using humans as intermediaries—transforming what Balaji calls the “middle-to-middle” phase to true end-to-end.

Wu used a car manufacturing example: instead of a CEO iterating next year’s product through countless user surveys and internal discussions (all secondhand data), an ASI with access to all automotive data could design and create vehicles “far superior to anything from brainstorming sessions.”

Wu is one of Alibaba’s founding “Eighteen Arhats” and has long been seen as technically-minded and reserved. He rarely speaks publicly, earning the nickname “Alibaba’s most mysterious Arhat.” His ASI declaration at this conference represents quite an unusual departure—a stark contrast to years of silence that may signal a vibe shift in Chinese tech discourse.

The Long Silence and Its Breaking

After Jack Ma’s 2020 speech [Jordan: translated here by with some fascinating accompanying analysis] challenging China’s regulatory system before Ant’s IPO, the storm that followed saw the planned $300 billion offering—history’s largest IPO—abruptly canceled. Since then, Alibaba entered a prolonged “silence period” where big companies stopped articulating grand future visions, pivoting to emphasize compliance and stability.

The chill went far beyond Alibaba. In 2021, regulators launched the “disorderly expansion of capital” campaign, reining in platform companies from ride-hailing to e-commerce. Didi went public in New York only to be swiftly pulled into a cybersecurity investigation and fined $1.2bn. Education tech giants like New Oriental and TAL got nuked overnight under the “double reduction” policy. Even Meituan’s Wang Xing triggered scrutiny when a Tang dynasty poem he posted online was read as oblique criticism of the state.

Since then, many tech founders feared saying the wrong thing in public, in part creating today’s extremely asymmetrical information flow where Chinese founders study Silicon Valley surgically, but not the other way around.

Then, DeepSeek came. Since then, I’ve observed a vibe shift. In China, a giant wave of techno-nationalistic discussions permeates the internet, with people believing “China’s tech rise is national destiny.” Meanwhile in Silicon Valley, I found abundant China curiosity mixed with China envy—mainly across the broader hardware and manufacturing domains where China has established leadership.

Silicon Valley trying to reverse-engineer their own path from China’s tangible tech achievements: a16z started advocating that America needs to build its own BYD with a complete Electro-Industrial Stack in their American Dynamism article; we see the launch of the “American DeepSeek” open-source projects attempting to replicate Chinese AI efficiency; Noah Smith stated that Western re-industrialization strategy directions are now “bleedingly obvious”—just look at what China is betting on: batteries, electric motors, power electronics, and chips. Dan Wang’s book Breakneck became an unprecedented intellectual phenomenon, propelling people to ask: how can we transform a lawyerly society into an engineering state so our taxpayer money can turn into more damn high-speed rail?

However, at Alibaba’s conference, I could see an even longer-term vibe shift. Previously, Chinese companies in global tech narratives were often treated as deployment engines: able to manufacture quickly, iterate rapidly, catch up efficiently, but lacking roles that truly shape imagination. Wu’s ASI speech represents a breakthrough: while the “AI-infused future society” is still taking shape, major Chinese companies are beginning to articulate their own grand visions that carry a prophetic flavor.

China’s AI Bubble

Wu’s sci-fi vision exists in tension with what I saw on the ground during five weeks in China this August and September. Walking through AI startup circles and innovation parks in Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Beijing—drinking custom “DeepDrink” at Beijing’s AGI Bar (covered in terrible Chinese tech memes)—I felt like AI was everywhere, but also nowhere seriously.

The AI founders and researchers I talked to there were pretty candid beneath all those glossy exhibition boards promising the future. They’re still glued to whatever’s happening in Silicon Valley, ready to sprint after the next breakthrough.

The AI story is fascinating because of its wild complexity and its propositional stance toward this complexity. When I was reading the book Supremacy by Parmy Olson, I got mesmerized by the motivation differences between DeepMind’s three founders in the early days. “Legg moved in circles where the goal was to merge as many people with AGI as possible, Suleyman wanted to solve societal problems, and Hassabis wanted to go down in history having made fundamental discoveries about the universe.” They started arguing with each other—but the bigger picture they all acknowledged was the world’s complexity outpacing anyone’s ability to control it. AI is deeply embedded in problems that are fundamentally non-linear and unpredictable.

Wu’s rhetoric might sound overwrought or derivative to American ears—after all, we’re practically drowning in tech prophets here. But consider this an elementary-level Chinese technologist learning to LARP as someone like Kevin Kelly, and you might surprisingly get future-pilled again.

Below is Wu’s complete keynote address. As you read it, notice how it borrows heavily from Silicon Valley’s apocalyptic optimism while grounding everything in China’s reality. You don’t need to be impressed by the originality in Wu’s vision, but in the shift it represents: this is their own version of the future.

Subscribe to Afra’s work!

Concurrent

Understand the parallel and colliding tech and cultural currents shaping Silicon Valley, China, and beyond.

By afra

Keynote: Roadmap to Artificial Superintelligence (Transcript)

by Eddie Wu, CEO of Alibaba Group, September 24, 2025. You can read the Chinese transcript here or watch on YouTube.

A new revolution is just beginning—a revolution of intelligence driven by artificial intelligence.

Over the past few centuries, the Industrial Revolution magnified human physical strength through mechanization; the Information Revolution expanded our capacity for processing information through digitization. But this time, the revolution of intelligence will exceed anything we can imagine.

Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, will not only amplify human intellect but also liberate human potential—paving the way for the arrival of Artificial Superintelligence, or ASI.

In just the past three years, we have felt its pace clearly. In a handful of seasons, AI’s cognitive ability has leapt from the level of a high school student to that of a PhD graduate—capable even of winning gold at the International Mathematical Olympiad. AI chatbots have become the fastest-adopted consumer application in human history. The speed of industry adoption has surpassed every previous technology. Token consumption doubles every few months. In the past year alone, global AI investment exceeded 400 billion US dollars; over the next five years, cumulative investment will surpass 4 trillion—the largest single infusion of capital and compute power in history. This will inevitably accelerate the emergence of more powerful models and hasten the spread of AI across every domain.

Achieving AGI—an intelligent system with general human-level cognition—now appears inevitable. Yet AGI is not the end of AI’s development, but its beginning. AI will not stop at AGI; it will march toward ASI—intelligence beyond the human, capable of self-iteration and continuous evolution.

AGI will free us from as much as 80% of routine tasks, allowing humanity to concentrate on creation and exploration. ASI, by contrast, will generate “super-scientists” and “full-stack super-engineers,” capable of solving problems at speeds we can scarcely fathom: curing diseases, inventing new materials, achieving sustainable energy breakthroughs, addressing climate change, even venturing into interstellar travel. ASI will drive exponential technological leaps, carrying us into an unprecedented age of intelligence.

We believe the road to ASI will unfold in three stages.

Stage One: Emergence of Intelligence — “Learning from humans.”
The growth of the Internet over past decades has digitized nearly the entirety of human knowledge, preserved in language and text. Large models trained on this corpus acquired generalized intelligence, emergent abilities in conversation, and the capacity to understand human intent, answer questions, and begin reasoning across multiple steps. Already, AI systems are reaching gold-medal performance on the world’s toughest exams. This has opened the possibility of solving real-world problems and creating tangible value.

Stage Two: Autonomous Action — “Assisting humans.”
At this stage, AI moves beyond language alone. It acquires the ability to act in the real world: decomposing complex goals, using and even creating tools, and interacting with both digital and physical environments. The key lies in tool use. Just as human evolution accelerated when we learned to make and wield tools, models now gain transformative power by learning to do the same. With tool use, AI can call software, APIs, and devices to execute sophisticated tasks.

Another breakthrough is coding ability. To handle longer, more complex tasks, agents must be able to code autonomously—functioning like a team of engineers, able to interpret requirements, write, test, and iterate. Natural language will become the source code of the AI era. Anyone, in their mother tongue, will be able to summon an agent: “Tell the AI what you need, and it will design the logic, build the system, call the tools.” This stage will unleash productivity gains across logistics, manufacturing, software, commerce, biomedicine, finance, and beyond.

Stage Three: Self-Iteration — “Surpassing humans.”
This stage depends on two breakthroughs:

• Connection to the full breadth of real-world data. Today’s AI excels in text-bound domains like content creation, math, and coding, where it has access to raw human-created data. But for the physical world, AI often sees only second-hand summaries. To truly transcend human cognition, it must engage directly with the raw signals of the world.

• Self-learning. With real-world interaction, AI will be able to refine its models autonomously—building infrastructure for its own retraining, optimizing data flows, and upgrading architectures. Each action and feedback loop becomes a micro-adjustment; millions of such iterations accumulate into a self-evolving system. Out of this process, early forms of ASI will emerge.

At the moment of singularity, humanity will feel the acceleration of history itself: technological progress advancing beyond imagination, unleashing new productivity that carries us into a new stage of civilization.

From our perspective, large models will become the next generation operating system. In this analogy:

• Natural language is the new programming language.

• Agents are the new applications.

• Context is the new memory.

• The large model is the OS, linking tools and agents as the PC once linked software and hardware.

Software as we know it will be absorbed. Anyone will be able to create applications in natural language. Hundreds of millions of potential developers will enter the field. Every user will become a maker.

This future demands infrastructure of immense scale. AI will become the electricity of the new era—the essential commodity powering every industry. Most AI capability will be delivered as tokens across global networks. Tokens are the new electricity.

Alibaba Cloud positions itself to build this foundation: an open platform for developers, the Android of the AI age; and a super AI cloud, one of the few on earth capable of vertical integration from chips to models to global-scale data centers. We are investing 380 billion RMB over three years into this vision, building the supercomputing power and global network needed to welcome the ASI era.

When ASI arrives, human-AI collaboration will reach a new mode. Already programmers glimpse the future: a single instruction at midnight, a fully functional system by dawn. This is the seed of a new paradigm—from vibe coding to vibe working. Families, factories, companies—all will teem with agents and robots working alongside us. Perhaps one day, every individual will wield the power of a hundred GPUs, amplifying human intellect as electricity once amplified muscle.

Every revolution has expanded our capacity, and every expansion has revealed new horizons. This is only the beginning. AI will reshape infrastructure, software, applications—the entire substrate of society. Together with our partners and customers, Alibaba will invest, build, and co-create, bringing intelligence into every industry.

Jared M. McKinney is an assistant professor at Air War College. Reiss Oltman contributed to this project as an Air University fellow in the Department of Joint Warfighting, Air Command and Staff College, and John Conception contributed while a student at Air Command and Staff College.

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other government agency.

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act includes a US commitment to make available to Taiwan the weapons necessary “to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” Given the increasingly asymmetric balance of power in the Taiwan Strait and the widening deterrence gap, is such an end state even possible anymore?

Initial answers are not encouraging. The most rigorous and prominent wargame, CSIS’s First Battle of the Next War, assessed that, without US military intervention, the People’s Liberation Army succeeded in destroying Taiwan’s armed forces and occupying Taipei, and that “outcome was never in doubt.”1

To see if this result could be replicated, and to study whether different force structures could produce different — and more favorable — outcomes, Air University’s Taiwan Deterrence Warfighting Advantage Research group undertook an extensive series of wargames in 2023 and 2024 focused on an all-out PRC invasion of Taiwan with some (albeit not extensive) third-party intervention. The methods, assumptions, and scenarios used in these games are detailed in a new volume from Air University Press, Closing the Deterrence Gap in the Taiwan Strait.

Our wargames found that the CSIS baseline “Taiwan Alone” scenario was correct in its general finding — a PRC invasion could potentially succeed at significant cost. But our wargames also found that a modestly upgraded and redesigned Taiwan Joint Force could stop an invasion cold, destroying up to 75% of all PLA amphibious assets in some iterations.

A well-designed program for Taiwan’s force modernization has the potential to close the deterrence gap in the Taiwan Strait. This finding contradicts the common assertion among American and Taiwanese foreign-policy thinkers that there “is simply no realistic hope that Taiwan can hold out for long against China without America committing directly to the fight.”

This summer, we witnessed one of the largest Han Kuang military exercises 漢光演習 to date. These exercises are designed to improve Taiwan’s military readiness for a potential conflict with the PRC. This year’s drill showcased the beginnings of a shift from Taiwan’s traditional defense to a more asymmetrical approach. While this shift has been theoretically embraced in Taiwan’s new Quadrennial Defense Review, actual change has been slow, and Taiwan’s military force design has not yet been matched to the shift in strategy:

• Taiwan’s indigenous submarine program — which intends to build eight submarines over the next decade, for around US$1 billion per copy — exemplifies traditional force design over more asymmetrical approaches. The primary justification for the submarine program is that military elites in Taiwan have not publicly proposed credible alternatives.

• The Taiwan Navy canceled its previous program to build many small attack boats, instead opting to build large amphibious assault ships and next-gen frigates.

• The Taiwan Air Force has long expressed interest in the F-35B, but apparently nothing has come of that; the Air Force is also focusing on integrating MQ-9 drones, which have not performed well in less competitive environments. 

• The Taiwan Army is taking deliveries of Abrams tanks, notwithstanding questions about their suitability for Taiwan’s environment.

• After Trump’s 2024 election, early discussions in Taiwan emphasized symbolic new conventional systems — with the original reports mentioning “10 Ticonderoga cruisers and Perry frigates, 60 F-35s, 4 E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, and 400 Patriot interceptors, for a total of some $15 billion” — without articulating a clear strategic logic.

The winds may now be shifting: Taiwan’s supplemental defense budget, which is apparently in the works, may decisively shift defense investment to a truly asymmetric approach. And our Fortress Taiwan wargames demonstrate that this asymmetric-investment approach can have outsized impacts on the battlefield.

Below is the force design that fared the best in our Fortress Taiwan wargames:

Proposed Military Enhancements for Taiwan by 2030

• 7 squadrons of XQ-58 (1 squadron ≈ 18 drones)

  • Unit cost (US$): $6 million

  • Total cost (US$): $756 million

• 20 squadrons of NCSIST Chien Hsiang 劍翔無人機 (1 squadron ≈ 20 drones)

  • Unit cost: $6.35 million

  • Total cost: $2.54 billion

• Air-defense systems and interceptors (NASAMS, SKY BOW-III, PATROIT, etc.)

  • Total cost: $7 billion

• 30 Kuang Hua VI-class missile boats 光華六號飛彈快艇

  • Unit cost: $12.3 million

  • Total cost: $369 million

• 300 “Sea Baby” USVs

  • Unit cost: $221,000

  • Total cost: $66.3 million

• 400 “Jet Ski” USVs

  • Unit cost: $250,000

  • Total cost: $100 million

• 200 UUVs

  • Unit cost: $500,000

  • Total cost: $100 million

• 200 Hsiung Feng-III missiles 雄風三型

  • Unit cost: $2.4 million

  • Total missile cost: $480 million

  • + 3 batteries of launchers, command vehicles, and radars

    • Unit cost: ~$100 million

    • Total battery cost: ~$300 million

  • Total cost: $780 million

• 200 Hsiung Feng-IIE missiles 雄風二E巡弋飛彈

  • Unit cost: $3.1 million

  • Total missile cost: $620 million

  • + 3 batteries of launchers, command vehicles, and radars

    • Unit cost: ~$106 million

    • Total battery cost: ~$318 million

  • Total cost: $938 million

• Enhance space and cyber capabilities

  • Total cost: ~$2 billion

GRAND TOTAL: ~$14.6 billion

The main effort of the PLA’s plan for an invasion depends on a Joint Fires Campaign and the Joint Island Landing Campaign.

• The Joint Fires Campaign would aim to destroy, disable, or degrade Taiwan’s national and theater command centers, communications systems, airfields, logistics centers, and high-value defensive assets (eg. anything that could sink a ship).

• The Joint Island Landing Campaign would then seek to follow up these strikes with a massive amphibious intended to establish a lodgment on Taiwan, enabling a later breakout and advance toward political and military objectives. PLA airpower would seek to enable and protect this operation, as well as deliver “three-dimensional” threats across the island. 

The force design proposed above is centered on mitigating the Joint Fires Campaign and defeating the Joint Island Landing Campaign.

The Joint Fires Campaign promises to deliver the most concentrated firepower in modern history. Two strategies can help combat that: asymmetric airpower and air denial. The XQ-58, a Group 5 UAV that is rocket-launched and parachute-landed, could provide the Taiwan Air Force with asymmetric airpower more survivable than the current fleet of combat aircraft. Its combination of low cost, runway independence, and low observable features enables fielding in mass, as well as force dispersion during China’s Joint Fires Campaign. If successful, this would enable Taiwan to maintain asymmetric air power throughout the conflict and to continue to contest China’s bid for air dominance.

Modern air defense is expensive, but the lack of air defense is more expensive. Air denial is a bare necessity in modern warfare. Advanced layered air-defense batteries are resource-intensive, but the additional capacity they provide to degrade and survive China’s Joint Fires Campaign is critical. These materiel solutions — such as NASAMS, PATRIOT, and SKY BOW — are part of a counterstrategy that seeks to blunt the intended effects of the Joint Fires Campaign. Additional batteries of advanced air-defense systems will allow for attrition and increase the depth of Taiwan’s magazine, thus prolonging the time needed to resupply and countering more Chinese threats over time. So long as Taiwan can deny air dominance to the PLA Air Force, one of the key enablers for a successful invasion will be hampered.

The Joint Island Landing Campaign is the most critical part of the PLA’s plan for the invasion of Taiwan, so the weight of resources to counter this campaign is appropriate. These proposed material solutions come from lessons learned in Ukraine as well as best practices across our yearlong wargaming project. China fields the largest navy in the world and will be operating relatively close to its home. This necessitates the need for multiple different weapons systems across all domains to create a problem set so difficult that no military would be able to solve without high attrition rates:

• The Chien Hsiang is an indigenous radar-killing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, like the Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) Harpy. This system has already been fielded, but only in small numbers; additional systems would allow for multiple attack waves that could saturate the air picture and degrade the radar systems of the invasion fleet’s defending surface combatants.

• The Kuang Hua is an indigenous missile boat smaller than many ocean-going fishing boats that carries four anti-ship missiles. Taiwan already possesses 30 of these ships but stopped building them in favor of larger warships. Adding additional missile boats allows Taiwan’s Navy to take advantage of their small size, low cost, and deadly missiles, providing a mobile firepower system that has the flexibility to defend any part of the island from multiple axes of attack.

• The “Sea Baby” Unmanned Surface Vessel — also known as the “boat drone” — has already seen its combat debut in the Russia-Ukraine War, to significant effect. Taiwan has begun developing like systems, but these proven capabilities are needed now and in mass as part of the larger counter–Joint Island Landing Campaign strategy.

• Additionally, Taiwan could develop and field the “Jet Ski Type” Unmanned Surface Vessel (also employed by Ukraine) to create a lower-cost offensive system that, while less capable than the “Sea Baby,” achieves greater mass that can increase the complexity of a drone boat attack.

• One-way attack Underwater Unmanned Vehicles pose an even greater challenge to defend against, as China’s antisubmarine warfare has been lacking for some years. These UUV systems have been under development in Taiwan for some time; Taiwan could fast-track mass production to exploit China’s weakness in this domain.

• Finally, Hsiung Feng missile systems — both subsonic (HF-IIE) and supersonic (HF-III) varieties — have extended ranges that can challenge an invasion fleet even in port. Taiwan fields these missile systems, but its current inventory is limited. Scaling these inventories would enable Taiwan to account for attrition from Chinese strikes while maintaining sufficient missiles to launch multiple waves of counterattacks.

Putting this all together, the People’s Liberation Army would have to defend against swarms of hundreds of drones in the air, surface, and subsurface, while simultaneously defending against subsonic and supersonic missile attacks. No fleet in history has seen a defensive challenge of that complexity and scale. With this proposed inventory of weapons, Taiwan could conduct such attacks on multiple waves of incoming amphibious landing operations, preventing China from effectively establishing, resupplying, and holding a long-term foothold on the Island. The operations in the Red Sea offer a glimpse of this reality, but Taiwan should be able to scale those attacks by orders of magnitude.

As we were conducting our wargames in 2023 and 2024, we grappled with the likely objection from Taiwan strategists that $14.6 billion would look like an insurmountable, unrealistic investment. Our counterargument at the time was that, if $14.6 billion was considered a bridge too far, then Taiwan’s strategists would have to contemplate the logic of opportunity cost. For instance, if the $9 billion in expected costs for submarine acquisitions were canceled, the proposals above would cost only $6 billion more than current spending allocations. Spread over a few years, this would absolutely be feasible, given the size of Taiwan’s economy.

Last month, however, Taiwanese media began reporting that Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense will submit a supplemental defense bill to the Legislative Yuan for consideration in the winter legislative session. The proposal, reportedly in the realm of US$20 billion, appears to be relentlessly focused on the sort of asymmetric capabilities recommended by the Fortress Taiwan wargames — with drones, missiles, unmanned vessels, NASAMS, and even vertical take-off drones all under discussion.

To be sure, given the bitterness and polarization of Taiwan’s politics — emblematized by the recent failed legislative recall campaigns — it wouldn’t be surprising if the Legislative Yuan met these new proposals with skepticism.

To build a political consensus for spending more on defense, Taiwan’s politicians need to articulate how spending more will procure more security. The truth is that even massive spending on conventional military systems will not make Taiwan any more secure.

But building a force that could survive the Joint Fires Campaign and sink most of China’s high-value amphibious assets? That absolutely would. Our wargaming suggests doing so is feasible, and the successful passage and implementation of the supplemental budget under discussion would be the most decisive move in that direction in modern Taiwan history.

For more from Jared, check out the show we did together last year:

Jordyn Haime is a freelance journalist who has been living in Taiwan since 2021. She received a graduate certificate in Chinese and American Studies from the Hopkins-Nanjing Center in June 2025 and recently started the newsletter Der Vayter Mizrekh on Substack, where she writes about China and the Jews. Today, she’s here to introduce Taiwan’s complicated relationship with its own World War II history.

On September 3rd, to mark the 80^th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II, China showcased its military might to the world with a massive parade in Tiananmen Square. Leaders from 26 countries — including Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un — were in attendance.

While Xi Jinping emphasized the importance of upholding a “correct historical perspective” (正确历史观) on the war, such anniversary displays often say more about a country’s current political goals, status aspirations, and self-image than they do about what happened 80 years ago. China’s message was clear: It will not be bullied again, and its leadership in the “World Anti-Fascist War” (世界反法西斯战争) entitles it to a leading role on the global stage. Importantly, Xi argues that respecting the postwar international order includes affirming the “restoration” of Taiwan to China.

Taiwan’s government, currently led by Lai Ching-te’s 賴清德 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), took a noticeably “softer approach,” using the anniversary to promote Taiwan’s identity as a liberal democracy and defender of freedom. DPP officials have criticized China’s $5 billion military parade as “a waste of money and resources.” “Taiwan does not believe in commemorating peace while holding guns,” Lai said.

To commemorate the ROC’s role in the Allied victory, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense organized photo exhibitions at bus stops, a military model show, and limited-edition military-themed snacks in partnership with the private sector. A televised concert in August featured a virtual display of its own military developments alongside performances by dancers and musicians in ROC military attire, encouraging the audience to “use the spirit of the war of resistance against Japanese aggression to defend the Republic of China, democracy, and freedom.”

But for more than a decade, Taiwan has been hosting another commemoration event, though this one is not officially affiliated with or endorsed by the central government. Held in the southern port city of Kaohsiung, this event tells the story of the Taiwanese colonial subjects who fought under the flag of Imperial Japan against the ROC — and remain unrecognized by the Taiwanese government.

While central governments engage in a cross-strait “memory war” over the CCP’s claimed role in China’s victory over Japan, the debate within Taiwan over how to remember its own complicated history has been raging since democratization. For those whose families were there before the ROC takeover in 1945, this history affirms Taiwanese identity as distinct and separate from China’s. But for those whose families arrived with the KMT, it looks more like a glorification of the Japanese empire, and a dismissal of the suffering Japan inflicted on their families, in which many Taiwanese were complicit.

Liau Siok-ha 廖淑霞, now 98 years old, was rolled up in her wheelchair before a crowd of about a hundred onlookers. The humid coastal wind that had been blowing across the park finally began to die down as Liau addressed the crowd in Japanese.

“During the war,” she said, “many Taiwanese who had received colonial education and embraced the spirit of patriotism responded to government calls for men to volunteer as soldiers, or for women to serve as military nurses.” In 1944, “I too answered the call of the nation and volunteered to become a military nurse.”

Liau was one of more than 200,000 native Taiwanese who served under Japan beginning in 1937. At that time, the Taiwanese had already experienced decades of imperial education under Japanese colonial rule (1895-1945), assuming the Japanese identity that had been imposed on them while living as second-class citizens to the Japanese. As it mobilized its colonies for war, Japan initiated the kominka movement — a word meaning “to make into imperial subjects” — in Taiwan, accelerating imperial education in order to attract more loyal recruits. Both Indigenous and Han Taiwanese joined the war effort for various reasons: while some volunteered, most were conscripted and forced to serve, or misled about what they were recruited to do. A vast majority worked in non-combatant roles as nurses, like Liau, or as technicians or translators; others were sent into combat or served as guards at POW camps across Taiwan and parts of Southeast Asia. In addition, 2,000 Taiwanese women, mostly from poor backgrounds, were forced into sexual slavery in Japan’s “comfort woman” system. By the end of the war, an estimated 30,000 Taiwanese had been killed or were missing, and 173 had been convicted as war criminals by the Allies.

“My father was only a teenager at the time, so he didn't participate in the fighting. The families of the Veterans’ Association today weren’t so lucky,” said Lee Wen-huan 李文環, director of the Kaohsiung Municipal History Museum, which manages the memorial. “So, was it because they wanted to go to war? Was it because they had a Japanese warmongering soul? No, they simply said, ‘This is my country. The country has called me to war. I have no choice.’”

The War and Peace Memorial Park’s 戰爭與和平紀念公園 one-room museum is billed as the only museum in Taiwan commemorating Taiwanese soldiers. Beyond just those who fought under Japan, it also tells the stories of Taiwanese who were sent into combat by the Nationalists to fight the Communists, and the few unlucky men who were then captured by the Communists and sent to fight in Korea. The tragedy the museum is determined to communicate is that of a people forced to fight under three foreign governments that cared little about them, only to deny them recognition or compensation in the aftermath of those decades of war.

The political tumult of the Chinese Civil War, the aftermath of the 228 Incident, and the White Terror that followed left little time for Taiwanese society to reflect on the world war that had just ended. When the ROC took over in 1945, it kicked off a process of “Sinicization” and aimed at removing symbols of “Japanese enslavement” from the public and “reeducating” Taiwanese, transforming their identity overnight. Mandarin Chinese became the official language in place of Japanese; street names were changed to reflect the names of Chinese cities or reverence for Chiang Kai-shek. It was in this context, writes Lan Shi-chi of National Chengchi University in a 2022 study, that the ruling KMT voluntarily “forgot” and “forgave” Taiwanese-native Japanese soldiers’ participation in the war against the Chinese, freeing these veterans from potential punishment as hànjiān (漢奸; Han traitors) and symbolically “readmitting” them to the Chinese identity. This allowed the KMT to gain much-needed positive rapport with the local Taiwanese population as their new rulers and recruit them as forces to fight the Communists.

Under martial law, Taiwanese veterans’ contributions to Japan’s war effort were “politically forgotten in public,” writes Lan, leaving only one official story: that of the Chinese victory over Japan. Their stories, and those of the “comfort women” enslaved by the Japanese, were not publicly known until the three-decade period of martial law was finally lifted in the late 1980s, ushering in Taiwan’s democratization.

The restoration of freedoms meant that Taiwanese, for the first time, were able to study their own history. According to Lee, “The reason Taiwan is so complicated right now is that after the war, for 38 years, Taiwanese people could not reflect on the Japanese period, they could not think about Taiwan, they could not have Taiwanese memories. My enlightenment about Taiwan first happened when I went to college: What is the history of my homeland?”

With the help of historians like Lee, Taiwan began rewriting its history, creating new textbooks and opening new museums that examined history from a nativist perspective, rather than solely from an ROC one. This effort included the publication of oral histories of Taiwanese veterans, a project that allowed them to speak about their experiences for the first time. They also began to advocate publicly for recognition by the ROC government, and for compensation from the Japanese government, which they say was unfairly denied to them.

“Those who barely survived and managed to return to Taiwan were then treated by the post-war Kuomintang regime as ‘traitors to the Han race’ and endured lives of hardship,” Liau said. “Even though we once fought as Japanese subjects, after the war, the Japanese government unconscionably excluded us from pensions and compensation on the grounds that we had lost our Japanese nationality. This caused immeasurable pain in both body and spirit.”

One veteran’s rights activist was Khou Chiau-eng 許昭榮, a Taiwanese independence advocate who fought under both the Japanese and later the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War. In May 2008, he self-immolated in protest of the government’s neglect of its Taiwanese veterans.

“[My godfather] didn’t choose charcoal, which is less painful. He poured 20 liters of gasoline on himself to remind Taiwanese not to forget that our ancestors died in such numbers,” said Wu Juhrong 吳祝榮, Chairman of the Kaohsiung Cultural Association for the Care of Taiwanese Veterans. “That’s why he fought to build a memorial to Taiwan’s soldiers who died in battle. For 400 years, countless Taiwanese resisted and sacrificed for this land, from the French war in Keelung, to the Mudan Incident, to the Wushe Incident… If he hadn’t self-immolated, this park wouldn’t exist.”

A year after Khou’s death, the memorial park and museum in Kaohsiung were opened to the public. But advocates say their work is not done until the Taiwanese government recognizes these veterans on a national level, and until society overcomes its “indifference to Taiwan’s past.”

Official commemorations for the 80^th anniversary of the war’s end, organized by the national government, mainly stuck to a standard ROC narrative. Native Taiwanese who fought under Japan did not appear in the Taipei photo exhibitions or at the concert in August. Lai offered only a subtle gesture toward the Taiwanese experience, writing in an August Facebook post about a forgotten incident in which Japanese, Indigenous, and Hakka groups died searching for a crash-landed Allied plane in the mountains of Taitung: “In that moment when the war was over, no one made a difference between themselves and the other as an Ally or an Axis,” he wrote.

Framing history in the context of today’s cross-strait and domestic power struggles, Lai added that “no regime has the right to invade and rob the people of another land of freedom.” In a first for a Taiwanese president, he commemorated Europe’s Victory Day in Taipei and sent his representative in Japan to the commemoration at Hiroshima.

“Essentially, [the DPP] is trying to ride two horses at once,” said Rana Mitter of the Harvard Kennedy School, who researches the history and memory of World War II in China and Taiwan. “The DPP has pushed quite hard in the direction of saying that the importance of the war is really about pushing back against dictatorship. That’s a helpful narrative politically, but it also sidesteps awkward questions of asking who was fighting whom at what time.”

Critics of this year’s events say the Lai government is engaging in historical revisionism and neglecting ROC history. Ho Chih-yung, a professor of general education at Taiwan’s National Tsing Hua University, told the South China Morning Post that the DPP wants to claim “the moral authority of the anti-Japanese legacy without acknowledging the ROC that fought the war.” Former President Ma Ying-jeou 馬英九 accused Lai of “deliberately downplaying the atrocities of Japan,” writing on social media that the Lai government “should not ignore the poor comfort women just to bow to the face of the Japanese government.”

It’s far from the first time a President’s handling of the anniversary has sparked outcry from the blue camp. In 2007, former President Lee Teng-hui 李登輝 paid a visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan — the famously controversial site which honors Japan’s war dead, including over a thousand convicted war criminals — to honor his brother, who is enshrined there alongside thousands of other Taiwanese.

Lee, raised under the Japanese regime, had also fought for Japan. “Taiwanese back then were Japanese, and they fought for the motherland,” he said at the time, accusing Ma of harassing Japan to curry favor with China. In response, the KMT called Lee a “two-faced hypocrite utterly devoid of self-esteem” and “a hostage of history.” A year later, President Tsai Ing-wen inscribed her name on a monument dedicated to Taiwanese veterans at Okinawa, and became the first president to attend the commemoration at the Kaohsiung War and Peace Memorial, connecting her visit to her government’s pursuit of “transitional justice” 轉型正義. As recently as this year, KMT lawmakers named a drama series about Taiwanese POW camp guards — which was criticized for “evoking sympathy for Taiwanese war criminals” — as one of the many reasons they want to slash public television funding.

As the ruling party, the DPP has to walk the “fine line” of speaking to their party base, which includes “a generation of Taiwanese who saw themselves growing up under Chinese rule, and as complicit but not guilty in the Japanese imperial effort,” while also uniting the KMT base, said James Lin, a historian of Taiwan at the University of Washington. “Declaring that World War II was not just about the war against Japanese aggression but is also about commemorating Taiwanese soldiers who often fought to kill Chinese in mainland China — that would be a pretty divisive position to take.”

Efforts by other victimized groups, like the former “comfort women,” have been undermined by the issue’s politicization. Taiwanese are known for being far more sympathetic and friendly to the Japanese compared to their Chinese and Korean neighbors, despite Taiwan’s half-century of colonization, partially due to the more recent brutality of the KMT authoritarian period that immediately followed Japanese colonialism, in a phenomenon that Lin has called “colonial nostalgia.” The pursuit of warm ties with Japan as a crucial national security partner has also meant that the “comfort women” issue has received little attention from the DPP government. While Ma’s KMT government (2008-2016) unsuccessfully pursued compensation and apologies from the Japanese government on behalf of those women, Ma has continued to use their memory as a political cudgel against the DPP.

Although the last known Taiwanese “comfort woman” died in 2023, the Taiwan Women’s Rescue Foundation (TWRF) continues to advocate for justice for these women and to preserve their memory at a national level. The organization runs the small and independent Ama Museum (阿嬤家) in Taipei, dedicated to telling their stories, which has struggled to pay the bills and keep its doors open. In 2020, it had to close temporarily and move to a smaller location without a visible storefront due to funding issues. TWRF has asked both the KMT and DPP governments to fund a museum dedicated to women’s history in Taiwan, says CEO Du Ying-qiu, to no success.

“We want the government to preserve these relics,” she said. “Not civil society organizations. If the KMT could have provided a space when the amas were all still alive, then we wouldn’t have had to move, we wouldn’t always have to raise funds to run this museum.”

Throughout the memorial service, there was not a single mention of the carnage and pain imposed by the Japanese Imperial Army on the Chinese or the other peoples of Asia. Nor was the suffering of “comfort women” under Japanese rule acknowledged. I raised my discomfort with Director Lee after the ceremony. Shouldn’t the role of Taiwanese soldiers as both victims of colonization, as well as victimizers of others on behalf of the colonizer, be acknowledged here?

“The focus of today’s ceremony isn’t really about revisiting the question of what was right and wrong during World War II,” he responded. “Rather, it's about how, as we today look back on that war, many were inexplicably drawn into it for various reasons.”

His answer reflects the tone of the museum, too, which presents stories of Taiwanese soldiers rather uncritically, and says little about what those who went to combat actually did; it does not reflect on the harms those in combat helped perpetrate as a consequence of fighting under Imperial Japan. In the process of disentangling Taiwanese history from the histories of its rulers, a centering of Taiwanese identity that overlooks these inconvenient details represents another kind of forgetting.

It’s worth noting that the speakers at the memorial event didn’t commend soldiers for their bravery or thank them for their service. Most spoke of the importance of remembering the pain of war as its possibility looms again over society, and of expressing the Taiwanese identity that had been denied to them under centuries of foreign rule. We asked Mr. Wu, the board chairman, what it means to “remember” this history with white roses and moments of silence. The ceremony’s purpose, he said in a mix of Hokkien and Mandarin, was to “invite Taiwanese people, including young people, social groups, religious groups — everyone — to participate, awakening the memory of war. We hope people on this land don’t forget that our ancestors went through such fire.”

Other parts of society, though, are beginning to confront Taiwan’s role in Imperial Japan’s war effort more critically. This includes a growing body of academic literature as well as popular books and media. A critically acclaimed collection of short stories, titled Hunting Captive Women: Memories of a Special Volunteer Force, written by veteran Chen Chien-wu, embodies the contradictions of Taiwanese identity under Japan and the tension of being forced to fight for the colonizer while not even being seen as his equal. As Chu Yu-hsun writes in the book’s introduction, Chen “does not simply cast himself as a victim and dismiss the possibility of Taiwanese responsibility … Throughout, Hunting Captive Women constantly interrogates itself: Is it true? Do we really bear no responsibility?”

Lin says Taiwan will have to confront this tension in the presentation of the period in museums and public education as part of the decolonizing process.

“Dealing with the legacies of both the Japanese empire as well as the KMT authoritarian period, and what was perhaps suppressed during those times, and is now being discussed openly, is an important part of what decolonizing democratic societies are,” he said. “What historians are trying to show is that being a colonial subject is not like someone knocking at your door and saying, ‘We'd like to go kill other people. Please join us,’ and you say ‘yes.’ It's much more complicated, and it involves disparities of power; it involves education that goes quite deeply into psychological reasons that are formulated over decades and decades. Educating the public about this is a part of what public history is. It’s why museums about the Holocaust are so important [in explaining] how something like the Holocaust can occur.”

Lee acknowledged that the museum still has a lot of work to do in adequately portraying the complexities of Taiwan’s World War II history. “The significance of this museum is that it is a beginning,” Lee said. “It’s about the complex aspects of Taiwan, and among them, the history of a group of people who have been distorted and awkwardly portrayed. How should we discuss it? This is the mission of our museum.”

Taiwan emerged from martial law just 38 years ago and is still dealing with the legacy of its traumatic past. Now that it has the freedom to remember, its pursuit of “transitional justice” for all peoples will necessitate confronting history’s painful contradictions.

writes Silver Bulletin and is the author of On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything, now in paperback with a new foreword.

In today’s conversation, we discuss…

• Honesty, reputation, and paying the bills with writing,

• Impact scenarios for the AI future, including how AI could impact elections and political decision-making,

• The emerging synergy between prediction markets and journalism, and how Nate would build a team of professional Polymarket traders,

• How to build a legacy,

• Nate’s plan to reform US institutions and how that compares with real-world prospects for creating political change over the long term.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

Mathematicizing Persuasion

Jordan Schneider: Before we get going, I just want to say thanks, Nate. Writing on the Internet is scary, and you’ve made it less scary. Getting to the point where I can just say things that I know are going to piss off administration officials and $4 trillion companies takes a lot. Watching you do that over the years has been a good lodestar for not caring what powerful and rich people think and working toward the truth.

Nate Silver: I appreciate it, Jordan. There’s an equilibrium where people are way too short-term focused and too susceptible to peer pressure.

Conversely, once you develop a reputation for doing your reporting and speaking from a place of knowledge and experience — without trying to sanitize things too much — you develop trust with your audience. You carve out more of a distinct niche. People are too afraid of honesty and differentiation.

It’s easy to say if you cover fields that are popular and get a lot of audience and traffic, whether that’s electoral politics or sports. I’m not doing investigative reporting here, but I do think that working hard and being the best version of yourself — and being an honest version of yourself — is usually a smart strategy in the long run.

Jordan Schneider: That’s even more difficult with policy writing. ChinaTalk is closer to a think tank than it is to journalism. The vast majority of people who work in this field can’t make public comments because they either work in the government or work in government relations for a big company. Even if you’re at a think tank, you have to pay the bills somehow, and that basically means getting corporate sponsorship for your work.

Nate Silver: As a consumer, there are lots of issues — including China — where I’m not quite sure who to believe or trust. China is among many issues where I feel I’d have to invest a lot of time investigating who I can trust. At that point, you could almost write about it yourself. There are a lot of issues where there’s no kind of trustworthy authority. Kowtowing to corporate power is part of it. That’s part of the beauty of having a Substack model with no advertising.

But especially in diplomatic and international relations, people are always calibrating what they say. There are smart commentators, but you have to read between the lines — sway the reads 20 degrees left or right.

Jordan Schneider: There’s this recent micro-scandal. Robert O’Brien, former national security advisor, wrote an op-ed saying we should sell lots of Nvidia chips to China. It comes out three days later that Nvidia is a client of his.

Nate Silver: I’m never quite sure whether to assess these arguments tabula rasa and ignore who’s making the argument, versus considering that people have long-term credibility and reputational issues. One thing I do is play poker, and in poker, the same action from a different player can mean massively different things. A lot of stuff is subtextual. A lot of stuff is deliberately ambiguous.

One reason why I think large language models are interesting is because they understand that you can mathematicize language. In some ways, language is a game in the sense of game theory — it’s strategic. What we say, exactly how we say it, and what’s left unsaid is often powerful. A single word choice can matter a lot.

You probably think about this in a different context — in the case of official statements by the Chinese government, for example.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s stay on this, because this was actually one of my mega brain takes that I want your response to. We have Nate Silver at 11 years old wanting to be president, and now we’ve had 20 years of him thinking about analyzing presidents and presidential candidates and what they do. You don’t necessarily have to believe in AGI and fast takeoff to think that 10, 20, 30 years down the road, a lot of the decisions that presidents and executives make today — an AI will just strictly dominate what the human would do.

Maybe that Cerberus moment becomes what the Swedish Prime Minister was saying a few days ago — “Oh yeah, I ask ChatGPT all the time for advice.” I’m curious, what parts of the things that presidents and presidential candidates do you think are going to be automated the fastest, assuming we just let them ingest all of the data that a president or executive would be able to consume themselves?

Nate Silver: AI in its current form might be an improvement over a lot of our elected government officials, but that says a lot more about the officials than the AI necessarily.

I don’t take for granted — and some people do, including people who know a lot about the subject — that we’re going to achieve superhuman general intelligence. There are different meanings between these terms that we can parse if you want. But some of the reason that large language models are good now is because they train on human data and they get reinforcement learning with human feedback.

There are cases — pure math problems — where you can extrapolate out from the training set in a logical way. For more subjective things, political statements, I don’t know as much.

Some people believe that AIs could become super persuasive. I’m skeptical. First of all, humans will be skeptical of AI-generated output, although maybe I’m more skeptical than the average person might be. Also, it’s a dynamic equilibrium. You can message test, have an AI train, and it can figure out: “Okay, we can now predict — we’re running all these ads, sending out all these fundraising emails — we can predict which will get a higher response rate."

But when people start seeing the same email — “Nancy Pelosi says this or that” — 50 or 100 times, then they adjust and react and backlash to it. In domains where you are approaching some equilibrium, profit’s not easy to have. There are no easy tricks. You have to play a robust, smart strategy, and ultimately the strength of your hand matters, along with how precisely you’re constructing the mix of strategies that you take at any given time.

I’d bucket it roughly as a 25% chance that on relatively short timelines, AI just blows our socks off. 25% that it does that, but at a longer timeline — a decade, two decades, three decades out. Then 50% that AI is a very important technology — more important than the Internet or the automobile — and reshapes things, but does not fundamentally reshape human dynamics across a broad range of fields.

Things like international relations or politics are among the more resistant domains toward AI solutions. At the same time, another risk is that you’ll have people who view the AIs as oracular. We’ve seen cases of people who are encouraged by ChatGPT to think they’ve developed some new scientific theorem or discovered a new law of physics. They’re very smart at flattering you.

One thing I do is build models. Sometimes a bad model is worse than no model or your implicit mental model. Trusting an all-knowing and all-powerful algorithm, especially in cases where the situation is dynamic — the laws of mathematics don’t change, but international relations and politics are always dynamic and maybe changing faster — and whether the AIs can adapt to new situations quickly is also an open question.

Jordan Schneider: If we’re trying to bucket the types of things a CEO or a president or a senator does, we have personnel management — who am I going to hire, who am I going to fire? We have the outward-facing stuff — what do I say to this interviewer, how do I talk in the debate? Then we have these decision points where you have a memo, you could pick A, B, or C, and there are different sets of trade-offs where you could optimize for this thing or that thing.

I don’t think it’s crazy to think that parts of those different buckets could be radically improved, even just to play out the different second and third-order effects of whatever you’re negotiating for in the next budget bill or something.

Nate Silver: For discrete tasks, AI can already be wonderful. I’m doing a little coding now on a National Football League model, and it’s late at night. I’ve been up a long time, had some wine at dinner, and I’m thinking, “Okay, Claude, how do you do this thing in the language I’m programming in?” The thing is a discrete task where I have enough experience with these models to expect it to give a good answer, and I have enough domain knowledge that when I plug in this code, I can tell if it works or not. I’m not going to have some bad procedure that chains into other bad procedures in a complicated model.

There’s been mixed evidence on how much more productive AI makes people. My stylized impression is that it makes the best people even more productive and makes people who are not that smart maybe worse. I worry that it’ll be a substitute for domain knowledge and human experience, but for certain things it’s already superhuman, and for other things it’s dumb as rocks.

Knowing what is what — there’s a learning curve for that.

Jordan Schneider: There’s also this aspect where the human floor can be pretty low, especially if you’re tired or stressed or you’re the president and you’ve got a hundred thousand things being thrown in your face. It’s literally an impossible job. Maybe there’s also this weird electoral feedback thing where, presuming that AI is really helpful for winning and governance, the folks who trust it more and faster are the ones who perform better in their jobs and get elected to higher and higher office.

Nate Silver: Government is backward in a lot of ways. This varies country by country too. In some ways, America has maintained a relatively high degree of international hegemony despite having this constitutional system that’s now hundreds of years old. It has flaws that people — not to sound a little personal here — Trump has found a way to exploit.

It’s amazing that we still entrust all of this power in one president. New York City, with 8 million people, is probably about as large an entity as you should have maybe one person in charge of. But we haven’t really developed other systems.

If anything, one of the more dynamic places in the world right now — you’d still say the U.S., you’d say China, and then probably the Middle East — they’ve kind of cheated. The U.S. is increasingly less democratic, and the other two were not really democratic to begin with. Maybe my assumptions have been wrong.

Poker and Prediction Markets

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about prediction markets. You spent a lot of time thinking about poker and had this whole experiment in your book where you just spent a year betting on basketball. The thing about basketball and poker is there’s a lot of data and track record you can base your estimation on. You can find your edge in very weird corners. But a lot of these markets on Polymarket and Kalshi are very one-off. Right now there’s “Is Trump going to put more sanctions on Putin in the next six weeks?” Is there a regression you can run on that? Not really. It’s fascinating because these are so much more one-off and open-ended than what you would see in the stock market or sports betting.

Nate Silver: I’m a consultant for Polymarket, so I do have a conflict of interest to disclose. Sometimes the one-off events are not as good. One market where Polymarket, Kalshi, and others did not do as well was the election of the new Pope. Cardinal Ratzinger had a very low chance of being selected.

What happens there? On one hand, you have a papal election every 10 or 20 years, so you don’t have a lot of data. Everybody leaks, but the papal conclave does not leak, apparently. There’s not really any inside information. Then people apply the heuristics they might apply to other things. When they have the smoke signals come out quickly, they think, “Oh, it must be the most obvious name.” The favorites went up, and that wasn’t true. People just had no idea what was going on. There are some limitations there versus things like elections, which are more regularizable.

At the same time, there is a skill in estimation that poker players and sports bettors have. Maybe I’m making a real-time bet on an NFL game and Patrick Mahomes gets injured — the quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs. I have to estimate what effect this has on the probability of the Chiefs winning. If you just do that a whole bunch, then you get better at it. You have to have domain knowledge and be smart in different ways.

When I’ve consulted in the business world — not capital-C consulting, but for people who are actually making bets — you realize that a good answer quickly is often what makes you money, whereas a perfect answer slowly doesn’t. This is one reason we’re seeing a shift of power away from academia toward for-profit corporations. You can say that’s bad or good — I think we need both, frankly. But you have a profit motive and an incentive to answer a question quickly.

In poker, the same thing. If I play a hand and I’m getting two-to-one from the pot, so I need to have the best hand or make my draw one-third of the time. Then you go back and run the numbers through a computer solver, and you’re like, “Well, actually here I only had 31% equity when I needed 33%.” That was a big blunder. For most people, 31 versus 33 is the same, but with training you can estimate these things with uncanny precision. There’s a lot of implicit learning that goes on, and it becomes second nature.

Jordan Schneider: Are you worried about insider trading with all this political betting? There’s an aspect where these are all crypto — you get on these markets with crypto. There were markets asking which way Susan Collins is going to vote. The tail outcomes for a legislative assistant in her office are that you can make 10 times your salary in a minute. What’s your thinking on this?

Nate Silver: There are a couple of qualifications. First of all, people on the inside often aren’t as well-informed as they think, or there are downsides to having an inside view versus an outside view. You might drink the Kool-Aid, so to speak. You might be in a bubble.

Jordan Schneider: There are ones where you can literally — I mean, there have been lots of group chats of people talking about very sketchy trades and one-way bets being made in the stock market about what’s going to happen with a trade deal. You can literally be the person who decides and be betting on the side.

Nate Silver: If there are incentives to make money in a world of 8 billion people, many of whom are very competitive and most of whom have access to the Internet, people are going to find a way to do it. It’s not just that game theory equilibrium is a prediction of what occurs in the ideal world — it’s what very much does happen.

We’ve seen things in the crypto space like an increasing number of crypto kidnappings. That’s one of the consequences of people being worth vast amounts of wealth that isn’t very secure. It’s just going to happen until you up security or have better solutions.

I don’t think there’s necessarily any more or less insider trading on Polymarket than there might be for sports betting sites — we’ve seen a lot of sports betting scandals — or for regular equities. The literature says that members of Congress achieve abnormal returns from their stock portfolios. I’d have to double-check that — I’m sure there’s some debate about it.

People can also sometimes misread insider information or read a false signal that becomes insider information or a fake signal. If they see an unusual betting pattern, they’ll think, “Oh, okay.” There were some tennis betting scandals where tennis is an easy sport to throw because it’s individual — two people. You don’t need multiple conspirators. Something unusual happens and people think, “Therefore, it must be an insider trading move” or “Therefore, it must be someone throwing the match.” Maybe sometimes it is, other times it isn’t. It’s very hard a priori to know which is which.

Jordan Schneider: It’s a new variable in politics. The way you could previously cash out was becoming a spy for another country — very high risk with lots of downside. Or you’d have your career and then become a lobbyist, but that pays out over years.

This is something new, and we’re going to have to watch it because I find I get a lot of value from seeing these numbers every day and watching how they change. Polymarket has become something I check before looking at the homepages of major news outlets. But there’s something that makes me a little queasy about opening up this new realm of betting where maybe we, as citizens, don’t want the people we’re paying to do these jobs to have this alternate way to cash in.

Nate Silver: Or journalists too. I know a couple of projects where people are basically trying to apply journalistic skills to make trades — not necessarily in prediction markets, maybe a little bit of that, but more in equities.

If you have a well-informed view of China, especially particular industries, that has big implications for how you might trade a variety of stocks, including American stocks.

My impression is that people at Wall Street firms trading equities don’t like all this macro risk. They prefer to predict what the Fed is going to do, analyze earnings reports, and work with long-term trends they can run regressions on.

They don’t like profound political uncertainty where the macro bets are very long-running. It may be hard to come up with the right proxy for the trade you want to make.

You’ll probably see more fusion between trading and research and journalism at every step along that path.

Share

Jordan Schneider: I’ve started interviewing a lot of these Polymarket investors and traders. It’s remarkable to me that there are no funds or teams. I assume that’s just because these markets aren’t liquid enough. But what would your dream team of skill sets look like if you were going to start the Polymarket hedge fund?

Nate Silver: You probably want some AI experts. You want macro people, you want a mix of people who are smart micro traders — poker player estimator types. More barbell theory. You want the macro people — a China expert, an AI expert, an expert on American politics. On average, the takes that Wall Street has about American politics are pretty primitive. You want someone who understands macroeconomics and inflation and the debt. You want a mix of skill sets.

In terms of what the banks and hedge funds are doing, different firms probably differ in what they think. There is reputational or enterprise risk to trading. Crypto can be a gray area. Prediction markets can be a gray area. I suspect there’s probably more of it than you might assume.

Until the last couple of years, there definitely wasn’t enough money in prediction markets overall to be worth it for institutional traders. Now there might be, especially for smaller firms. If you were a firm that wanted to say, “We are primarily trading non-traditional assets — prediction markets, cryptocurrencies, maybe low market cap stuff” — there are crypto hedge funds. If they’re getting more into prediction market stuff too, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

As prediction markets get bigger, then the bigger quant hedge funds and eventually Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs will want to trade them too.

The Barbell Strategy

Jordan Schneider: What do you think your legacy is now, and how would you want to change that in the next 10 to 20 years?

Nate Silver: The best work I’ve done is the book I wrote a year ago, On the Edge, now in paperback. The election models are valuable and might be what I’m best known for, even though it feels like they’ve been 5 or 10% of my lifetime productive work. That’s a really hard question to answer — I don’t think I’m quite old enough to answer it yet.

Jordan Schneider: I can answer it maybe. There weren’t a lot of numbers in many discussions before you. With elections, people have to respond to facts. The facts of you boiling all the polls and demographic data and voter registration data into one thing is a much more tangible, grounded set of facts than “you say Marist, I say Quinnipiac” — what does that even mean?

This approach is spreading now into wider areas on Polymarket and Kalshi, where different modes of politics now have numbers attached to them in ways they didn’t before. There’s literally a “Will China invade Taiwan?” market. However much we want to believe anyone has insight into that, there was no number you could point to before to ground you in that reality.

Great man versus trends — there’s been a lot more data and computing power over the past 25 years to enable what you do. But it was both the modeling and presenting it in a compelling, engaging voice that really helped reshape the way people think about these issues.

Nate Silver: I appreciate that I have certain talents. If you’re a 7 out of 10 on the modeling and a 7 out of 10 or maybe 8 out of 10 on the presentation, that overlap is somewhat rare. The overlap is maybe more than the sum of the parts — more valuable than being merely pretty good at each individually. I’m a good modeler, but the combination of those skills is valuable.

The world is moving directionally more toward this. Prediction markets in particular — if you look at sports betting, it’s not really growing as much as the big industry players had hoped, but prediction markets have had some false starts before. Now with Polymarket, Kalshi, Manifold, and others, you have a robust and well-constructed enough trading ecosystem where they are here to stay for many things.

If I’m about to publish a story — let’s say on Trump’s latest round of tariffs — and I need to check if Trump has done anything crazy in the past five minutes since I last read the internet, I’ll just go to Polymarket. Did any markets radically change? Is there some massive event that would make it insensitive to publish a story? Has there been an earthquake somewhere? You can instantly see that news. Twitter used to be somewhat similar for instant feedback.

But this leads to a gamified ecosystem where, as a poker player, sports bettor, or rapid news consumer, you’re always checking your email, phone, Twitter, and the internet. You’re always aware of 15 things at once. It makes it harder to unplug and creates fuzzy boundaries between work life and real life. If I’m running on the east side listening to a podcast and thinking about my next article, that’s work. If I’m checking my phone late at night when I’m out at dinner — checking work stuff, not gossip — that’s work too.

The world’s moving more that way, for better or for worse, and it prioritizes quick computation and estimation.

Jordan Schneider: Does this make it harder to do big things anymore?

Nate Silver: No, it creates more of a barbell-shaped distribution. Working on the book took me three years — that was really important fundamental work. Right now I’m working on this National Football League model. That’s a six-week project, not a three-year project, but it’s foundational work that will produce dozens of blog posts and hopefully hundreds or thousands of subscribers for Silver Bulletin for many years.

Having three or four things that you’re really interested in and fully invested in — obsessions, you might call them — is very valuable. But the skill of quick reaction is also important: your best flash five-second estimate, having the first authoritative take on Substack when Jamaal Bowman won the primary by a larger margin than predicted.

I was in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker. I had just busted out of a tournament and hadn’t seen any great takes on this yet — it was a very fruitful subject. It was midnight New York time, 9 PM Vegas time. I cranked through until 3 AM Vegas time, 6 AM New York time, and published what I thought was a pretty smart story on it. That kind of thing is important.

The middle ground — the ground occupied by magazines, for example (not that places like The Atlantic, which have become digital brands, don’t do great work) — is maybe the in-between where the turnaround is too slow to be the lead story in a rapidly moving news cycle, but it’s not quite foundational work either.

Academia suffers from even more of this problem. The turnaround time to publish a paper is just too slow.

I’ll run a couple of regressions, give it a good headline, make some pretty charts, and it’ll be 90% as good as the academic paper in terms of substantive work and 150% better written because I’m writing for a popular audience, not journal editors. That exchange of ideas is what moves the world.

It’s fascinating to see these dynamics. I don’t know a lot about DeepSeek, for example, but it was interesting to see the narrative shape in real time about how competitive China is in the short to medium term on large language models. Or to see with Jamaal winning the primary — probably the general election too — how much that anchors the conversation in different ways.

Subscribe now

Stylized, abstracted, modelized versions of the real world become more dominant. We’re all model-building. I have a friend who’s a computational neuroscientist at the University of Chicago. He says ultimately the brain is a predictive mechanism. When you’re driving and looking at the road ahead, you’re not seeing a literal real-time version of the landscape in front of you. It’s a stylized version where your brain makes assumptions and fills in blanks because it’s more efficient processing. The message length can be shorter if you focus on the most important things.

You can notice this if you’re in any type of altered state — whether drug-induced, under anesthesia, tired, or experiencing extreme stress or stage fright. You process things differently at a broader level.

My first book, The Signal and the Noise, is about why the world is so bad at making predictions. Part of it is that you have to take shortcuts or else you’ll never get anything done. But when you take shortcuts, that leads to blind spots, and that’s not really solvable. AI might scrape off some of the rough edges, but sometimes the rough edges are created by the market being efficient and dynamic and by people keying off other people’s predictions and forming a rapidly shifting consensus. Those dynamics are going to remain very interesting.

Jordan Schneider: The DeepSeek experience was surreal for me because this is a story — China and AI — that I’ve been following for five to seven years. All of a sudden, it became the story. Our team hit it pretty well; we doubled our subscribers. But watching our little thing try to shape the broader narrative, and suddenly all these journalists are asking, “What’s this company?” I’m thinking, “I’ve been writing about it for two years. Where have you guys been?” I’ve never had one of my stories really become the main story before.

Nate Silver: It can be an amazing feeling. This relates to the Great Man theory in some way. Early in a news cycle, the way a story is covered is very important. One news outlet or journalist covering a story differently can shape attitudes about it for weeks to come. This is partly why PR people always say, “Don’t say so much, but be fast.” You want to preempt things because that founder effect can matter.

Nate Silver: Tell me, Jordan, what did the mainstream media — The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and others — get wrong about the DeepSeek story?

Jordan Schneider: There was this first narrative that it cost them $6 million to train their model. That was illustrative of the problem. When I went on Hard Fork with Casey Newton, that’s the first question they asked me. I’d already written a few things, but no — it did not cost $6 million to make this model. You need to hire the people, run the compute, have the infrastructure, run lots of experiments. All in, it’s probably more like half a billion dollars.

But there were enough people for whom that narrative was interesting or financially useful that it spun faster than my loyal crowd of ChinaTalk listeners who were hearing us beat the other side of the drum.

Another thing that’s been shaped by this is the export control debate. There was this expectation that because DeepSeek exists, export controls are worthless. There’s lots more nuance to that, which we’ve covered in other podcasts. But the simplified version of drawing that line from A to B has really shaped the trajectory of American policy toward AI export controls and AI diffusion more broadly.

The cohort of folks who understood this nuance wasn’t able to seep into the halls of decision-making. We have now, quote-unquote, “lost” when it comes to semiconductor export controls, partially because there was this moment that ended up reshaping narratives, and the people who agreed with my version of the facts weren’t able to influence policy.

Nate Silver: These narratives that prevail are often in someone’s economic or political interest. There was a narrative after the 2024 election that Democrats lost because of low turnout, especially among younger voters. There’s a slight grain of truth in that.

However, this was exacerbated because people don’t realize it takes a month to count votes fully in the United States. The counts you see on election night and the next day shortchange turnout by tens of millions of votes. But that was a convenient narrative because people wanted to move to the left. It’s more that younger voters — particularly young men — shifted against Democrats. There’s somewhat lower turnout, but it’s still historically high.

It’s tricky when you have the more nuanced take versus the easily memeable take. If you’re making sports bets, a lot of it’s in the nuance. We all know this quarterback is good, but maybe he can be both very good and a little overrated by conventional wisdom for various reasons. There’s enough of a profit margin where you have positive expected value on your bet. In the news cycle, that’s less forgiving. But Substack and podcasts give a little more room for subtlety and exploring things.

Jordan Schneider: I’ve shied away from writing a book all these years. You’re very quick-twitch but have also done it and just made the case that it’s really valuable. Why don’t you expand on that for me? What has having these two book projects under your belt given you?

Nate Silver: For one thing, I like the process of writing a book. Ordinarily, day to day, I consider myself a journalist, but for the most part, the process involves me and a computer. Particularly when it comes to politics, I don’t really want to call Democratic or Republican sources and get their take. People are paying me for my take, and I don’t care to be spun. That increases the turnaround time.

For the book, it’s the opposite. On the Edge involved interviews with roughly 200 people — a lot of experts and practitioners in fields I find fascinating. Even if you weren’t working on a book, if you took two years to interview 200 really smart people about things they’re knowledgeable about just for your own edification, that would make you a lot smarter.

Jordan Schneider: When I was reading the book, I was annoyed. I wanted the Nate Silver experience — I want to listen to the hour-long conversation you had with Peter Thiel. That’d be fascinating if it’s on the record. Why not sequence it that way?

Nate Silver: The people I spoke with were often very candid, maybe against their narrow self-interest in some cases. But I would never approach somebody and say, “I want to talk to you about X.” I would approach them and say, “I’m writing a book about X that’ll be published in a year or two.” I would always be very honest about the rationale for the conversation.

If something Peter Thiel said was super newsworthy — and I’m trying to remember if that was a conversation with explicit ground rules — but if it’s a conversation where someone says something newsworthy in a non-book context, it’s a little ethically fraught. I don’t think it crosses some bright line journalistically, but it’s complicated.

With Sam Bankman-Fried, that was an explicit understanding. He definitely told me things because he thought the timeline would insulate him from some risk or he could shape the narrative somehow. It wound up coming out after he was already sentenced and in prison.

You’ll have reporters who embargo reporting on political projects — there should be lots of books about Biden’s decline. The fact is that people will tell you more when they have more protection. Probably 80% of my interviews were more or less fully on the record. Sometimes the background interviews use journalism’s distinctions for these terms, and there are in-between categories where you can publish with approval. I don’t love that, but I did it for one or two important sources where it was the least bad option.

People are more candid if they understand the context of your project and believe it’s coming out in the context of a book that puts everything into a broader universe.

I used to work at The New York Times — that ended in 2013, but now I write for them a few times a year. It’s friendly. If The Times calls me for a story, I’m still sometimes reluctant to say anything because you’re going to have one or two quotes put into their narrative that may or may not suit your purposes and may or may not be accurate.

The Times is popular in part because they write in narratives. Even a boring economic data story has a little spin on the ball — good writing, good headlines. Nothing wrong with those things, but sometimes there’s a narrative that’s a little reductionist. They’re the best in the business, or among the best. When you deal with people who don’t have those journalistic standards, you’ll encounter more problems potentially.

Jordan Schneider: We have these nice historical interludes in the book. Is that a type of non-journalism-driven writing? Is that something potentially on your horizon as well? How do you think about hanging out in the archives for a year or two?

Nate Silver: History and statistics are closely tied together. For this NFL project, I’m researching every NFL game played back to the 1920s. It’s remarkable to see how this one sport has survived with significant changes. But you come across something and wonder, “Why were there no games played that day?” Oh, the September 11th attacks. You encounter changes in real-world behavior and technological changes.

Any system model sometimes involves extrapolation from first principles, but the most empirical ones just say, “Okay, we are extrapolating from history and making the assumption” — and it is a big assumption — “that trends that existed in the past will correctly extrapolate to the future.” Often they don’t. Economic forecasting is notoriously difficult because there are regime changes. The economics of the internet era versus the pre-internet era versus the pre-automation era versus the pre-agricultural era — there’s great research showing these are all very different.

The field of economic history, sometimes called progress studies, is quite underrated. The notion of why different societies, great powers or not-so-great powers, rise and fall — why is South Korea as prosperous or more prosperous than Japan today per capita when there was a 10x or 20x gap 40 years ago? These seem like really high-stakes, important questions. Because they play out at longer time scales, they often don’t motivate people as much. But they seem vital.

Even within AI, from what I understand, the AI companies are not really putting a lot of effort into thinking about what this looks like in five or 10 years. They have longer time horizons than most, but they’re not really forecasting how the entire world changes if we do achieve superintelligence. They talk about it a lot — listen to the Dwarkesh podcast or whatever — it’s a popular subject, but that’s probably substantively more important than what’s in the daily news cycle.

Theories of Political Change 纳特·西尔弗思想

Jordan Schneider: There’s a myth of a software engineer who’s annoyed by something in the Spotify app, joins Spotify for two weeks, fixes it, and quits. I’m curious — what would you do during such a stint if you could plop yourself down anywhere in government?

Nate Silver: Let me redesign the Constitution, I guess. Maybe we need a ban on gerrymandering and we need to change the Senate. To some extent I’ve done that. I was dissatisfied with the way elections were covered, so what I thought was a little two-week project became a life-altering career.

I do feel like there’s maybe a little more openness to improvement. New York City has a new subway map now, which is much more legible. I saw that the other day — that was a nice little improvement. I could be a good restaurant consultant: “This restaurant’s not going to work. I live in this neighborhood. Nobody ever walks on this block. They walk on 8th Avenue and not 7th Avenue — I can’t explain why."

Being a copy editor, I guess. I notice copy editing problems in advertisements and things like that a lot.

Jordan Schneider: Think bigger. Come on. What Cabinet secretary? What bureau? Jamaal’s saying, “I’ll give you any job, Nate.” Which is it?

Nate Silver: How to have a good poker scene in New York — we’ve got to have poker rooms. We don’t need the rest of the gaming.

I guess I agree with the abundance critique where New York just takes an awful lot of time to build things. At the local government level, there often are incremental improvements made in different ways. In New York, our new infrastructure projects — LaGuardia Airport, the other airports, the West Side development — they’re all nice. It just took too long and was too slow.

But Jamaal is to my left, I think. I do think that he’s enough of an outsider and bright enough that he might do those smart, experimental things that don’t just fall under bureaucracy and inertia. I don’t know — was it Japan or Korea where they have little lights embedded in the sidewalk? That’s pretty cool. Just little things. If you’re looking down, you know when to cross or when not to.

Jordan Schneider: You’re a “department of special projects” guy — “let’s just make life better on the margin a little bit.” Or we’re going to let Nate Silver rewrite the Constitution. More barbell theory.

Nate Silver: Think big, everything’s small. Absolutely.

Jordan Schneider: Okay, let’s do barbell theory again with money. Say SBF hits and you’re just his advisor, and you got billions of dollars to spend on stuff — maybe not dumb stuff. Where are you putting your marginal $10 billion of philanthropy around politics?

Nate Silver: I don’t think politics is a very effective use of money. If it is, it’s at the local level. If you look at projects that were really successful — one of the most successful projects in American history is the conservative movement’s multi-decade effort to win control of the American court system. Supreme Court justices serve five times longer than presidents on average. Doing ground-level, long-term work is quite valuable. The notion of how to make government more efficient matters.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s lean on that for a second because one of the things that story did was invest in ideas and people and the intellectual superstructure for this movement. There don’t seem to be — maybe we’re starting a little bit now with the abundance stuff and Patrick Collison funding progress things — but there seem to be a lot fewer center or left billionaires who are investing in the interesting intellectual ecosystem to grow the movement.

Nate Silver: You probably see more of it on the right. The Peter Thiel Fellowship program pays kids to drop out of college — that’s an interesting ideological project that has produced some degree of success. The effective altruists would say that you want to purchase anti-malaria mosquito nets in the third world, and probably that’s very effective.

As much as there are lots of inefficiencies in politics and government, it also reflects the revealed equilibrium from complicated systems and complicated incentives. Maybe change is harder to achieve. It’s part of the reason why I’m reluctant to give off-the-cuff answers.

There have to be improvements you can make in government efficiency. Why does it cost 10x more to build a mile of subway track in New York than in France or Spain or Japan? I also think there are probably a lot of really sticky factors explaining why that’s the case.

In principle, I’d be on board with a project like DOGE. But DOGE should have spent the first three months studying this — not a fake commission, but actually studying where’s the overlap between problems where there really is inefficiency and where it’s tractable and solvable. That’s not something you could answer off the cuff or just by looking at a spreadsheet.

Jordan Schneider: Would you ever join a campaign?

Nate Silver: No, I don’t think I’ve ever really been offered that, believe it or not. It goes against my ethos — I want to study and have the outside view on politics. Campaigns are pretty rough. It’s very tough because you basically have one outcome: do you win or lose? In the presidential primaries, you have 50 states and they go in sequence, so it’s a little bit better. But it’s very hard to know what worked or what didn’t.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump had lots of different, subtle, nuanced strategies. The fact is that if inflation had peaked at 4% instead of 9% in 2022, then she might have won, having nothing to do with strategy per se. It’s very hard to get feedback on campaigns.

I’m skeptical that you can gain as much through better messaging as you might think. It becomes saturated. The first time the next candidate uses Jamaal-style messaging, they’ll probably get something out of it. The fifth one who does it might backfire because it seems like a bad facsimile of what came before. Just like there are various Obama imitators or mini-Trumps, people like novelty — and they like some sense of authenticity.

What seems authentic is very tricky. Trump, in many ways, is a very fake, plasticky person, and yet he has this ironic, almost camp level of authenticity that would have been hard to predict in advance. I was not alone in 2015 when he’s going down the elevator at Trump Tower to think this is a joke.

This sketches the limits of prediction in general. The world is complicated and dynamic and contingent and circumstantial. Social behavior is contagious, and the focal points created by the media and the internet do more of this, where things can change unpredictably and rapidly. There’s less political science in running campaigns than in a lot of other fields that might possibly be in my interest set.

Share

Jordan Schneider: It’s interesting because the big tactical decision that people are still talking about is, why didn’t she go on Rogan? Well, even if she did, it wouldn’t have gone well because she doesn’t vibe with that. It’s a bit of a revealed preference — she didn’t do this open-ended media appearance because she doesn’t fit it.

There’s an aspect of — you can only “Manchurian Candidate” your candidate to go so far from their essence as a human being. Until we’re electing AI models, people can still just get a sense for whether they like or dislike people. That’s probably 2 or 3% marginal.

Nate Silver: When President Trump got shot, it was a very sympathetic moment. I never voted for Trump and wouldn’t, but even then I felt some sympathy. That moved the polls by one or two points. One of the most momentous events of the past 50 years of American campaigns.

When Biden had the worst debate in presidential history, that moved the numbers by maybe 2%. It mattered because he was already behind and now he fell further behind.

There are times when preferences are extremely plastic and times when they’re extremely sticky. Knowing which is which, which interventions work at which intervals, is probably important.

Jordan Schneider: Has covering politics shaped your view on the great man versus structuralist view of how things unfold?

Nate Silver: The empirical default is to be more structuralist — that’s the trendy thing. I don’t know. I think Donald Trump is a very important figure. If Donald Trump had been a stand-up comedian instead — Trump is funny — the world would look a lot different. Elon Musk has been very important to the shape of the world. I’m not saying positively or negatively, but Xi is very important.

Things are trending more that way. I’m not some Elizabeth Warren type, but if the top richest people in the world basically double their wealth every decade — and it’s different people cycling in and out of the list, but if you look at the inflation-adjusted list of the richest 10 or 100 people, and it’s often more about the 10 now than the 100 — they basically double their wealth, inflation-adjusted, every 10 years. You compound that over several cycles, and that concentration of power might shift things more toward a great man theory.

I’m sure there’s a substantial degree of randomness too. I have no idea how China formed, for example, but you get in these feedback loops where you have a virtuous loop or a less virtuous loop. Thirty years ago, Americans were worried about being overtaken by Japan. That happened to Japan a few times, and in some ways it’s still a very amazing, advanced society.

Maybe an example is Rome, Italy, which is one of my favorite places to travel to. I’ve been there at different points in my life. There are parts of Rome where if you go today in 2025, they don’t really look that much different than when I was a college kid in 1999-2000. Except for the cell phones, you could really be placed in 2000 and you wouldn’t miss a beat.

Jordan Schneider: Slight non sequitur. My favorite dad book is called An Italian Education. It’s this memoir of a cranky British person who married an Italian woman and is talking about raising their kid in early 1990s Italy. It’s really fun, kind of New Journalism-style writing. But it’s also this fascinating portrayal of this country at a big transition moment where they’re going from being super Catholic to more modern, and from being very localized to conceiving of themselves as part of this European project.

I don’t have great 2025 Italy takes, but it’s interesting just how much further — or not further — a country could have gone from that moment to today, looking at different parts of the world from 1994 to the present.

Nate Silver: I have a friend who’s Irish — actually Irish, not Irish American — who moved here in early adulthood. He’s gay, and he’s told me, “When I was growing up, Ireland was very Catholic and very anti-gay, and now they almost go out of their way to be pro-LGBTQ rights.” It is interesting how much countries can change.

Conversely, Russia and that sphere are separating a bit more. The United States is diverging more from Europe too. Europe hasn’t grown a lot economically — there’s not a lot of innovation there. At the same time, their lifespans are increasing and they’re taking this slower-growing dividend into quality of life. Whereas in the U.S., male life expectancies, even if you ignore COVID, have basically not increased in a decade.

We are getting wealthier. I worry a little bit that as we’re doing things that undermine American leadership and state capacity, we’ve been playing the game on easy mode because the dollar is a world reserve currency and the U.S. is the world’s biggest military. We’ve been — this is complicated relative to a low bar — a relatively trustworthy player in international relations. If we’re throwing those things away, there might not be an impact next year, but when you visit these different countries and extrapolate out 3% GDP growth versus 1% and compound that over 20 years, it’s extraordinarily powerful. You see it on the ground where these places are stagnant and these places are growing.

On Podcasting (Plus: Renaming ChinaTalk?!?)

Jordan Schneider: You interviewed a lot of really rich people for this book. Why do they all want to start podcasts?

Nate Silver: They do love hearing themselves talk. It’s not just that they’re rich. These are people mostly in competitive fields — a lot of them venture capital — where they’ve had success and it goes to their head. You see this in poker — being on a winning streak in poker is helpful. It improves your attitude, makes people fear you. But you can go on “winner’s tilt,” it’s called.

It’s very hard when you’re powerful — people start catering to you. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is one of the more accurate fables. That and “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” are the two eternal fables that describe human behavior extremely well.

If you’re somebody like Elon Musk, he has made several really good bets, whether they’re skilled bets or luck. If the fourth SpaceX rocket had blown up — even he told Walter Isaacson that he was going to be cooked. But it’s very hard if you’re one of these people who has had that kind of success.

One thing I’ve learned, Jordan, is that there’s always one more tier of wealth and power behind a closed door than you might expect. There’s always one more privilege level. Even at an event that’s already privileged, there’s a VIP room and a VIP room within the VIP room. The biggest VIPs of all are not even at that — they’re already at the after party.

There are smaller worlds too. Keith Rabois told me there are really only six people in all of Silicon Valley that matter. Which is an exaggeration, but maybe not directionally wrong. Maybe a few dozen. They all know one another.

With the tech types and VC types, they feel embattled by their employees who are “too woke” and the media being mean to them. People are mean to me on the internet sometimes too.

Subscribe now

Jordan Schneider: Regarding your idea that there’s always one level up — if that’s your theory of the world, then why do you want to have an audience of 10,000 people listening to you talk about the news?

Nate Silver: Part of what I’ve done is go from a giant platform. I used to work for ABC News, which is about as mainstream as it gets. The average watcher is 70 years old at an airport somewhere or maybe a retirement home. Now with Substack, it’s an audience that turned out not to actually be narrower because the notion of building an email list is a good business model and very sticky.

At first, the stuff that goes behind a paywall is definitely reaching fewer people, but they’re willing to pay. You’re self-selecting too. Because the work I do, especially when it comes to election forecasting, is so easily misinterpreted, I don’t mind having a filter for people who come to the problem with more knowledge. It also can make the writing sharper.

If I’m freelancing with The New York Times, I have a good editor over there. They’re often saying, “Slow down, you have to explain this thing better.” It’s nice to have a conversation where you’re starting with certain premises and memories. I’ve stated complicated things before about my political views on issues that might come into play, or I’ve disclosed that I consult for Polymarket. It’s a cumulative project, and inherently nobody has time for everybody’s cumulative project.

Having a smaller audience of even dozens of people, hundreds, or tens of thousands is pretty important. Especially if there is maybe an unfortunate degree of concentration of influence and wealth and power. When I was working on the book, one of the things that surprised me is how many people I had no connection with were willing to have a conversation with me or at least provide a polite response if they had a good reason not to.

It’s a pretty small world and people talk to one another. That’s something that’s shifted a little bit again, maybe toward more of this Great Man theory — although all of them are men — toward this theory where individual agency matters more.

Jordan Schneider: My two cents on this is there’s a big cognitive bias for Keith Rabois to want to think that he is the center of the universe. There are more times than you would think where you have the market providing the discipline, or the people, or bigger sentiment when something blows up, where politicians or the media end up reflecting mass opinion more than they do the opinion of three people who are trying to pull the strings.

Nate Silver: One tip I heard in poker recently is that everybody is the main character of their own poker story. If I got caught making a big bluff against a third party earlier in the hand, and you’re sitting at the table not involved in the hand, Jordan, you might not even notice that — you’re going to be on your phone.

If you got bluffed by another player earlier and I’m not involved, that affects my strategy against you much more than what I did before, because I’m not involved in your narrative except to the extent I affect you. Life is often the same way.

Jordan Schneider: To close, I have an inside baseball question. Silver Bulletin is a great name. ChinaTalk... I don’t know, I think I should get out of it somehow, but I don’t want it to be The Jordan Show.

Nate Silver: People didn’t like the Silver Bulletin name at first. I came up with it in three minutes. I thought Twitter was gonna die, and I needed some placeholder. A lot of names are stupid when you think about them. Sports names are kind of dumb — the Green Bay Packers is kind of a dumb name. But it just sticks, and it seems normal because people repeat it over and over again.

Jordan Schneider: It’s not that I have names I’d be fine with. It’s more that the switching cost isn’t transparent to me — how much it’ll change listenership or open rates or whether it puts me on a larger growth trajectory. I wouldn’t change my coverage to do less China. Right now, it’s still 50% China, but it would just send a signal that it’s more than China here.

Nate Silver: That’s an interesting case. If it’s just a name, it’s a little awkward because it does include an implicit premise for what the subject is. Most of the time I would say the switching costs are actually pretty high. To sacrifice brand recognition is costly. Maybe you need to start a sub-brand or something. That’s a trickier one than for most people.

Jordan Schneider: The other thing is that advertisers are terrified of China. That’s just reality.

Nate Silver: Well, that tips it over to...

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. It’s more once I have a big contract, once I have Google telling me, “Jordan, we’ll buy $500,000 of ads only if it’s called the Jordan Schneider Show” — then you’ll know we’re doing it.

Nate Silver: We’re doing it for 500k. That’d be worth it.

We’ll take new podcast names in the comments below…

Nate said he was into shoegaze so his mood music is:

We have a ChinaTalk meetup this coming Thursday in SF. Sign up here if you can make it!

Uncle Sam is taking a bite out of companies left and right. Today, we’re going to focus on MP Materials — the Trump administration’s answer to China’s restrictions on rare earth material exports to America.

To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed Daleep Singh, former Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics, now with PGIN; Arnab Datta, currently at Employ America and IFP; and Peter Harrell, former Biden official and host of the excellent new Security Economics podcast.

Today, our conversation covers:

• How China achieved rare earth dominance,

• The history of rare earth mining and refinement in the US,

• What the MP Materials and Intel deals do, and whether they can succeed,

• The key ingredients for successful industrial policy and imagining a sovereign wealth fund.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

Broken Markets

Jordan Schneider: Why do deals like MP Materials even need to happen in the first place?

Daleep Singh: Critical minerals markets are broken for three main reasons.

First, there’s concentrated market power. China refines 70 to 90% of most minerals that we need to power clean energy, digital infrastructure, and defense systems. They have enormous market power — not just over supply, but also pricing, standards, and logistics. No market can be resilient if one player dominates the entire market ecosystem.

Second, there’s extreme price volatility. Prices for minerals like lithium, nickel, or rare earths swing far more violently than oil and gas. For producers, this creates asymmetric risk — if you undersupply the market, you may lose some profit. If you oversupply, you may go bust. That asymmetry deters the investment we need to expand supply when quantities are low and prices are high, preventing the market from clearing.

The third problem is that we don’t really have market infrastructure for critical minerals. For oil, we have futures exchanges, benchmark prices, and deep liquidity. For most critical minerals, we don’t. Transactions are opaque, bilateral, and heavily distorted by state intervention, especially China’s. Markets don’t provide price discovery, and producers and consumers don’t have hedging tools. Investors lose confidence in these markets and walk away.

All together, we have chronic underinvestment, chronic gaps between supply and demand, and chronic vulnerability to geopolitical shocks. Those are the problems.

Jordan Schneider: Daleep, let’s dig deeper into the market infrastructure piece. What does this mean in practice — that it’s not like WTI, Brent, or something similar?

Daleep Singh: If you’re a producer, you need tools to manage price volatility. When prices fall dramatically, you need the ability to continue generating revenue to stay liquid. You need futures markets and option markets that you can use to hedge against downside price risk. Right now, if you’re a critical minerals producer for most of the minerals that matter for our economic security, you don’t have that option.

You also need price discovery — to know where prices are in the market. We really don’t have genuine price discovery from any of these markets. China can decide, just by virtue of its dominance in supply, where it wants the price to settle. If it wants that price to settle at a level that wipes out the competition, that’s its choice. That’s not a market.

Arnab Datta: One quick piece to add is that the market infrastructure problem Daleep mentioned was really an intentional strategy by China. In addition to very robust industrial policy that provided substantial subsidies to producers and refiners, they stepped into the market infrastructure gap that was retreating in the West, particularly after the global financial crisis.

When you saw liquidity leave Western markets partly because of regulations passed during that time, China seized the opportunity. They built exchanges and benchmark contracts on Chinese exchanges so they could control that market infrastructure and how these prices were constructed.

Peter Harrell: I’d add two important pieces.

First, America’s dependence on China for rare earths is actually a relatively new problem. Historically, going back several decades, the US actually produced, mined, refined, processed, and manufactured plenty of rare earths in the 1950s, 1960s, really through the 1980s and into the 1990s.

It was in the 90s and 2000s — the era of peak globalization — where China successfully expanded its rare earth refining in particular. You saw Chinese firms begin to outcompete American firms, and a real decline in US manufacturing related to this consolidation of Chinese control. This isn’t because the US never made rare earths. This is really a problem of economics that emerged in the 90s and 2000s.

Second, we saw just a couple of months ago the critical risk that dependency on China for rare earths gives us, because it became part of the trade war Trump launched with China. Back in April, China retaliated by threatening to — and then actually — cutting off its exports of rare earths to the US, which had the potential to really impact manufacturing here. It became much less of a hypothetical long-term risk and much more of an immediate threat that could actually hurt the United States in the near term because of how China responded to Trump’s trade war in April.

Arnab Datta: Just to add to the WTI comparison — if you think about how WTI is priced, it’s a physically cleared contract. You’re purchasing a barrel that will be delivered at Cushing, Oklahoma. The pricing incorporates pipeline transport, logistics, and a whole infrastructure of traders, logistics providers, and port managers — all of that goes into the price of that physically delivered barrel at Cushing.

That’s something we just don’t have in the context of many of these newer metals markets. It’s very difficult to properly price a material when the only analog you have is a Chinese benchmark that potentially has very different constraints and very different characteristics.

Strategic Resilience Reserve

Jordan Schneider: This became very acute a few months ago when Trump imposed tariffs. Something that people have been talking about in Washington for literally 20 years — China using its role in the global rare earth export market to punish countries for doing things they don’t want — finally manifested. Trump walked back, and now we have this as a central thing that China and the US are tussling over.

Peter, Daleep, you guys aren’t dumb. You knew this was an issue. People have been writing about this for a very long time. What is the activation energy required in the 21st century to do the kind of industrial policy necessary to really change the dynamics on an issue like rare earths? Why have we only seen small, half-formed efforts until spring and summer 2025?

We have a Washington that has talked about the problem for a very long time now starting to spend nine and ten figures to address it in a more direct way than the incremental efforts folks had been pursuing. Peter, talk us through this deal. What came out of the Trump administration and the DoD over the past few weeks?

Peter Harrell: As you said, this isn’t a new problem. Policymakers have been aware for more than a decade that there was US dependency on China for rare earths. The Chinese had cut off their exports of rare earths to Japan back in 2011 or 2012. We’d actually seen the Chinese execute this playbook once before on an allied country.

This isn’t a new problem, and it’s not that there were no efforts to deal with this issue prior to the deal that the Defense Department announced in July. There were some efforts — previous grants, including to MP (the company that got the deal in July) to try to restart manufacturing and processing of rare earths in California where there’d been a longtime US mine. Actually, the mine had reopened in 2017.

There had also been some grants to other companies and universities to look at other ways of mining and processing rare earths — for example, to extract them from mine tailings in West Virginia. There had been some government money to try to sponsor innovation to reduce dependencies on rare earths, maybe create magnets and other products that you need rare earths for but without actually needing the rare earth elements.

There had been some policy processes and policy money put into trying to address this problem. But there were a couple of challenges with those prior efforts. First is just the scale of the effort. Frankly, the way Washington works, until there is a very acute crisis, it can be hard to mobilize the scale of effort that is actually needed to solve it. These prior efforts were much smaller in dollar spend and scope because the crisis seemed less acute. That’s just a political reality of how Washington works.

Second, this is a very complex issue. I don’t even think this new DoD deal with MP is going to be the whole solution. It’s going to require several parts. It is, in fact, a very complex issue.

Third, related to mobilization: solving a problem like this is going to cost money. You get into big debates about who should pay for it — should US taxpayers come up with the money, or should you make the private sector bear these costs? That adds to why it takes time. It’s not that there was nothing — there was some foundation that this deal is now building on. Not that there was nothing before, but Daleep, I’d welcome you defending our work together in the Biden administration.

Daleep Singh: Jordan, I appreciate you suggesting that we’re not dumb. That’s nice — we don’t always get that. But look, there have been piecemeal efforts to funnel public money toward private sector companies that could help produce minerals we need. What we haven’t done is fix the market. That’s where we are now.

I started thinking about reimagining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into a Strategic Resilience Reserve for 21st-century vulnerabilities.

When prices crash and China continues to flood the market, we have this recurring problem of producers going bankrupt.

A Strategic Resilience Reserve could be a buyer of last resort or provide bridge financing to companies that are solvent but illiquid. That’s what could allow producers to keep producing during downturns and keep production capacity alive.

What can we do about investors not having confidence in these markets? If you don’t have futures markets and hedging markets, and refiners can’t lock in predictable revenues, could a Strategic Resilience Reserve step in with tools like selling a put option that allows you to make money when prices fall? Could it provide a price floor or some type of demand guarantee? The point is: can you create enough certainty for private capital to keep flowing?

What do you do about concentration risk? Even with a deal like MP, no country is going to mine its way to self-sufficiency when we’re up against what China has. But we do have producers and miners in places like Canada, Australia, and Finland. They’re hesitating to expand production because they know China can tank prices tomorrow.

An SRR, if we got that authorized, could provide demand backstops and offtake agreements. Could it intervene in the market so that producers in allied countries know they’re not going to go bankrupt if Beijing floods the market? That’s the idea we’ve started to develop over time — probably with some mistakes — to change the market itself rather than a series of ad hoc transactions that don’t alter the economics.

Jordan Schneider: SRR — a Strategic Resilience Reserve — a topic we’ll get to in a few moments. I’d also like to say in defense of the last 20 years of American policymaking that this was a latent threat, and the trajectory of US-China relations that made this become an actual threat has manifested relatively recently.

The fact that the Biden administration was able to “get away” with imposing semiconductor export controls, implementing big tariffs, essentially banning Chinese electric vehicles, and a handful of other tariffs without triggering this response is important to recognize. This is only a problem in the context of the US-China diplomatic relationship. Without that relationship souring, then we just get to use some subsidized magnets and the world moves on.

Peter, what was your thinking about trying to inch forward with more and more aggressive economic tools while seeing things bubbling up in terms of new Chinese legislation but not wanting them to hit back for the efforts you were making?

Peter Harrell: When I think about how one can solve a problem like our dependency on China for rare earth elements — and then we can unpack what this deal will and will not do — you need to think about several different categories of policy tools that you need to mesh together to solve the problem.

We’ve had this history in American industrial policy over the past decades where we’ve focused almost exclusively on what you might think of as supply-side industrial policy. We’ve given grants to companies to build a factory or a mine to do something. In some cases, that can be sufficient because the problem we need to solve is one of startup costs. It costs more to get something off the ground in the United States, and you can provide a capex incentive to help get it off the ground.

But when you look at China’s dominance of rare earths — where they not only have already spent a lot of capex, but their operating expenses are lower than in the United States and they control the market infrastructure — if you want to break China’s control here, you can’t solve it simply with our own capex.

You also need to think about the market infrastructure, as Daleep says, and you need to think about what the demand side looks like. If US operating costs for producing rare earths are going to be higher than they are in China, you have to find some demand for that higher-cost US product. Otherwise, US companies are going to keep buying Chinese products because the Chinese products are going to be cheaper.

You need to create a market infrastructure that’s going to ensure stable demand for the US-made product. Layering these things together — these different sets of policy tools to address the different parts of the chain — is not something the US government has done in a long time. You have to get your reps in and spend some time in the gym before you can do it.

Daleep Singh: Peter and I used to sit in the part of the White House that was straddling economics and national security. For most of us, very early on in the term we understood — especially as Russia’s forces were mounting on Ukraine’s border — that we’re going to be in this incredibly contested geopolitical environment for the rest of our lives. China and Russia have now made it very clear and revealed they’re going to challenge the US-led order everywhere. Because today’s great powers are nuclear powers, our expectation became that this competition is going to play out mostly in the theater of economics, energy, and technology.

The question was, if we’re going to prevail, how can we harness the financial firepower of the world’s most dynamic financial system to advance strategic objectives? Do we have the right tools, do we have the right institutions to overcome this short-term profit motive that drives most of what’s going on on Wall Street? The answer is no. As time went on and we started to have time to breathe, we started to think about new ideas. That’s where the Strategic Resilience Reserve came up. We also started to think about whether the US should have a sovereign wealth fund. These are all ideas trying to solve the same problem: the private sector systematically underinvests in exactly the kind of projects that matter most for our economic security and for our national security.

Can the Deal Create a Market?

Jordan Schneider: What does this MP Materials deal do? What is interesting and exciting about it? And why is it not the systemic solution that Daleep craves to manifest?

Arnab Datta: One thing this deal does is treat the problem holistically. Peter mentioned that you need a mix of supply and demand side tools. The administration deserves credit for using the DPA, the Defense Production Act, in a robust way. They are applying a toolkit that includes loans, equity investments, price floors, and a guaranteed contract for offtake for the finished product. That’s just a recognition. Ultimately, if we’re going to deal with this problem over the next one year, five year, ten year, decades, we need a robust toolkit and we need a mechanism by which we can address these very challenges.

Jordan Schneider: Arnab, briefly, who did this? This is very sophisticated, impressive work. It’s a lot of puzzle pieces which haven’t been put together in a very long time.

Arnab Datta: It was done through the Defense Department. It pairs a number of different authorities. I would say the most creative, atypical interventions were through the Defense Production Act — this is Title 3 of the Defense Production Act. It has very wide authority attached to it. Peter did a recent piece in Lawfare examining this, but it basically allows you to engage in a number of different transaction types to achieve the goal of building our defense industrial base. There’s also some capital from the Office of Strategic Capital. That’s where the loan is coming from.

One thing to keep in mind is that some of these appropriations are not spoken for. Over time you could imagine funding coming from different parts of DoD from the national defense stockpile. They’re going into this with the commitment and a very clear interest and effort in continuing with this deal. But there are some risks and there’s also some structural challenges with this deal that I’d be happy to go into as well.

Jordan Schneider: Peter, give us the flip side. What doesn’t this accomplish and solve?

Peter Harrell: Let’s first walk through what this deal is, because there was some news last month when it came out. I think a lot of the news focused on the fact that the Defense Department, as a piece of this deal, was taking equity in MP Materials, which now looks like a precursor for the Trump administration going out and taking equity in Intel and maybe a whole bunch of defense companies and everything else. I think that was the piece that attracted the news. But the deal is a fairly complicated deal that has a couple of different parts.

Part one of the deal is the government gave MP Materials, this mining company, some loans and then some cash as part of the equity stake to expand its mine in California, not that far from Las Vegas — Las Vegas is the nearest big airport to this mine, but it’s in California. To expand production at the mine and then relatedly to expand and build a new facility to take some of the rare earths being produced in this mine and to manufacture them into magnets, because what we need is not raw rare earths. What you need are magnets that go into motors and turbines and all kinds of other things. There’s almost no magnet manufacturing in the US and in fact, previously this mine had been producing rare earth ore and then selling it to China to be made into magnets there.

Part of this is a capital injection to MP to expand the mine and to build some magnet processing — expand some magnet manufacturing capability here in the United States. They’re doing that with both a debt and equity stake.

Another part of this deal is the Defense Department set a price floor for the raw rare earths, where the Defense Department has guaranteed that when MP is mining and doing initial processing for the raw rare earths, it now has a guaranteed minimum price, which by the way, is about twice what the current Chinese market price is.

That’s how you guarantee that it’s economical for MP to make this stuff over the next ten years. Because DoD said, “Even if the market price is $54,” which is about what I think it is today, “We’re going to guarantee a price of $110 per kilogram. We’ll pay you the difference between $54 and $110 per kilogram.” You have this price floor for the minimally processed rare earths. Then on the magnet side, DoD also said, “We’ll buy all of your magnets. You can produce these magnets for the next ten years, and we’ll buy all of them.”

There are some interesting pieces, such as if DoD and MP jointly agree that some of the magnets can be sold to buyers other than DoD, then there will be some profit sharing and other provisions. But it’s actually a pretty complicated deal with interrelated parts, which very clearly does ensure the viable business for the next decade of MP. MP gets capital injection. MP gets a guaranteed price floor for its rare earths concentrates — minimally processed rare earths. And then MP has a guaranteed buyer for its magnet.

MP is taken care of for the next decade and will be able to scale up production of both the minimally processed rare earths and probably of magnets.

But that doesn’t mean we have a market here. What we have is a market for MP.

That’s where I think there’s some interesting questions about this deal. Are we right to bet all in on MP as a national champion, or should we be thinking more systemically about the markets and less about how we guarantee the success of this particular firm? Arnab, I know you have a lot of thoughts on that piece of it.

Arnab Datta: We have a forthcoming article on the topic. We’re hoping to get it into Alphaville there, but they’re working it up the chain. We’re not fully signed off.

Jordan Schneider: In this piece, Peter and Arnab, you point out that this is similar to Chinese industrial policy circa Mao era, not the version 2.0. You’re picking one winner. And by the way, this company is probably not the best managed company in the world, as opposed to the way that China does it, where you have lots of firms fight it out to be the top dog.

Once you whittle it down to not one, but five or seven, then you start really turning on the jets and pouring on the money to secure your position in the global marketplace. As Daleep alluded to, this is also a concern with Intel.

For what it’s worth, I do think that manufacturing at the leading edge probably doesn’t support as many entrants as opposed to just building some mines and making some batteries. But, there does seem to be some tricky incentives and a lot of risk that their head of mining doesn’t go to a Coldplay concert with their head of HR or something. Daleep, where are you on this as an approach?

Daleep Singh: It makes me think of Intel a lot and I realize that we’re talking about very different markets, but I have the same take on it. Let’s actually pivot for a moment to Intel. There definitely needs to be government intervention in both of these markets. With leading edge semiconductors, we don’t produce any of them. Intel’s the only US firm capable of making them. But it has no customers and without customers, Intel can’t scale its unit cost efficiency — remains low and its competitiveness lags. Market forces aren’t going to solve that problem, nor will it solve the problem for MP.

But what gets interesting is instrument choice. What I worry about is ad hoc improvisation about what tools of industrial policy to use for particular sectors with a different context and a different kind of problem to solve. What I come back to is the systematic stuff. We do need a playbook, a governance structure, a doctrine for industrial policy. Start with the strategic objective. What problem are we trying to solve? Whether it’s MP or Intel or any other company, what is the market failure? Is it a shortfall of demand? Is it a capital constraint? Is it a cost differential? Is there a coordination problem? Is there some national security externality?

Then the third step is: pick the policy instrument that remedies the failure. Don’t default to equity injections or subsidies if the problem is demand, for example. Can you actually intervene? This goes to Peter’s analysis on MP. Does the intervention sustain competition and does it avoid a single point of failure? I would try to avoid substituting a foreign monopoly for a domestic point of failure. Can you tie the support to milestones, objective milestones, so that you can claw back the support you’re giving from taxpayers if they underperform? Can you sunset the support to avoid permanent dependence?

The last thing is how are you measuring the strategic return? What is the metric for success with this deal? It can’t just be for financial gain. How are we going to measure the benefit in terms of resilience, security, technological edge? That’s what’s missing for me. Maybe it’s out there somewhere, I just haven’t heard it.

Arnab Datta: I’d add to that a couple of things. This is a national champion that’s crowned without contest. We do have a pretty robust, vigorous competitive process folding out right now in the magnets space. There are other companies. MP Materials has the Mountain Pass Mine, but it has never produced a commercial magnet. It has not sold a rare earth magnet at commercial scale. When you think about the challenges that go into selling commercially — automotive is a major purchaser of these magnets — you need to get your production facility warranted. That’s a long process. There’s no sense right now — we don’t know they could get warranted for automotive. They might not. It’s a very challenging process.

Subscribe now

We do have competitors that are innovating. There’s a company, Niron Magnetics, that’s based out of Minnesota, they’ve produced a rare earthless magnet. This is the best of America in my opinion. You’re innovating yourself out of this vulnerability. I don’t know if Niron can scale at this point to the commercial scale that we need. But I also don’t know about MP Materials. When you start to get into some of these policy questions about is this intervention in this single company the right one, it raises a lot of secondary thorny issues.

This is a bet on vertical integration for rare earth magnets, that’s what they’re trying to build here. With MP Materials, that might be a good thing. A lot of the Chinese champions are vertically integrated, but there’s also a world where vertical integration on its own creates its own vulnerabilities. We see this a lot in the metals space where when we need to increase production because of some challenge, it’s not the vertically integrated producers that are responding quickly to price swings. It’s the marginal producers, the independent producers. This is something very common in metals markets. It’s something very common in the oil sector as well. These are really important policy questions.

My biggest concern globally with this deal is I don’t know what that reasoning is. It’s possible there are very well thought through reasons, but these are things that need to happen with some kind of a process that has technocratic democratic legitimacy to it. That’s why Daleep talking about the systemic solution is really important because we do need to make sure that these decisions are made in that context. I am not opposed to equity investments of all kinds. I think it’s an important tool for the government to have. It lets you push the risk frontier for your investments. If you’re a program, it lets you participate in the upside. But that needs to be done in a very thoughtful way. It’s a very powerful tool and we need to think about whether we are inculcating the things that make the American system dynamic — competition, innovation, technological innovation.

Daleep Singh: Can I ask Jordan, what is the exit strategy from the MP deal? Is it tied to production capacity or profits? How is the government going to sell down its public stake if at all?

Peter Harrell: The SEC filings talk about the government taking the stake. The government has also, in addition to the price floor, the guaranteed offtake agreement for the magnets. A belt and suspenders approach also guaranteed MP an annual profit of $140 million a year, which the government will pay as a cash payment if it’s not generated from the operations of the company. Presumably the government is intending to hold its equity for at least the ten year duration of the other elements of this deal. But there’s no specific language in the SEC filings about the government’s exit plan. It’s about the equity and then the duration of these other parts of the deal, which is a decade.

Arnab Datta: It’s structured as a ten year deal. I think ultimately the expectation is that the price floor and the offtake agreement will end at that point. But there’s no protection against the dependence. How do we stop this from becoming something that’s permanently dependent on this subsidy? It’s not clear.

It also doubles down on the Chinese market infrastructure. The benchmark that they are using is the Asian metals benchmark. That brings in the risk of manipulability too. China can bleed DoD for hundreds of millions more by flooding the market. How long is Congress expected to continue appropriations for that? These are not paid for. The one thing that was very clear in the 8-K is that they don’t have appropriations for all of this. How long can we expect Congress to keep paying? I think it is a very reasonable question as well.

Maximalist Industrial Policy

Jordan Schneider: I want to have this strategic question. What are reasonable goals over a three-year, five-year, or 10-year horizon when it comes to rare earths in particular. More broadly, what types of things would you want the Strategic Resilience Reserve to touch on?

Arnab Datta: There are a couple of key objectives that we’re trying to build here.

First, can we build a governance structure that is independent, technocratic and driven by market realities and not by political exigencies or other factors?

Second, can we build that robust toolkit that we talked about earlier for different markets? Rare earths we’ve talked about have particularly unique needs. They’re smaller than some of the bigger metals markets. We can’t be sure that you need a futures market for every rare earth that is on the market. But that’s a major goal as well.

Third, I would say the explicit purpose of what we’re trying to do here is build that competitive market. Are you supporting the buildout of a market infrastructure that is tied to market dynamics that US and allied producers face? Are we doing lending with intermediaries that can engage in more trading activity because they’ve got the leverage that left the market in the 2000s and 2010s, as I described? That’s an important piece of it because over five to ten years, if we can have a more stable market infrastructure for US and allied producers that reflects the costs they face, the logistical challenges they face, ultimately you’ll have a better stable foundation in place for those producers to compete.

Jordan Schneider: Beyond solving the market plumbing for things that would fall into strategic resilience, what is the big bold version of the systemic and thoughtful way to do the sorts of things that we’ve seen over the past few months with MP and Intel and we’ve seen over the past few years with the CHIPS Act and the IRA?

Daleep Singh: The maximalist version is a sovereign wealth fund. If you believe that the private sector systematically underinvests in projects that we need most for economic security and national security, then we’re not going to invest as a country at pace and scale to build fusion plants, dozens of semiconductor fabs, next-generation lithography, 6G telephony, or advanced geothermal. We’re also not going to invest enough in old economy sectors where we need to blunt a competitive disadvantage. Think about shipbuilding, or, lagging-edge chips, or mining.

What all of these projects share in common is that they require a lot of upfront capital and they require a decade or more of patience to generate a commercially attractive return. You need a huge tolerance for risk and uncertainty. The private sector venture investors, in particular, but also corporate America, are not likely to touch these in the size that we need them to because they’ve got plenty of other opportunities to make faster, higher, less risky returns. That’s why we have this valley of death right between breakthrough research and commercial scale.

I think the maximalist way to solve this problem is to create a flagship investment vehicle that gives the US patient, flexible capital, that can step in where markets won’t and that can crowd in private investment and back projects with genuine strategic value. That’s the case for a sovereign wealth fund. It’s not about picking winners, though. It’s about picking supply chains and technologies where our national security and our economic resilience are at stake.

It’s premised on the idea that left to itself, the US’ financial system is not designed to maximally align with our national interests. We need to intervene.

Jordan Schneider: I remember first reading you and Arnab’s piece on this a few years ago and thinking that was unlikely, but now Trump is into it. I wonder if it wasn’t called a golden share if he would have been as excited about this concept. But you do enough one-off ones and then you also learn that there are mistakes in the one-off ones and that you aren’t getting a systemic solution. It can go both ways. Either you give up on the project entirely or, given that the broader strategic purpose for these things keeps rearing its ugly head, you start to think in a larger and more systematic way at attacking these problems.

Let’s go level down. How are we funding this? What’s our governance structure? How’s the democratic involvement?

Daleep Singh: Whether you’re focusing on the MP deal or the 10% stake in Intel or the 15% revenue share from Nvidia or the golden share in Nippon, the point is we have a choice. Either we can improvise and experiment or we can develop a framework. Because I think the problem with improvisation is that if we just reach for different levers — an equity stake here, a profit share there, a golden share somewhere else — if we don’t have an overarching framework for why we’re using these tools and when and how and to what extent, I worry that this has the makings of a political piggy bank and a national embarrassment.

I understand some degree of experimentation is going to be needed. We haven’t done industrial policy in 40 years, and the muscles have atrophied. I get it, let’s take small steps and learn from those steps and then recalibrate. But I’m not in favor of ad hoc capitalism with American characteristics because that’s inevitably going to pick favorites and distort incentives.

You’re asking the right question. How do you govern a sovereign wealth fund or a Strategic Resilience Reserve the right way? How do you fund it? On the sovereign wealth fund idea, my thinking is we’re asset rich as a country. The federal government owns about 30% of the land. We have extensive energy and mineral rights. We own the electromagnetic spectrum. We have infrastructure assets all over the country. We’ve got 8,000 tons of gold that’s valued at 1934 prices. We’ve got $200 billion of basically money market assets that are sitting idle. The question is, are we maximizing the strategic bang for the buck on those assets? I would say no. That’s one potential source of funding.

You could also create new revenue streams to fund the vehicle. If you think that the US has too much Wall Street and not enough Main Street, that we financialize the economy into a series of boom-bust asset cycles, then let’s raise revenues from financial activities that serve no strategic purpose. I would say high frequency trading, for example, and fund vehicles that are explicitly designed to advance our national interests.

Jordan Schneider: As long as we stay away from fixed income.

Daleep Singh: Exactly. That’s untouchable. But the most appealing approach is the most straightforward one: ask Congress, be straight up about it. Ask Congress to seed the fund, authorize its existence as an independent federally chartered corporation authority. This is too important to leave entirely to the executive branch and have Congress set a clear mandate in terms of the objectives, the metrics for success, the oversight, the democratic accountability which Arnab was pointing at earlier. It’s a shame we didn’t do this ten years ago when our cost of capital was near zero. That would have made this effort far more affordable. But this is about our long-term national competitiveness. We don’t need to try to time the market.

Arnab Datta: One model that we think about a lot at Employ America is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has an independent board still, knock on wood. But that’s a structure that is well insulated from political day-to-day activities. It is not a 51-49 majority power structure. It has staggered terms, which, in my opinion, lends itself to depoliticization that’s helpful and has served us well over time.

In terms of the congressional point that Daleep made, we have had a version of this. We’ve worked with Senator Chris Coons’ office since 2020 on his proposal to establish an Industrial Finance Corporation. This is modeled off of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation that we had in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. We had then-Senator Vance on as a co-sponsor. I don't think the political viability of something like that is small. The way we structured that was we appropriated capital to it as a backstop against the borrowing that the corporation could do itself. This corporation could go out and raise capital by raising bond capital and then deploy that capital towards these investments that Daleep mentioned.

One value add about that is you don’t need to compete with the private sector on the rate of return, but you can generate a rate of return. Ultimately that type of a structure could pay for itself. There are a lot of technical accounting rules related to how you would structure that, particularly the Federal Credit Reform Act would come into play. But that is a structure that I think could be viable over time and we have the money to do it. Ultimately because a lot of these investments would be productive over 5, 10, 20 years, I think it would pay for itself.

The Right Tools for Intel

Jordan Schneider: I can’t let you guys leave without a few more Intel takes.

Arnab Datta: I’ve seen two separate conversations happening. One is on the legality of this and another on the policy justification. Peter did an excellent piece in Lawfare that came out a couple of days ago. This is possibly legal in a very technical sense, but does probably violate the spirit of the CHIPS Act in that the CHIPS Act is intended to incentivize manufacturing investments — they are giving this money to Intel but relinquishing most of those requirements. Earlier, we talked about milestones that companies should have to meet. Intel had a bunch of milestones attached to this money. They couldn’t get it all until they reached those milestones. They now have this capital, but they don’t have to meet those milestones. I think that’s a big problem.

Separate from the legality of the policy proposal here, why was this the best way, best thing for Intel? It’s not clear. As Daleep mentioned earlier, they need customers. An equity investment is not going to help them in that sense. For all I know, the share price could go down and our investment could go down because they can’t find customers. I think it’s a big problem that we’re not approaching the question of how can we make Intel more competitive? We seem to be approaching it in an ad hoc way — how can we get the best for our dollar in the form of a deal, an equity deal.

Daleep Singh: That’s my main concern — the right tools here. I agree with the intervention, but the right tools have to come from the demand side. Procurement guarantees, offtake agreements, sourcing mandates — all of those ideas make a lot of sense to me. It’s not clear how the equity injections fill the demand gap.

When you make upfront equity investments, you are foregoing optionality. I would have liked to see warrants or options that are tied to success. In general, I think policy support should be conditional. Conditional on whether you’re reducing unit costs or diversifying customers or hitting your production capacity targets. I do like the idea of clawbacks. The government has lost a lot of optionality with an upfront common equity injection. Maybe there’s a lot in the fine print that we don’t understand, but that’s what I found lacking.

Peter Harrell: I just echo what Daleep and Arnab said. The specifics of this deal are troubling. The idea of policy support, financial support to have onshoring of US semiconductors — clearly needed, clearly broad, bipartisan support. The idea that we shouldn’t be dependent on TSMC, the Taiwanese semiconductor firm for leading edge manufacturing, I think also has bipartisan and sensible policy support. You want to have some competition and some optionality at the leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing.

But what this deal did was take a grant in which Intel was getting $11 billion in exchange for Intel investing — call it $80 billion in fabs over the next decade. Intel was going to get the $11 billion in tranches as it built the fabs. If it failed to build the fabs, there was going to be a clawback. Now Intel is getting about $9 billion of the dollars in exchange for the stock. Plus they have to complete building certain DoD specialty lines.

Most of the obligations to build fabs went poof, and they got the cash in exchange for stocks.

I get why Intel might have done it. They get cash that’s largely unrestricted. They dilute their existing shareholders, but they probably decided the cash is worth it for us to do whatever we want with it. Reasonable call from Intel.

Arnab Datta: I’m also thinking about warrants. They’re using, in all likelihood, something called other transactions authority to legally justify the use of this deal. Other transactions authority is an incredible gift to the Commerce Department to be able to design very diverse mechanisms for policy here. In my opinion, wasting it on this equity investment that has little attached to it is a real mistake. They could put some effort into something creative that did go to the root of the problem about customers, and they’re squandering it, in my opinion.

Jordan Schneider: I think what you all said makes sense under a normal presidency living in the year of our Lord 2025. The way Intel survives is it gets customers, and the way it gets customers is Trump terrifies CEOs. If 10% of the company is what Trump can do to terrify CEOs, then all right, we’ll see. When we were talking earlier about MP Materials, it’s really not rocket science. You could have a beauty pageant with five different companies all trying to mine different places and have something. There’s one horse in this race and at a certain point you have to hope that they can execute as long as the demand’s there.

My sense and hope is that having a golden share owning 10% — Trump will care and be more invested and put more of his cycles and wrath into rounding up a handful of people who are going to spend the time to deal with Intel and help them get back on track. Regardless of whether it was warrants or a grant or equity, whether or not Intel is able to catch back up to TSMC is going to be a function of execution. And a president turning the screws on US fabless customer companies to play ball with Intel. The fact that Trump is caring about this and is focused on this, I would not have priced in completely from the get-go. He was literally talking about having to fire Pat Gelsinger — probably the only man who could, the person who I trust more than anyone else on the planet to actually execute this right who doesn’t work at TSMC currently. I’m more bullish on this than you guys are.

Arnab Datta: Can I offer one pushback on that, Jordan? One thing I would say is yes, there is a tremendous focusing mechanism — companies will, you saw this with MP where just a few days after the announcement Apple signed a big deal with them, a $500 million deal. The thing I would say is at some point the market has to trust that Trump’s commitment to this company will continue. President Trump is not going to be president forever. Intel is not going to be operating only on a four-year timeline. At some point Intel is going to require commitments from other companies and at some point they might turn and say this guy’s not going to be president anymore. We’ve got someone else to please here.

Certainly I take your bullish case. But Intel can’t survive only on that. They need an outside market and they need potentially capital from external sources down the line. At some point we’re going to be in a post-Trump world and it could look very different for Intel.

Mood Music:

8VC is hosting a meetup for ChinaTalk this coming Thursday. Sign up here if you can make it!

Ryan Julian is a research scientist in embodied AI. He worked on large-scale robotics foundation models at DeepMind and got his PhD in machine learning in 2021.

In our conversation today, we discuss…

• What makes a robot a robot, and what makes robotics so difficult,

• The promise of robotic foundation models and strategies to overcome the data bottleneck,

• Why full labor replacement is far less likely than human-robot synergy,

• China’s top players in the robotic industry, and what sets them apart from American companies and research institutions,

• How robots will impact manufacturing, and how quickly we can expect to see robotics take off.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

Embodying Intelligence

Jordan Schneider: Ryan, why should we care about robotics?

Ryan Julian: Robots represent the ultimate capital good. Just as power tools, washing machines, or automated factory equipment augment human labor, robots are designed to multiply human productivity. The hypothesis is straightforward — societies that master robotics will enjoy higher labor productivity and lower costs in sectors where robots are deployed, including in logistics, manufacturing, transportation, and beyond. Citizens in these societies will benefit from increased access to goods and services.

The implications become even more profound when we consider advanced robots capable of serving in domestic, office, and service sectors. These are traditionally areas that struggle with productivity growth. Instead of just robot vacuum cleaners, imagine robot house cleaners, robot home health aides, or automated auto mechanics. While these applications remain distant, they become less far-fetched each year.

Looking at broader societal trends, declining birth rates across the developed world present a critical challenge — How do we provide labor to societies with shrinking working-age populations? Robots could offer a viable solution.

From a geopolitical perspective, robots are dual-use technology. If they can make car production cheaper, they can also reduce the cost of weapon production. There’s also the direct military application of robots as weapons, which we’re already witnessing with drones in Ukraine. From a roboticist’s perspective, current military drones represent primitive applications of robotics and AI. Companies developing more intelligent robotic weapons using state-of-the-art robotics could have enormous implications, though this isn’t my area of expertise.

Fundamentally, robots are labor-saving machines, similar to ATMs or large language models. The key differences lie in their degree of sophistication and physicality. When we call something a robot, we’re describing a machine capable of automating physical tasks previously thought impossible to automate — tasks requiring meaningful and somewhat general sensing, reasoning, and interaction with the real world.

This intelligence requirement distinguishes robots from simple machines. Waymo vehicles and Roombas are robots, but dishwashers are appliances. This distinction explains why robotics is so exciting — we’re bringing labor-saving productivity gains to economic sectors previously thought untouchable.

Jordan Schneider: We’re beginning to understand the vision of unlimited intelligence — white-collar jobs can be potentially automated because anything done on a computer might eventually be handled better, faster, and smarter by future AI systems. But robotics extends this to the physical world, requiring both brain power and physical manipulation capabilities. It’s not just automated repetitive processes, but tasks requiring genuine intelligence combined with physical dexterity.

Ryan Julian: Exactly. You need sensing, reasoning, and interaction with the world in truly non-trivial ways that require intelligence. That’s what defines an intelligent robot.

I can flip your observation — robots are becoming the physical embodiment of the advanced AI you mentioned. Current large language models and vision-language models can perform incredible digital automation — analyzing thousands of PDFs or explaining how to bake a perfect cake. But that same model cannot actually bake the cake. It lacks arms, cannot interact with the world, and doesn’t see the real world in real time.

However, if you embed that transformer-based intelligence into a machine capable of sensing and interacting with the physical world, then that intelligence could affect not just digital content but the physical world itself. The same conversations about how AI might transform legal or other white-collar professions could equally apply to physical labor.

Today’s post is brought to you by 80,000 Hours, a nonprofit that helps people find fulfilling careers that do good. 80,000 Hours — named for the average length of a career — has been doing in-depth research on AI issues for over a decade, producing reports on how the US and China can manage existential risk, scenarios for potential AI catastrophe, and examining the concrete steps you can take to help ensure AI development goes well.

Their research suggests that working to reduce risks from advanced AI could be one of the most impactful ways to make a positive difference in the world.

They provide free resources to help you contribute, including:

• Detailed career reviews for paths like AI safety technical research, AI governance, information security, and AI hardware,

• A job board with hundreds of high-impact opportunities,

• A podcast featuring deep conversations with experts like Carl Shulman, Ajeya Cotra, and Tom Davidson,

• Free, one-on-one career advising to help you find your best fit.

To learn more and access their research-backed career guides, visit 80000hours.org/ChinaTalk.

To read their report about AI coordination between the US and China, visit http://80000hours.org/chinatalkcoord.

Jordan Schneider: Ryan, why is robotics so challenging?

Ryan Julian: Several factors make robotics exceptionally difficult. First, physics is unforgiving. Any robot must exist in and correctly interpret the physical world’s incredible variation. Consider a robot designed to work in any home — it needs to understand not just the visual aspects of every home worldwide, but also the physical properties. There are countless doorknob designs globally, and the robot must know how to operate each one.

The physical world also differs fundamentally from the digital realm. Digital systems are almost entirely reversible unless intentionally designed otherwise. You can undo edits in Microsoft Word, but when a robot knocks a cup off a table and cannot retrieve it, it has made an irreversible change to the world. This makes robot failures potentially catastrophic. Anyone with a robot vacuum has experienced it consuming a cable and requiring rescue — that’s an irreversible failure.

The technological maturity gap presents another major challenge. Systems like ChatGPT, Gemini, or DeepSeek process purely digital inputs — text, images, audio. They benefit from centuries of technological development that we take for granted — monitors, cameras, microphones, and our ability to digitize the physical world.

Today’s roboticist faces a vastly more complex challenge. While AI systems process existing digital representations of the physical world, roboticists must start from scratch. It’s as if you wanted to create ChatGPT but first had to build CPUs, wind speakers, microphones, and digital cameras.

Robotics is just emerging from this foundational period, where we’re creating hardware capable of converting physical world perception into processable data. We also face the reverse challenge — translating digital intent into physical motion, action, touch, and movement in the real world. Only now is robotics hardware reaching the point where building relatively capable systems for these dual processes is both possible and economical.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s explore the brain versus body distinction in robotics — the perception and decision-making systems versus the physical mechanics of grasping, moving, and locomotion. How do these two technological tracks interact with each other? From a historical perspective, which one has been leading and which has been lagging over the past few decades?

Ryan Julian: Robotics is a fairly old field within computing. Depending on who you ask, the first robotics researchers were probably Harry Nyquist and Norbert Wiener. These researchers were interested in cybernetics in the 1950s and 60s.

Back then, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, information theory, and control theory were all one unified field of study. These disciplines eventually branched off into separate domains. Control theory evolved to enable sophisticated systems like state-of-the-art fighter plane controls. Information theory developed into data mining, databases, and the big data processing that powers companies like Google and Oracle — essentially Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 infrastructure.

Artificial intelligence famously went into the desert. It had a major revolution in the 1980s, then experienced the great AI winter from the 80s through the late 90s, before the deep learning revolution emerged. The last child of this original unified field was cybernetics, which eventually became robotics.

The original agenda was ambitious — create thinking machines that could fully supplant human existence, human thought, and human labor — that is, true artificial intelligence. The founding premise was that these computers would need physical bodies to exist in the real world.

Robotics as a field of study is now about 75 years old. From its origins through approximately 2010-2015, enormous effort was devoted to creating robotic hardware systems that could reliably interact with the physical world with sufficient power and dexterity. The fundamental questions were basic but challenging — Do we have motors powerful enough for the task? Can we assemble them in a way that enables walking?

A major milestone was the MIT Cheetah project, led by Sangbae Kim around 2008-2012. This project had two significant impacts — it established the four-legged form factor now seen in Unitree’s quadrupedal robots and Boston Dynamics’ systems, and it advanced motor technology that defines how we build motors for modern robots.

Beyond the physical components, robots require sophisticated sensing capabilities. They need to capture visual information about the world and understand three-dimensional space. Self-driving cars drove significant investment in 3D sensing technology like LiDAR, advancing our ability to perceive spatial environments.

Each of these technological components traditionally required substantial development time. Engineers had to solve fundamental questions — Can we capture high-quality images? What resolution is possible? Can we accurately sense the world’s shape and the robot’s own body position? These challenges demanded breakthroughs in electrical engineering and sensor technology.

Once you have a machine with multiple sensors and actuators, particularly sensors that generate massive amounts of data, you need robust data processing capabilities. This requires substantial onboard computation to transform physical signals into actionable information and generate appropriate motion responses — all while the machine is moving.

This is where robotics historically faced limitations. Until recently, robotics remained a fairly niche field that hadn’t attracted the massive capital investment seen in areas like self-driving cars. Robotics researchers often had to ride the waves of technological innovation happening in other industries.

A perfect example is robotic motors. A breakthrough came from cheap brushless motors originally developed for electric skateboards and power drills. With minor modifications, these motors proved excellent for robotics applications. The high-volume production for consumer applications dramatically reduced costs for robotics.

The same pattern applies to computation. Moore’s Law and GPU development have been crucial for robotics advancement. Today, robots are becoming more capable because we can pack enormous computational power into small, battery-powered packages. This enables real-time processing of cameras, LiDAR, joint sensors, proprioception, and other critical systems — performing most essential computation onboard the robot itself.

Jordan Schneider: Why does computation need to happen on the robot itself? I mean, you could theoretically have something like Elon’s approach where you have a bartender who’s actually just a robot being controlled remotely from India. That doesn’t really count as true robotics though, right?

Ryan Julian: This is a fascinating debate and trade-off that people in the field are actively grappling with right now. Certain computations absolutely need to happen on the robot for physical reasons. The key framework for thinking about this is timing — specifically, what deadlines a robot faces when making decisions.

If you have a walking robot that needs to decide where to place its foot in the next 10 milliseconds, there’s simply no time to send a query to a cloud server and wait for a response. That sensing, computation, and action must all happen within the robot because the time constraints are so tight.

The critical boundary question becomes: what’s the timescale at which off-robot computation becomes feasible? This is something that many folks working on robotics foundation models are wrestling with right now. The answer isn’t entirely clear and depends on internet connection quality, but the threshold appears to be around one second.

If you have one second to make a decision, it’s probably feasible to query a cloud system. But if you need to make a decision in less than one second — certainly less than 100 milliseconds — then that computation must happen on-board. This applies to fundamental robot movements and safety decisions. You can’t rely on an unreliable internet connection when you need to keep the robot safe and prevent it from harming itself or others.

Large portions of the robot’s fundamental motion and movement decisions must stay local. However, people are experimenting with cloud-based computation for higher-level reasoning. For instance, if you want your robot to bake a cake or pack one item from each of ten different bins, it might be acceptable for the robot to query DeepSeek or ChatGPT to break that command down into executable steps. Even if the robot gets stuck, it could call for help at this level — but it can’t afford to ask a remote server where to place its foot.

One crucial consideration for commercial deployment is that we technologists and software engineers love to think of the internet as ubiquitous, always available, and perfectly reliable. But when you deploy real systems — whether self-driving cars, factory robots, or future home robots — there will always be places and times where internet access drops out.

Given the irreversibility we discussed earlier, it’s essential that when connectivity fails, the robot doesn’t need to maintain 100% functionality for every possible feature, but it must remain safe and be able to return to a state where it can become useful again once connectivity is restored.

Jordan Schneider: You mentioned wanting robots to be safe, but there are other actors who want robots to be dangerous. This flips everything on its head in the drone context. It’s not just that Verizon has poor coverage — it’s that Russia might be directing electronic warfare at you, actively trying to break that connection.

This creates interesting questions about the balance between pressing go on twenty drones and letting them figure things out autonomously versus having humans provide dynamic guidance — orienting left or right, adjusting to circumstances. There are both upsides and downsides to having robots make these decisions independently.

Ryan Julian: Exactly right. The more autonomy you demand, the more the difficulty scales exponentially from an intelligence perspective. This is why Waymos are Level 4 self-driving cars rather than Level 5 — because Level 5 represents such a high bar. Yet you can provide incredibly useful service with positive unit economics and game-changing safety improvements with just a little bit of human assistance.

Jordan Schneider: What role do humans play in Waymo operations?

Ryan Julian: I don’t have insider information on this, but my understanding is that when a Waymo encounters trouble — when it identifies circumstances where it doesn’t know how to navigate out of a space or determine where to go next — it’s programmed to pull over at the nearest safe location. The on-board system handles finding a safe place to stop.

Then the vehicle calls home over 5G or cellular connection to Waymo’s central support center. I don’t believe humans drive the car directly because of the real-time constraints we discussed earlier — the same timing limitations that apply to robot movement also apply to cars. However, humans can provide the vehicle with high-level instructions about where it should drive and what it should do next at a high level.

Jordan Schneider: We have a sense of the possibilities and challenges — the different technological trees you have to climb. What is everyone in the field excited about? Why is there so much money and energy being poured into this space over the past few years to unlock this future?

Ryan Julian: People are excited because there’s been a fundamental shift in how we build software for robots. I mentioned that the hardware is becoming fairly mature, but even with good hardware, we previously built robots as single-purpose machines. You would either buy robot hardware off the shelf or build it yourself, but then programming the robot required employing a room full of brilliant PhDs to write highly specialized robotic software for your specific problem.

These problems were usually not very general — things like moving parts from one belt to another. Even much more advanced systems that were state-of-the-art from 2017 through 2021, like Amazon’s logistics robots, were designed to pick anything off a belt and put it into a box, or pick anything off a shelf. The only variations were where the object is located, how I position my gripper around it, what shape it is, and where I move it.

From a human perspective, that’s very low variation — this is the lowest of low-skilled work. But even handling this level of variation required centuries of collective engineering work to accomplish with robots.

Now everyone’s excited because we’re seeing a fundamental change in how we program robots. Rather than writing specific applications for every tiny task — which obviously doesn’t scale and puts a very low ceiling on what’s economical to automate — we’re seeing robotics follow the same path as software and AI. Programming robots is transforming from an engineering problem into a data and AI problem. That’s embodied AI. That’s what robot learning represents.

The idea is that groups of people develop robot learning software — embodied AI systems primarily composed of components you’re already familiar with from the large language model and vision-language model world. Think large transformer models, data processing pipelines, and related infrastructure, plus some robot-specific additions. You build this foundation once.

Then, when you want to automate a new application, rather than hiring a big team to build a highly specialized robot system and hope it works, you simply collect data on your new application and provide it to the embodied AI system. The system learns to perform the new task based on that data.

This would be exciting enough if it worked for just one task. But we’re living in the era of LLMs and VLMs — systems that demonstrate something remarkable. When you train one system to handle thousands of purely digital tasks — summarizing books, writing poems, solving math problems, writing show notes — you get what we call a foundation model.

When you want that foundation model to tackle a new task in the digital world, you can often give it just a little bit of data, or sometimes no data at all — just a prompt describing what you want. Because the system has extensive experience across many different tasks, it can relate its existing training to the new task and accomplish it with very little additional effort. You’re automating something previously not automated with minimal effort.

The hope for robotics foundation models is achieving the same effect with robots in the physical world. If we can create a model trained on many different robotic tasks across potentially many different robots — there’s debate in the field about this — we could create the GPT of robotics, the DeepSeek of robotics.

Imagine a robot that already knows how to make coffee, sort things in a warehouse, and clean up after your kids. You ask it to assemble a piece of IKEA furniture it’s never seen before. It might look through the manual and then put the furniture together. That’s probably a fantastical vision — maybe 10 to 20 years out, though we’ll see.

But consider a softer version: a business that wants to deploy robots only needs to apprentice those robots through one week to one month of data collection, then has a reliable automation system for that business task. This could be incredibly disruptive to the cost of introducing automation across many different spaces and sectors.

That’s why people are excited. We want the foundation model for robotics because it may unlock the ability to deploy robots in many places where they’re currently impossible to use because they’re not capable enough, or where deployment is technically possible but not economical.

Jordan Schneider: Is all the excitement on the intelligence side? Are batteries basically there? Is the cost structure for building robots basically there, or are there favorable curves we’re riding on those dimensions as well?

Ryan Julian: There’s incredible excitement in the hardware world too. I mentioned earlier that robotics history, particularly robotics hardware, has been riding the wave of other industries funding the hard tech innovations necessary to make robots economical. This remains true today.

You see a huge boom in humanoid robot companies today for several reasons. I gave you this vision of robotics foundation models and general-purpose robot brains. To fully realize that vision, you still need the robot body. It doesn’t help to have a general-purpose robot brain without a general-purpose robot body — at least from the perspective of folks building humanoids.

Humanoid robots are popular today as a deep tech concept because pairing them with a general-purpose brain creates a general-purpose labor-saving machine. This entire chain of companies is riding tremendous progress in multiple areas.

Battery technology has become denser, higher power, and cheaper. Actuator technology — motors — has become more powerful and less expensive. Speed reducers, the gearing at the end of motors or integrated into them, traditionally represented very expensive components in any machine using electric motors. But there’s been significant progress making these speed reducers high-precision and much cheaper.

Sensing has become dramatically cheaper. Camera sensors that used to cost hundreds of dollars are now the same sensors in your iPhone, costing two to five dollars. That’s among the most expensive components you can imagine, yet it’s now totally economical to place them all over a robot.

Computation costs have plummeted. The GPUs in a modern robot might be worth a couple hundred dollars, which represents an unimaginably low cost for the available computational power.

Robot bodies are riding this wave of improving technologies across the broader economy — all dual-use technologies that can be integrated into robots. This explains why Tesla’s Optimus humanoid program makes sense: much of the hardware in those robots is already being developed for other parts of Tesla’s business. But this pattern extends across the entire technology economy.

Jordan Schneider: Ryan, what do you want to tell Washington? Do you have policy asks to help create a flourishing robotics ecosystem in the 21st century?

Ryan Julian: My policy ask would be for policymakers and those who inform them to really learn about the technology before worrying too much about the implications for labor. There are definitely implications for labor, and there are also implications for the military. However, the history of technology shows that most new technologies are labor-multiplying and labor-assisting. There are very few instances of pure labor replacement.

I worry that if a labor replacement narrative takes hold in this space, it could really hold back the West and the entire field. As of today, a labor replacement narrative isn’t grounded in reality.

The level of autonomy and technology required to create complete labor replacement in any of the job categories we’ve discussed is incredibly high and very far off. It’s completely theoretical at this point.

My ask is, educate yourself and think about a world where we have incredibly useful tools that make people who are already working in jobs far more productive and safer.

China’s Edge and the Data Flywheel

Jordan Schneider: On the different dimensions you outlined, what are the comparative strengths and advantages of China and the ecosystem outside China?

Ryan Julian: I’m going to separate this comparison between research and industry, because there are interesting aspects on both sides. The short version is that robotics research in China is becoming very similar to the West in quality.

Let me share an anecdote. I started my PhD in 2017, and a big part of being a PhD student — and later a research scientist — is consuming tons of research: reams of dense 20-page PDFs packed with information. You become very good at triaging what’s worth your time and what’s not. You develop heuristics for what deserves your attention, what to throw away, what to skim, and what to read deeply.

Between 2017 and 2021, a reliable heuristic was that if a robotics or AI paper came from a Chinese lab, it probably wasn’t worth your time. It might be derivative, irrelevant, or lacking novelty. In some cases, it was plainly plagiarized. This wasn’t true for everything, but during that period it was a pretty good rule of thumb.

Over the last two years, I’ve had to update my priorities completely. The robotics and AI work coming out of China improves every day. The overall caliber still isn’t quite as high as the US, EU, and other Western institutions, but the best work in China — particularly in AI and my specialization in robotics — is rapidly catching up.

Today, when I see a robotics paper from China, I make sure to read the title and abstract carefully. A good portion of the time, I save it because I need to read it thoroughly. In a couple of years, the median quality may be the same. We can discuss the trends driving this — talent returning to China, people staying rather than coming to the US, government support — but it’s all coming together to create a robust ecosystem.

Moving from research to industry, there’s an interesting contrast. Due to industry culture in China, along with government incentives and the way funding works from provinces and VC funds, the Chinese robotics industry tends to focus on hardware and scale. They emphasize physical robot production.

When I talk to Chinese robotics companies, there’s always a story about deploying intelligent AI into real-world settings. However, they typically judge success by the quantity of robots produced — a straightforward industrial definition of success. This contrasts with US companies, which usually focus on creating breakthroughs and products that nobody else could create, where the real value lies in data, software, and AI.

Chinese robotics companies do want that data, software, and AI capabilities. But it’s clear that their business model is fundamentally built around selling robots. Therefore, they focus on making robot hardware cheaper and more advanced, producing them at scale, accessing the best components, and getting them into customers’ hands. They partner with upstream or downstream companies to handle the intelligence work, creating high-volume robot sales channels.

Take Unitree as a case study — a darling of the industry that’s been covered on your channel. Unitree has excelled at this approach. Wang Xingxing and his team essentially took the open-source design for the MIT Cheetah quadruped robot and perfected it. They refined the design, made it production-ready, and likely innovated extensively on the actuators and robot morphology. Most importantly, they transformed something you could build in a research lab at low scale into something manufacturable on production lines in Shenzhen or Shanghai.

They sold these robots to anyone willing to buy, which seemed questionable at the time — around 2016 — because there wasn’t really a market for robots. Now they’re the go-to player if you want to buy off-the-shelf robots. What do they highlight in their marketing materials? Volume, advanced actuators, and superior robot bodies.

This creates an interesting duality in the industry. Most American robotics companies — even those that are vertically integrated and produce their own robots — see the core value they’re creating as intelligence or the service they deliver to end customers. They’re either trying to deliver intelligence as a service (like models, foundation models, or ChatGPT-style queryable systems where you can pay for model training) or they’re pursuing fully vertical solutions where they deploy robots to perform labor, with value measured in hours of replaced work.

On the Chinese side, companies focus on producing exceptionally good robots.

Jordan Schneider: I’ve picked up pessimistic energy from several Western robotics efforts — a sense that China already has this in the bag. Where is that coming from, Ryan?

Ryan Julian: That’s a good question. If you view AI as a race between the US and China — a winner-take-all competition — and you’re pessimistic about the United States’ or the West’s ability to maintain an edge in intelligence, then I can see how you’d become very pessimistic about the West’s ability to maintain an edge in robotics.

As we discussed, a fully deployed robot is essentially a combination of software, AI (intelligence), and a machine. The challenging components to produce are the intelligence and the machine itself. The United States and the West aren’t particularly strong at manufacturing. They excel at design but struggle to manufacture advanced machines cheaply. They can build advanced machines, but not cost-effectively.

If you project this forward to a world where millions of robots are being produced — where the marginal cost of each robot becomes critical and intelligence essentially becomes free — then I can understand why someone would believe the country capable of producing the most advanced physical robot hardware fastest and at the lowest cost would have a huge advantage.

If you believe there’s no sustainable edge in intelligence — that intelligence will eventually have zero marginal cost and become essentially free — then you face a significant problem. That’s where the pessimism originates.

Jordan Schneider: Alright, we detoured but we’re coming back to this idea of a foundation model unlocking the future. We haven’t reached the levels of excitement for robotics that we saw in October 2022 for ChatGPT. What do we need? What’s on the roadmap? What are the key inputs?

Ryan Julian: To build a great, intelligent, general-purpose robot, you need the physical robot itself. We’ve talked extensively about how robotics is riding the wave of advancements elsewhere in the tech tree, making it easier to build these robots. Of course, it’s not quite finished yet. There are excellent companies — Boston Dynamics, 1X, Figure, and many others who might be upset if I don’t mention them, plus companies like Apptronik and Unitree — all working to build great robots. But that’s fundamentally an engineering problem, and we can apply the standard playbook of scale, cost reduction, and engineering to make them better.

The key unlock, assuming we have the robot bodies, is the robot brains. We already have a method for creating robot brains — you put a bunch of PhDs in a room and they toil for years creating a fairly limited, single-purpose robot. But that approach doesn’t scale.

To achieve meaningful impact on productivity, we need a robot brain that learns and can quickly learn new tasks. This is why people are excited about robotics foundation models.

How do we create a robotics foundation model? That’s the crucial question. Everything I’m about to say is hypothetical because we haven’t created one yet, but the current thinking is that creating a robotics foundation model shouldn’t be fundamentally different from creating a purely digital foundation model. The strategy is training larger and larger models.

However, the model can’t just be large for its own sake. To train a large model effectively, you need massive amounts of data — data proportionate to the model’s size. In large language models, there appears to be a magical threshold between 5 and 7 billion parameters where intelligence begins to emerge. That’s when you start seeing GPT-2 and GPT-3 behavior. We don’t know what that number is for robotics, but those parameters imply a certain data requirement.

What do we need to create a robotics foundation model? We need vast amounts of diverse data showing robots performing many useful tasks, preferably as much as possible in real-world scenarios. In other words, we need data and diversity at scale.

This is the biggest problem for embodied AI. How does ChatGPT get its data? How do Claude or Gemini get theirs? Some they purchase, especially recently, but first they ingest essentially the entire internet — billions of images and billions of sentences of text. Most of this content is free or available for download at low cost. While they do buy valuable data, the scale of their purchases is much smaller than the massive, unstructured ingestion of internet information.

There’s no internet of robot data. Frontier models train on billions of image-text pairs, while today’s robotics foundation models with the most data train on tens of thousands of examples — requiring herculean efforts from dozens or hundreds of people.

Subscribe now

This creates a major chicken-and-egg problem. If we had this robotics foundation model, it would be practical and economical to deploy robots in various settings, have them learn on the fly, and collect data. In robotics and AI, we call this the data flywheel: you deploy systems in the world, those systems generate data through operation, you use that data to improve your system, which gives you a better system that you can deploy more widely, generating more data and continuous improvement.

We want to spin up this flywheel, but you need to start with a system good enough to justify its existence in the world. This is robotics’ fundamental quandary.

I want to add an important note about scale. Everyone talks about big data and getting as much data as possible, but a consistent finding for both purely digital foundation models and robotics foundation models is that diversity is far more important than scale. If you give me millions of pairs of identical text or millions of demonstrations of a robot doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same place, that won’t help my system learn.

The system needs to see not only lots of data, but data covering many different scenarios. This creates another economic challenge, because while you might consider the economics of deploying 100 robots in a space to perform tasks like package picking...

Jordan Schneider: Right, if we have a robot that can fold laundry, then it can fold laundry. But will folding laundry teach it how to assemble IKEA furniture? Probably not, right?

Ryan Julian: Exactly. Economics favor scale, but we want the opposite — a few examples of many different things. This is the most expensive possible way to organize data collection.

Jordan Schneider: I have a one-year-old, and watching her build up her physics brain — understanding the different properties of things and watching her fall in various ways, but never the same way twice — has been fascinating. If you put a new object in front of her, for instance, we have a Peloton and she fell once because she put her weight on the Peloton wheel, which moved. She has never done that again.

Ryan Julian: I’m sure she’s a genius.

Jordan Schneider: Human beings are amazing. They’re really good at learning. The ability to acquire language, for example — because robots can’t do it yet. Maybe because we have ChatGPT, figuring out speech seems less of a marvel now, but the fact that evolution and our neurons enable this, particularly because you come into the world not understanding everything... watching the data ingestion happen in real time has been a real treat. Do people study toddlers for this kind of research?

Ryan Julian: Absolutely. In robot learning research, the junior professor who just had their first kid and now bases all their lectures on watching how their child learns is such a common trope. It’s not just you — but we can genuinely learn from this observation.

First, children aren’t purely blank slates. They do know some things about the world. More importantly, kids are always learning. You might think, “My kid’s only one or two years old,” but imagine one or two years of continuous, waking, HD stereo video with complete information about where your body is in space. You’re listening to your parents speak words, watching parents and other people do things, observing how the world behaves.

This was the inspiration for why, up through about 2022, myself and other researchers were fascinated with using reinforcement learning to teach robots. Reinforcement learning is a set of machine learning tools that allows machines, AIs, and robots to learn through trial and error, much like you described with your one-year-old.

What’s been popular for the last few years has been a turn toward imitation learning, which essentially means showing the robot different ways of doing things repeatedly. Imitation learning has gained favor because of the chicken-and-egg problem: if you’re not very good at tasks, most of what you try and experience won’t teach you much.

If you’re a one-year-old bumbling around the world, that’s acceptable because you have 18, 20, or 30 years to figure things out. I’m 35 and still learning new things. But we have very high expectations for robots to be immediately competent. Additionally, it’s expensive, dangerous, and difficult to allow a robot to flail around the world, breaking things, people, and itself while doing reinforcement learning in real environments. It’s simply not practical.

Having humans demonstrate tasks for robots is somewhat more practical than pure reinforcement learning. But this all comes down to solving the chicken-and-egg problem I mentioned, and nobody really knows the complete solution.

There are several approaches we can take. First, we don’t necessarily have to start from scratch. Some recent exciting results that have generated significant enthusiasm came from teams I’ve worked with, my collaborators, and other labs. We demonstrated that if we start with a state-of-the-art vision-language model and teach it robotics tasks, it can transfer knowledge from the purely digital world — like knowing “What’s the flag of Germany?” — and apply it to robotics.

Imagine you give one of these models data showing how to pick and place objects: picking things off tables, moving them to other locations, putting them down. But suppose it’s never seen a flag before, or specifically the flag of Germany, and it’s never seen a dinosaur, but it has picked up objects of similar size. You can say, “Please pick up the dinosaur and place it on the flag of Germany.” Neither the dinosaur nor the German flag were in your robotics training data, but they were part of the vision-language model’s training.

My collaborators and I, along with other researchers, showed that the system can identify “This is a dinosaur” and use its previous experience picking up objects to grab that toy dinosaur, then move it to the flag on the table that it recognizes as Germany’s flag.

One tactic — don’t start with a blank slate. Begin with something that already has knowledge.

Another approach — and this explains all those impressive dancing videos you see from China, with robots running and performing acrobatics — involves training robots in simulation using reinforcement learning, provided the physical complexity isn’t too demanding. For tasks like walking (I know I say “just” walking, but it’s actually quite complex) or general body movement, it turns out we can model the physics reasonably well on computers. We can do 99% of the training in simulation, then have robots performing those cool dance routines.

We might be able to extend this framework to much more challenging physical tasks like pouring tea, manipulating objects, and assembling things. Those physical interactions are far more complex, but you could imagine extending the simulation approach.

Jordan Schneider: Or navigating around Bakhmut or something.

Ryan Julian: Exactly, right. The second approach uses simulation. A third tactic involves getting data from sources that aren’t robots but are similar. This has been a persistent goal in robot learning for years — everyone wants robots to learn from watching YouTube videos.

There are numerous difficult challenges in achieving this, but the basic idea is extracting task information from existing video data, either from a first-person perspective (looking through the human’s eyes) or third-person perspective (watching a human perform tasks). We already have extensive video footage of people doing things.

What I’ve described represents state-of-the-art frontier research. Nobody knows exactly how to accomplish it, but these are some of our hopes. The research community tends to split into camps and companies around which strategy will ultimately succeed.

Then there’s always the “throw a giant pile of money at the problem” strategy, which represents the current gold standard. What we know works right now — and what many people are increasingly willing to fund — is building hundreds or even thousands of robots, deploying them in real environments like factories, laundries, logistics centers, and restaurants. You pay people to remotely control these robots to perform desired tasks, collect that data, and use it to train your robotics foundation model.

The hope is that you don’t run out of money before reaching that magic knee in the curve — the critical threshold we see in every other foundation model where the model becomes large enough and the data becomes sufficiently big and diverse that we suddenly have a model that learns very quickly.

There’s a whole arms race around how to deploy capital quickly enough and in the right way to find the inflection point in that curve.

Jordan Schneider: Is Waymo an example of throwing enough money at the problem to get to the solution?

Ryan Julian: Great example.

Jordan Schneider: How do we categorize that?

Ryan Julian: Waymo and other self-driving cars give people faith that this approach might work. When you step into a Waymo today, you’re being driven by what is, at its core, a robotics foundation model. There’s a single model where camera, lidar, and other sensor information from the car comes in, gets tokenized, decisions are made about what to do next, and actions emerge telling the car where to move.

That’s not the complete story. There are layers upon layers of safety systems, decision-making processes, and other checks and balances within Waymo to ensure the output is sound and won’t harm anyone. But the core process remains: collect data on the task (in this case, moving around a city in a car), use it to train a model, then use that model to produce the information you need.

Self-driving cars have been a long journey, but their success using this technique gives people significant confidence in the approach.

Let me temper your enthusiasm a bit. There’s hope, but here’s why it’s challenging. From a robotics perspective, a self-driving car is absolutely a robot. However, from that same perspective, a self-driving car has an extremely simple job — it performs only one task.

The job of a self-driving car is to transport you, Jordan, and perhaps your companions from point A to point B in a city according to a fairly limited set of traffic rules, on a relatively predictable route. The roads aren’t completely predictable, but they follow consistent patterns. The car must accomplish this without touching anything. That’s it — get from point A to point B without making contact with anything.

The general-purpose robots we’re discussing here derive their value from performing thousands of tasks, or at least hundreds, without requiring extensive training data for each one. This represents one axis of difficulty: we must handle many different tasks rather than just one.

The other challenge is that “don’t touch anything” requirement, which is incredibly convenient because every car drives essentially the same way from a physics perspective.

Jordan Schneider: Other drivers are trying to avoid you — they’re on your side and attempting to avoid collisions.

Ryan Julian: Exactly — just don’t touch anything. Whatever you do, don’t make contact. As soon as you start touching objects, the physics become far more complicated, making it much more difficult for machines to decide what to do.

The usefulness of a general-purpose robot lies in its ability to interact with objects. Unless it’s going to roam around your house or business, providing motivation and telling jokes, it needs to manipulate things to be valuable.

These are the two major leaps we need to make from the self-driving car era to the general robotics era — handling many different tasks and physically interacting with the world.

Jordan Schneider: Who are the companies in China and the rest of the world that folks should be paying attention to?

Ryan Julian: The Chinese space is gigantic, so I can only name a few companies. There are great online resources if you search for “Chinese robotics ecosystem."

In the West, particularly the US, I would divide the companies really pushing this space into two camps.

The first camp consists of hardware-forward companies that think about building and deploying robots. These tend to be vertically integrated. I call them “vertical-ish” because almost all want to build their own embodied AI, but they approach it from a “build the whole robot, integrate the AI, deploy the robot” perspective.

In this category, you have Figure AI, a vertical humanoid robot builder that also develops its own intelligence. There’s 1X Technologies, which focuses on home robots, at least currently. Boston Dynamics is the famous first mover in the space, focusing on heavy industrial robots with the Atlas platform. Apptronik has partnered with Google DeepMind and focuses on light industrial logistics applications.

Tesla Optimus is probably the most well-known entry in the space, with lots of rhetoric from Elon about how many robots they’ll make, where they’ll deploy them, and how they’ll be in homes. But it’s clear that Tesla’s first value-add will be helping automate Tesla factories. Much of the capital and many prospective customers in this space are actually automakers looking to create better automation for their future workforce.

Apple is also moving into the space with a very early effort to build humanoid robots.

The second camp focuses on robotics foundation models and software. These tend to be “horizontal-ish” — some may have bets on making their own hardware, but their core focus is foundation model AI.

My former employer, Google DeepMind, has a robotics group working on Gemini Robotics. NVIDIA also has a group doing this work, which helps them sell chips.

Among startups, there’s Physical Intelligence, founded by several of my former colleagues at Google DeepMind and based in San Francisco. Skild AI features some CMU researchers. Generalist AI includes some of my former colleagues. I recently learned that Mistral has a robotics group.

A few other notable Western companies — there’s DYNA, which is looking to automate small tasks as quickly as possible. They’re essentially saying, “You’re all getting too complicated — let’s just fold napkins, make sandwiches, and handle other simple tasks.”

There are also groups your audience should be aware of, though we don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Meta and OpenAI certainly have embodied AI efforts that are rapidly growing, but nobody knows their exact plans.

In China, partly because of the trends we discussed and due to significant funding and government encouragement (including Made in China 2025), there’s been an explosion of companies seeking to make humanoid robots specifically.

The most well-known is Unitree with their H1 and G1 robots. But there are also companies like Fourier Intelligence, AgiBot, RobotEra, UBTECH, EngineAI, and Astribot. There’s a whole ecosystem of Chinese companies trying to make excellent humanoid robots, leveraging the Shenzhen and Shanghai-centered manufacturing base and incredible supply chain to produce the hardware.

When Robots Learn

Jordan Schneider: How do people in the field of robotics discuss timelines?

Ryan Julian: It’s as diverse as any other field. Some people are really optimistic, while others are more pessimistic. Generally, it’s correlated with age or time in the field. But I know the question you’re asking: when is it coming?

Let’s ground this discussion quickly. What do robots do today? They sit in factories and do the same thing over and over again with very little variation. They might sort some packages, which requires slightly more variation. Slightly more intelligent robots rove around and inspect facilities — though they don’t touch anything, they just take pictures. Then we have consumer robots. What’s the most famous consumer robot? The Roomba. It has to move around your house in 2D and vacuum things while hopefully not smearing dog poop everywhere.

That’s robots today. What’s happening now and what we’ll see in the next three to five years falls into what I call a bucket of possibilities with current technology. There are no giant technological blockers, but it may not yet be proven economical. We’re still in pilot phases, trying to figure out how to turn this into a product.

The first place you’re going to see more general-purpose robots — maybe in humanoid form factors, maybe slightly less humanoid with wheels and arms — is in logistics, material handling, and light manufacturing roles. For instance, machine tending involves taking a part, placing it into a machine, pressing a button, letting the machine do its thing, then opening the machine and pulling the part out. You may also see some retail and hospitality back-of-house applications.

What I’m talking about here is anywhere a lot of stuff needs to be moved, organized, boxed, unboxed, or sorted. This is an easy problem, but it’s a surprisingly large part of the economy and pops up pretty much everywhere. Half or more of the labor activity in an auto plant is logistics and material feed. This involves stuff getting delivered to the auto plant, moved to the right place, and ending up at a production line where someone picks it up and places it on a new car.

More than half of car manufacturing involves this process, and it’s actually getting worse because people really want customized cars these days. Customizations are where all the profit margin is. Instead of Model T’s running down the line where every car is exactly the same, every car running down the line now requires a different set of parts. A ton of labor goes into organizing and kitting the parts for each car and making sure they end up with the right vehicle.

Ten to twelve percent of the world economy is logistics. Another fifteen to twenty percent is manufacturing. This represents a huge potential impact, and all you’re asking robots to do is move stuff — pick something up and put it somewhere else. You don’t have to assemble it or put bolts in, just move stuff.

Over the next three to five years, you’re going to see pilots starting today and many attempts, both in the West and in China, to put general-purpose robots into material handling and show that this template with robotics foundation models can work in those settings.

Now, if that works — if the capital doesn’t dry up, if researchers don’t get bored and decide to become LLM researchers because someone’s going to give them a billion dollars — then maybe in the next seven to ten years, with some more research breakthroughs, we may see these robots moving into more dexterous and complex manufacturing tasks. Think about placing bolts, assembling things, wings on 747s, putting wiring harnesses together. This is all really difficult.

You could even imagine at this point we’re starting to see maybe basic home tasks: tidying, loading and unloading a dishwasher, cleaning surfaces, vacuuming...

Jordan Schneider: When are we getting robotic massages?

Ryan Julian: Oh man, massage. I don’t know. Do you want a robot to press really hard on you?

Jordan Schneider: You know... no. Maybe that’s on a fifteen-year horizon then?

Ryan Julian: Yeah, that’s the next category. Anything that has a really high bar for safety, interaction with humans, and compliance — healthcare, massage, personal services, home health aid — will require not only orders of magnitude more intelligence than we currently have and more capable physical systems, but you also really start to dive into serious questions of trust, safety, liability, and reliability.

Share

Having a robot roving around your house with your one-year-old kid and ensuring it doesn’t fall over requires a really high level of intelligence and trust. That’s why I say it’s a question mark. We don’t quite know when that might happen. It could be in five years — I could be totally wrong. Technology changes really fast these days, and people are more willing than I usually expect to take on risk. Autopilot and full self-driving are good examples.

One thing the current generation of robotics researchers, generalist robotics researchers, startups, and companies are trying to learn from the self-driving car era is this: maybe one reason to be optimistic is that because of this safety element, self-driving cars are moving multi-ton machines around lots of people and things they could kill or break. You have people inside who you could kill. The bar is really high — it’s almost aviation-level reliability. The system needs to be incredibly reliable with so much redundancy, and society, regulators, and governments have to have so much faith that it is safe and represents a positive cost-benefit tradeoff.

This makes it really difficult to thread the needle and make something useful. In practice, it takes you up the difficulty and autonomy curve we talked about and pushes you way up to really high levels of autonomy to be useful. It’s kind of binary — if you’re not autonomous enough, you’re not useful.

But these generalist robots we’re talking about don’t necessarily need to be that high up the autonomy difficulty curve. If they are moderately useful — if they produce more than they cost and save some labor, but not all — and you don’t need to modify your business environment, your home, or your restaurant too much to use them, and you can operate them without large amounts of safety concerns, then you have something viable.

For instance, if you’re going to have a restaurant robot, you probably shouldn’t start with cutting vegetables. Don’t put big knives in the hands of robots. There are lots of other things that happen in a restaurant that don’t involve big knives.

One of the bright spots of the current generalist robotics push and investment is that we believe there’s a much more linear utility-autonomy curve. If we can be half autonomous and only need to use fifty percent of the human labor we did before, that would make a huge difference to many different lives and businesses.

Jordan Schneider: Is that a middle-of-the-road estimate? Is it pessimistic? When will we get humanoid robot armies and machines that can change a diaper?

Ryan Julian: It’s a question of when, not if. We will see lots of general-purpose robots landing, especially in commercial spaces — logistics, manufacturing, maybe even retail back of house, possibly hospitality back of house. The trajectory of AI is very good. The machines are becoming cheaper every day, and there are many repetitive jobs in this world that are hazardous to people. We have difficulty recruiting people for jobs that are not that difficult to automate. Personally, I think that’s baked in.

If, to you, that’s a robot army — if you’re thinking about hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of robots over the course of ten years working in factories, likely in Asia, possibly in the West — I think we will see it in the next decade.

The big question mark is how advanced we’ll be able to make the AI automation. How complicated are the jobs these machines could do? Because technology has a habit of working really well and advancing really quickly until it doesn’t. I’m not exactly sure where that stopping point will be.

If we’re on the path to AGI, then buckle up, because the robots are getting real good and the AGI is getting really good. Maybe it’ll be gay luxury space communism for everybody, or maybe it’ll be iRobot. But the truth is probably somewhere in between. That’s why I started our discussion by talking about how robots are the ultimate capital good.

If you want to think about what would happen if we had really advanced robots, just think about what would happen if your dishwasher loaded and unloaded itself or the diaper changing table could change your daughter’s diaper.

A good dividing line to think about is that home robots are very difficult because the cost needs to be very low, the capability level needs to be very diverse and very high, and the safety needs to be very high. We will require orders of magnitude more intelligence than we have now to do home robots if they do happen. We’re probably ten-plus years away from really practical home robots. But in the industrial sector — and therefore the military implications we talked about — it’s baked in at this point.

Jordan Schneider: As someone who, confession, has not worked in a warehouse or logistics before, it’s a sector of the economy that a lot of the Washington policymaking community just doesn’t have a grasp on. Automating truckers and automating cars doesn’t take many intellectual leaps, but thinking about the gradations of different types of manual labor that are more or less computationally intensive is a hard thing to wrap your head around if you haven’t seen it in action.

Ryan Julian: This is why, on research teams, we take people to these places. We go on tours of auto factories and logistics centers because your average robotics researcher has no idea what happens in an Amazon warehouse. Not really.

For your listeners who might be interested, there are also incredible resources for this provided by the US Government. O*NET has this ontology of labor with thousands of entries — every physical task that the Department of Labor has identified that anybody does in any job in the United States. It gets very detailed down to cutting vegetables or screwing a bolt.

Share

Jordan Schneider: How can people follow this space? What would you recommend folks read or consume?

Ryan Julian: Well, of course you should subscribe to ChinaTalk. Lots of great revised coverage. The SemiAnalysis guys also seem to be getting into it a little bit. Other than that, I would join Twitter or Bluesky. That is just the rest of the AI community. That’s the best place to find original, raw content from people doing the work every day.

If you follow a couple of the right accounts and start following who they retweet over time, you will definitely build a feed where, when the coolest new embodied AI announcement comes out, you’ll know in a few minutes.

[Some accounts! Chris Paxton, Ted Xiao, C Zhang, and The Humanoid Hub. You can also check out the General Robots and Learning and Control Substacks, Vincent Vanhoucke on Medium, and IEEE’s robotics coverage.]

Jordan Schneider: Do you have a favorite piece of fiction or movie that explores robot futures?

Ryan Julian: Oh, I really love WALL-E and Big Hero 6. I prefer friendly robots.

Enjoy this deleted scene from WALL-E:

Mood Music:

The world’s two greatest superpowers released action plans for AI only 34 days apart. Back in July, the Trump Administration released America’s AI Action Plan to cautious fanfare. And on August 28, China’s State Council published its “Opinion on In-Depth Implementation of the ‘Artificial Intelligence +’ Initiative” (关于深入实施“人工智能+”行动的意见, hereafter abbreviated to “AI+ Plan”).

The two documents both come from the highest echelons of government in their respective countries, and both are high-level roadmaps issued as guidance for departments and ministries to implement. The grounds they cover and the policy intentions behind the measures give us the clearest pictures yet of how these two governments are making sense of the future of AI in their respective countries and around the world. Comparing how the two documents address overlapping issues is an instructive and incredibly revealing exercise. Below is an executive summary of similarities and differences.

Note: Side-by-side comparisons of the Chinese original and English translation were created in Claude, with thanks to Matt Sheehan!

Origins, leadership, and competing priorities

The US AI Action Plan was a product of Executive Order 14179, one of the many flurries of EOs signed during President Trump’s first few days in office, and was jointly led by the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Trump’s AI Czar David Sacks, and the National Security Advisor (NSA).

The Chinese plan, on the other hand, is a directive straight from the State Council, with no additional credits to specialized ministries. The final paragraph tasks the National Development and Reform Commission with coordination rather than any specific policy portfolio. This means it was a comprehensive effort by China’s highest state administrative organ. The State Council is technically the organ that executes decisions by the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s unicameral legislature. As is expected in an autocracy, NPC delegates have little actual leverage. Instead, the State Council is better understood as the supreme coordinating body for the country’s 26 ministries and 31 province-level governments, only one step below the Communist Party’s Politburo. As illustrated by the Congressional Research Service’s org chart for the CCP:

A huge variety of input from all corners of the Chinese bureaucracy likely went into the Chinese AI plan. And it shows: the document is comprehensive to the point of being overstretched, covering AI’s coming role in everything from industrial R&D to “methods in philosophical research.”

China’s campaign-style governance makes it easy to engage a policy aim as a whole-of-society effort. A document like this is meant to be distributed widely to ever-lower levels of government and “studied” by ambitious bureaucrats across the nation. Its words will be picked apart carefully in the provinces to divine policy directions that Beijing will find favorable. The US AI Action Plan will not have the same level of buy-in from fellow bureaucrats across Washington and beyond — perhaps especially now, at an unprecedented political moment for the federal civil service. Indeed, it is a list of recommendations that will see extensive negotiation with stakeholders in other agencies and levels of government who don’t necessarily share similar views.

This doesn’t mean the Chinese one is likely to be more successful; indeed, the American plan goes into much more detail on exactly which bureaucratic processes to work through in order to achieve its goals. China’s political campaigns have led to as many successes as it has disasters, with the most recent being Zero Covid. It will be fascinating to see which side makes faster progress in the long term.

Framing, goals, and techno-optimism/accelerationism

The Chinese AI plan is as techno-optimistic a document as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might produce at this moment. One might even call it accelerationist: except for a single line item discussing AI safety risks at the very end, practically all other sections of this document call for further development and incorporation of AI across society, with guardrails and ethics relegated to complementary positions. Zhou Hui 周辉, an AI governance expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Law who participated in the document’s drafting, said in a September 8 interview that consensus throughout the drafting process was that “a lack of development would be the biggest safety risk” (不发展才是最大的不安全).

Specifically, Chinese accelerationism-as-policy focuses on expansive experimentations with industrial and social applications, rather than abstract visions of “AGI”. There is a sense of urgency underpinning the document, especially at the beginning when it sets out numerical targets: 70% of the country will have adopted AI-powered terminals, devices, and agents by 2027, and by 2030 the adoption rate will reach 90%. The document elevates the “intelligent economy” to the status of a pillar of “achieving basic realization of socialist modernity by 2035” (到2035年基本实现社会主义现代化), which is the overarching national goal enshrined during the 19th Congress of the CCP in 2017. To be clear, there are no objective metrics against which these goals’ realization can be measured, making them more symbolic than rigorous. However, these numerical targets will incentivize bureaucrats across ministries, provinces, and technologically strong cities to create policy programs that demonstrate their commitment to such ambitious goals.

Much has already been made about the pro-development bend of the US AI Action Plan, which opens with cutting what’s framed as Biden’s red tape. The tech race with China informs the US Plan’s views about speed of innovation more than arguably any other issue: it is suffused with language referencing “domination” and the political necessity for America to have “the best” AI systems in the world. The Chinese document, by contrast, seems to posit China against itself. Another consequence of there being apparent whole-of-government input is that geopolitical implications, primarily the domain of the foreign and state security ministries, are not explicitly top-of-mind. Notably, unlike the US plan, the Chinese AI+ plan does not mention defense or the military whatsoever. The goal, instead, is very abstract:

“Reshape the paradigm of human production and life” is a subtle attempt at connecting AI policy to the PRC’s Marxist-Leninist ideological underpinnings; eventually, it seems to imply, AI integration might lead China closer to the realization of full economic revolution under communism. This is, of course, theoretical to the point of being slightly irrelevant. That being said, it signals that the primary aim of China’s AI+ Plan is to leverage AI to achieve transformations in China’s economic society, and not necessarily to shape the balance of power between Beijing and Washington. This is not to say that the PLA has no plans to make use of AI, or that the Chinese foreign ministry isn’t analyzing the US-China tech race; the truth is almost certainly the opposite. But from what the Chinese state is choosing to communicate publicly about its vision for AI, we largely see a strategy framed around domestic socioeconomic governance.

Open source as strategic imperative

Both Chinese and American leaders explicitly see leadership in open source as a strategic asset. The Chinese document calls for building up open source technological frameworks and social ecosystems that are “open to the world” and creating projects and developer tools with “international influence.”

To do so, the government will give academic awards to students, researchers, and lecturers who contribute to open source projects, as well as create incentives for both public and private sectors to explore and develop open source applications. More holistically, the document encourages open-source access as part of a push to make AI access global. This is the lesson Beijing took from the DeepSeek moment: China’s current advantage in AI lies in having an open source community that empowers robust exchanges and rapid iteration.

The US plan betrays anxiety stemming from the same shock, asserting that “[we] need to ensure America has leading open models founded on American values.” Similar to the Chinese plan’s geopolitical undertone, it calls the value of open source models “geostrategic.” For the US government, the bottleneck preventing more good open source models from being developed that it is best-placed to address appears to be researchers’ access to compute clusters. The American plan’s recommended actions mostly focuses on making it easier for academia and startups to access resources through NAIRR:

Diffusion and job market impacts

The US AI Action Plan calls for many more Americans to be employed as electricians and HVAC technicians so as to serve a bigger buildout of AI infrastructure while creating high-earning blue-collar jobs. It creates a detailed roadmap for how the federal government can leverage its bureaucracy to train more skilled workers in these domains. It describes itself as a “worker-first AI agenda” and seeks to fund more retraining for workers impacted by AI-driven redundancy. However, its assessment of the impacts AI might have on the labor force appears relatively optimistic: it merely calls on the Bureau of Labor Statistics to study AI’s impacts on the workforce through analyzing already-existing data, rather than collecting new data or establishing preventative policy measures.

For Beijing as well as Washington, job displacement might be worth it if AI adoption leads to stronger economic growth. China’s plan, however, is more aggressive about the literal replacement of human labor. Tertiary industries are the fastest-growing employment sector in China, as the services sector increasingly competes with traditional manufacturing; gig work, from ride hailing and delivery to even some factory work, is rapidly expanding to soak up excess labor supply. But this is how the document addresses how AI shall shape the services industry:

“Accelerate the service industry’s shift from digitally empowered internet services to new, intelligence-driven service models … Explore new models that combine unmanned (automated) services with human-provided services. In sectors such as software, information services, finance, business services, legal services, transportation, logistics, and commerce, promote the wide application of next-generation intelligent terminals/devices and intelligent agents (AI agents).”

Elsewhere in the document, the State Council does bring up impacts on employment. It instructs regulators and industry to “[strengthen] employment-risk assessments for AI applications; steer innovation resources toward areas with high job-creation potential; and reduce the impact on employment.” But such a statement is weak without explicit instructions to ministries or regional governments to secure employment. In places like Wuhan where robotaxis have already displaced traditional jobs, the government has no meaningful template of action. The post-Reform Chinese state has previously made explicit policy decisions to sacrifice employment, and consequently the danwei-based social safety net, for what it saw as necessary economic restructuring. Between 1995 and 2001, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) laid off 34 million workers — a third of all employees in SOEs — in an effort to reform the state sector. The layoffs devastated vast industrial regions and led to major unrest, but Beijing persisted on course. More recently, the impact on jobs was completely disregarded to prevent infection during the Covid-19 pandemic. Today’s China has no activist labor movement, no independent unions, and limited protections for workers’ rights. This document, produced during an already-ongoing unemployment crisis that heavily affects young workers, opens up the possibility that the state may be once again willing to put workers aside for national strategic aims.

The plan imagines adoption, application, and diffusion of AI as a whole-of-society effort. Beijing wants AI applied to everything from philosophical inquiries to residential construction standards:

It calls for coordination between AI and other emerging technologies, including biotechnology, quantum computing, and 6G telecommunications. Part 2 of the document, focused on actions to take, dedicates a whole section to consumer-oriented upgrades: it mentions not only well-known fields like wearables, electric vehicles, drones, and brain-computer interfaces, but also more quotidian areas of potential AI applications like travel, e-commerce, and “emotional consumption.” These lines subtly indicate to aspiring entrepreneurs that the government is shining a green light on consumer product innovation and so crackdowns are unlikely in the near future. Beijing seems unconcerned about an AI bubble or over-proliferation of wrappers; indeed, it’s actively encouraging experimentation and calling for “trial-and-error and mistake-tolerant governing systems” for AI adoption. That means that no, Chinese AI adoption will not be dramatically hampered by worries a model occasionally says something impolitic.

The US AI Action Plan’s section on adoption calls on American industry to adopt a “try-first” culture. The Trump Administration seeks to diffuse distrust of emerging technologies and create frameworks within which critical sectors can experiment with AI safely. The specific measures the US AI Plan suggests, however, look more cautious and grounded than to its Chinese counterpart:

Whereas the Chinese document wants all sectors in society to try AI first and get results after, the Trump administration seems to be gesturing towards a more careful path forward with quantifiable findings and measurable improvements. We won’t know which one of these approaches is better until after the fact; in fact, each might have its advantages depending on the sector it is being applied to. But on this point, the divergence between these two documents is dramatic.

International risk governance

The US wants to export its “full AI stack” — hardware, models, applications, and standards — to allies, and allies only. Washington’s vision of international AI governance divides the world between American and Chinese spheres of technological influence and seeks to make the former bigger. Its language on how to counter Chinese influence in international governance organizations is characteristically Trump-Administration, with mentions of “cultural agendas” and “American values,” but its focus lies with overall deregulation.

As usual, the Chinese plan is framed around the United Nations as the primary mechanism for international governance. It wants to improve AI access for the Global South and doesn’t explicitly require these countries to support Chinese values. Of course, this doesn’t mean the Chinese government is completely uninterested in ideology; as recently as June this year, a state media op-ed republished by Xinhua emphasized the risks generative AI posed to “social trust systems and the ideological safety line.” But from the perspectives of listeners in Global South capitals, judging by these two documents alone, China’s offer likely comes off as more value-neutral on the surface.

Subscribe now

More Notes!

The two documents address many similar issues under the AI governance umbrella, but also diverge in terms of topic selection. Some items that fell outside the Venn Diagram overlap:

• The US AI Action Plan’s understanding of cybersecurity is far more mature than its Chinese equivalent. It addresses adversarial threats, vulnerability-sharing frameworks, and incident response with attention to both government and private-sector shareholders. As part of its understanding of AI as a race, the US document is much more sober about the cyber risks around AI models. By contrast, cybersecurity is almost entirely missing from the Chinese plan. This may partly be because the Chinese document avoids defence in general, but even in sections addressing government and private-sector adoption, very little energy was spent on considering how to secure the process.

• Congruent with Beijing’s now-longstanding focus on data as a factor of production, the Chinese plan dedicates far more space to harnessing the economic potential of training data. The State Council argues that China has a “data-rich advantage” in AI. It wants innovative measures to increase data supply, including by bolstering the data processing and data labelling industries. (It’s worth noting that data services can create relatively low-barrier jobs in underdeveloped parts of China, which might contribute to Beijing’s enthusiasm.) That being said, both countries’ plans pay particular attention to scientific datasets. The US AI Action Plan recommends measures to create “world-class datasets” by setting data standards and making federal datasets more accessible to researchers. The Chinese one, similarly, seeks to accelerate scientific discovery by “[building] open and shared high-quality scientific datasets and [improving] the ability to process complex multimodal scientific data.”

• ChinaTalk previously covered how AI is shaping education in China. In the State Council’s AI+ Plan, education also receives substantial attention. Not only does Beijing want more incorporation of AI tools into the education system, it also wants to bridge technological promotion into eventually “[promoting] a shift in education from focusing mainly on knowledge transmission to focusing on ability improvement”. This is an especially ambitious goal in China’s education system, where exams and rote learning are still king. Will AI be the thing that finally transforms the Gaokao?

• “National security” appears 24 times in the US AI Action Plan. The US government sees basically every part of the AI ecosystem, from manufacturing to software exports and international governance, as critical to its future conception of national security. The Chinese one, by contrast, only mentions national security once, in the context of an item on upgrading domestic governance systems:

  

  The imaginary surrounding AI-powered national security is inward in the Chinese document, covering urban governance, disaster prevention, internet censorship, and law enforcement. In the US document, the implications of advanced technology for national security lie mostly outwards. As of yet, the US is far less afraid of its own people.

• The Chinese plan dedicated a specific line item to AI-powered agriculture, a subject which the White House did not call out. This is increasingly relevant in China, as the state pursues food security while rural areas continue to depopulate and starve for labor. The technologies Beijing hopes will solve its food-security dilemma are interesting to note:

  

Last year we ran an essay contest exploring policy solutions to China’s growing dominance in foundational chips. Today we’re running another entry along these lines by Alasdair Phillips-Robins. He’s a Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and from 2023 to 2025 served as a senior policy advisor to Gina Raimondo.

China is on track to control the global foundational chip market, a key chokepoint for huge swaths of the U.S. economy. Foundational semiconductors are produced on older processes, but they are essential to almost every modern electronic product. Unless Washington and its allies act soon, control over foundational chip production would hand Beijing a new economic weapon it could use against the United States in a crisis. A chip shutoff would make this year’s rare earth crisis look like child’s play.

There’s no single answer to the threat, but the United States should start by hitting products containing Chinese chips with a novel kind of tariff, known as a component tariff. This tariff would apply only to the value of the Chinese chip inside the product, not the total value of the item being imported to the United States. Washington will do even better if it can get its allies and partners to act against Chinese chips in their economies, too.

Component tariffs would have three big advantages:

• They won’t spike consumer prices: conventional tariffs, like the ones Trump has said he’ll put on some chip imports, raise prices for American manufacturers and consumers. But because foundational chips typically cost little (often a dollar or less) relative to the finished product, a component tariff would have little effect on consumer prices while causing companies looking to save every dollar on parts to turn away from Chinese suppliers.

• They get ahead of the problem: most chips in American electronics aren’t made in China, but Chinese production is ramping up. A component tariff would discourage U.S. manufacturers, and foreign ones that sell in the United States, from switching to Chinese foundries when they come online. Foundry relationships are sticky, so getting out in front is the best way to stop Chinese market dominance.

• They can be applied to other industrial inputs: Implementing a component tariff won’t be easy — it hasn’t been done at scale before — but getting it right would unlock a major new tool in the fight for fair trade with China over everything from batteries to minerals.

The Everything Chips

Foundational chips are used in vehicles, communications equipment, military systems, and other critical infrastructure. Even devices that contain cutting edge chips, such as phones, rely on numerous legacy chips. It was shortages of these chips during the pandemic that idled factories, emptied shelves, and left unfinished vehicles sitting on production lots.

The CHIPS Act was meant to prevent a repeat of this shortage, but only about $4 billion of the act’s $39 billion in manufacturing incentives has gone to foundational production. Meanwhile, China is spending tens of billions in subsidies for foundational chip producers and is on course to raise its share of global production capacity from around 30 percent today to more than 40 percent by 2030, with a majority of capacity at some critical nodes.

Heavy reliance on Chinese production would be an economic and security nightmare. Many legacy chips are specialized, and once the expertise and facilities to produce them have been lost, regaining them will be slow and expensive. As subsidized Chinese prices drive out competitors, chip buyers will struggle to find alternatives. Chinese-made chips will become embedded in American military systems and critical infrastructure, raising the risks of espionage and sabotage.

Source.

If supply from China gets cut off in a trade confrontation or a military crisis, economic activity in the rest of the world will grind to a halt. The result would be a repeat of the recent fight over rare earths, or the pandemic-era shortage, on a far wider scale. As soon as rare earths stopped flowing, Ford CEO Jim Farley began telling the White House that his production lines were shutting down. In a chip fight, the same will be true of dozens of industries, from vehicles to planes to wifi routers.

Beyond providing some CHIPS Act funding, U.S. policymakers have done little about the problem. In 2018, the first Trump administration imposed tariffs on imports of Chinese chips (the Biden administration kept them in place). But these tariffs haven’t achieved much, because they apply to the overall product being imported, not at the sub-parts inside it, and almost all foundational semiconductors enter the United States inside other products. A company that imports phones, for example, pays the general tariff rate for the country where the phones were assembled, plus any specific tariff applied to phones; it doesn’t pay any extra if the chips inside the phone were made in China. Manufacturers have no incentive to use non-Chinese chips over Chinese ones.

How to Tariff Better

Trump has said he plans to put a 100% tariff on foreign chips, but these won’t capture Chinese chips any better than the original approach. Rather than doubling down on traditional tariffs, the Trump administration should turn to component tariffs. Unlike a normal tariff, these would be triggered by the presence of a Chinese-made chip inside any product imported into the United States. The tariff could either be a flat rate on the number of Chinese-made chips in the product — a dollar per chip, say — or it could be tied to the cost of the chips. For example, if Chinese producers offer chips at a 50% discount relative to U.S. and allied producers, a 100% tariff would offset the Chinese advantage, levelling the playing field for U.S. chip makers. Luckily, the administration has the perfect legal vehicles to impose these tariffs, in the form of two trade investigations, one into Chinese legacy chip production launched in late 2024, and a broader investigation of semiconductor imports begun earlier this year.

Opponents of tariffs point out that they often hurt the very constituencies they are meant to help, as they raise prices for manufacturers importing tools, parts, and raw materials. But a component tariff on legacy chips would be a rare exception to those problems. Because legacy chips are usually cheap relative to the cost of the overall product, often costing a few dollars or less per chip, a tariff would have little effect on ultimate consumer prices, but would shift the incentives for electronics manufacturers looking to save on the parts that go into their products. Crucially, because China doesn’t yet dominate legacy chip production, most chip buyers won’t have to go through the painful process of finding alternative sources of supply for their chips; they’ll just need to avoid switching to Chinese suppliers when new capacity there comes online. Even outside the United States, there’s plenty of foundational capacity in the EU, Japan, and Taiwan that can be scaled up to meet growing demand.

Component tariffs have another major benefit: they would force companies to truly understand their supply chains. A 2024 Commerce Department survey found that nearly half of U.S. chip buyers didn’t know whether their products contained Chinese-made chips — an unacceptable situation for U.S. national and economic security. Requiring companies to report the sources of their chips to CBP when they import products would help change that. Self-reporting would make the tariff vulnerable to fraud, but it would be backstopped by CBP investigations to catch wrongdoers, and a legal requirement would give companies the push they need to finally map their supply chains. This is the same model the U.S. government has used in enforcing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which bans the import of products made with forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region. As with chips, CBP can’t tell from looking at a product whether it was made with forced labor. But importers are responsible for ensuring their supply chains are free of Uyghur abuses, and CBP can investigate alleged violations.

Implementing a component tariff would take time and money, especially as CBP hasn’t applied one at scale before (a few products, like watches, are tariffed based on their components, but it isn’t common). Luckily, CBP just got a big influx of cash from the One Big Beautiful Bill and plans to hire 5,000 new customs officers over the next four years. As for revenue, manufacturers that responded to Commerce’s 2024 survey imported about $1.5 billion in Chinese chips each year, and in total represented about one-sixth of global chip sales. That suggests a 100% component tariff on Chinese chips could bring in a few billion each year, enough to offset the cost of implementation without upending the overall chip market.

Component tariffs would also send a valuable market signal. Because chip production in China is still ramping up, the U.S. government can get ahead of the problem. Even an imperfectly enforced tariff would get electronics manufacturers to think twice before turning to Chinese chip makers. Chip supplier relationships are sticky — products are made to exact specifications, and switching to a new producer can be costly — so preventing Chinese firms from locking in customers is the easiest way to win the chip war.

Legacy chips won’t be the last sector where component tariffs come in handy. China is working to dominate other manufacturing inputs, like batteries and drone parts, and the United States will need tools to respond. Getting the bureaucratic machinery to work with component tariffs now will give the U.S. government another option when it confronts similar problems in the future.

A component tariff will be especially effective if the administration can bring along its partners, including the European Union and the G7, which have both expressed concern about Chinese semiconductor overcapacity. Washington has a bad habit of scrambling to address Chinese industrial targeting after a critical U.S. industry has already withered away. Legacy chips offer a rare chance to intervene before it’s too late.

Chinese-developed apps like ByteDance’s Gauth andQuestion.AI have conquered US download charts, not by teaching but by offering quick solutions to math problems.

Measuring either by daily active users or by range of problem-solving capabilities, there are no dedicated non-Chinese competitors of this scale. Gauth’s strategy of using TikTok creators to advertise its app helped it explode in popularity, reaching nearly 700,000 downloads per day globally by March 2024.1 Meanwhile, Gauth and Question.AI advertise the ability to solve problems in “all school subjects” — including math, science, social studies, English, and foreign languages — with access to these solutions for free.

These apps are a ticking time bomb for political outrage in the United States Congress. You can imagine representatives exclaiming, “This Chinese app encourages cheating, and it’s making our children dumber! Parents in China don’t let their kids use these apps!”

Today, we’ll explore the differences between Chinese homework apps and the versions Chinese tech companies offer overseas. We’ll analyze their solutions to math problems (it’s a universal language!), their censorship regimes for social studies questions, and the business strategies of their parent companies in the Chinese domestic market and abroad.

Gauth vs Doubao Loves Learning (豆包爱学)

ByteDance’s domestic equivalent to Gauth is called “Doubao Loves Learning” 豆包爱学 (rebranded from “Hippo Loves Learning” 河马爱学), but the overseas version is still far more popular. Globally, Gauth boasted more than two million peak daily active users (DAU) in 2024, while ByteDance’s equivalent app for the Chinese market only had a peak of ~800,000 DAU around the same time.

We begin by asking ByteDance’s apps to solve this integral:

Both of BytedDance’s apps produced correct solutions, but the user experience is substantially different:

1. The Product for the Chinese market, Doubao Loves Learning, shows the steps before the solution, while Gauth puts the solution first and the steps underneath.

2. Gauth is much more aggressive about prompting users to upgrade to the paid version of the app.

3. The explanations from Doubou Loves Learning were more detailed, including helpful tips like “The key to integration by parts is choosing the right functions for u and dv,” which did not appear in the free version of Gauth. The Chinese app also automatically graphs the integrand to help users visualize the problem.2

Interestingly, Gauth was able to solve trig integrals that Doubao couldn’t solve, indicating that they aren’t necessarily using the same models to solve problems. For integrals that require you to rewrite the integrand using a trig identity, Gauth usually produces the correct answer while Doubao flails.3

What’s going on here? It could be that ByteDance is investing more in the international version of its app because there is a much greater appetite for homework hacking tools outside China. Western education systems, in both high school and college, place such a large emphasis on homework, while China’s education system emphasizes testing above all else.

As ChinaTalk analyst Irene Zhang told me:

“Chinese kids take so, so many exams at school all the time, which renders homework cheating apps meaningless. I attended Beijing public schools for grades 1 through 7 during Beijing Ministry of Education’s “holistic education” era (素质教育; translation: “everyone stop assigning so much homework”), which technically required teachers to assign no homework for grades 1 and 2 and only up to 1.5 hours of homework per day for middle schoolers (grades 7-9 in China). In part to skirt these caps, we had morning quizzes and mock exams more days than not from grade 4 onwards — I even got extra credit as an annoyingly keen fifth-grader by helping teachers mark the voluminous amounts of pen-and-paper exams on hand. I’m sure it’s worse now. That means kids in homework-dominant systems like the US & Canada get so much more out of these apps than Chinese kids, for better or worse.”

Constant testing means students in China need to solve problems on their own under time constraints, so it truly is disadvantageous for them to cheat on their math homework with apps like these. Given the legacy of the education crackdown in China, is it still uncouth to monetize children’s learning too aggressively particularly for firms like Bytedance that have bigger GR worries domestically. Lastly, With such a huge discrepancy in daily active users, we should expect ByteDance to spend more resources on Gauth than on the domestic equivalent.

I want to be clear though — it takes college-level calculus problems to stump these apps. They provide correct solutions for the majority of problems you could expect to see in high school math classes, and they’re getting better with every update.

What about social studies and English problems? For writing-heavy questions, these apps offer answers similar to what you might expect from plugging the prompts into any LLM. But there is one difference — it appears that both versions of the app have some sort of censorship protocol that can be switched on and off. Here’s a review for Gauth on the App Store:

As of September 2025, Gauth is now willing to answer this question, as well as questions like, “What are some factors that caused Donald Trump to lose the 2020 presidential election?” But the fact that Gauth was at one point restricted from being critical of Trump suggests that ByteDance learned from the TikTok ban fiasco, expected political outrage in response to this app, and then liberalized Gauth’s censorship mechanism to avoid inconvenient accusations. Likewise, I was unable to find a red line for China-related topics.

Q: “What happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989?”

However, Gauth isn’t immune to toeing the party line — it just tends to be more subtle about it:

Q: “How many terms is the president of China legally allowed to serve?”

Reader, the term limit in place before Xi was not informal — it was in the constitution! Doubao, on the other hand, is not willing to answer this question at all.4

Question.AI vs 作业帮

Question.AI’s largest user bases are the USA and Indonesia. While there is also a domestic version of Question.AI called Zuoyebang 作业帮 (“Homework Help”), the parent company by the same name primarily makes money in the Chinese market by selling smart learning tablets and dictionary pens, not homework solutions.

Zuoyebang was founded in 2015 by Hou Jianbin, who said the following about his company’s mission in a 2020 interview:

NetEase Technology: In your understanding, what value does Zuoyebang create for users or for society?

Hou Jianbin: Internally, we usually say: “Learning changes destiny, Zuoyebang changes learning.”

As society develops, learning has become increasingly important for personal growth. For an individual to integrate into society, they must cross a threshold — and that threshold has been rising, becoming a high wall. The meaning of education is to enable a person to cross that high wall of social integration.

100 years ago, you could survive without being literate. Fifty years ago, graduating from middle school gave you enough knowledge reserves. But today, the knowledge and skills needed to enter society are much greater. So the cost of social integration for an individual is rising. It’s no longer just a question of “if you don’t study, you won’t make progress.” It’s become: “if you don’t study, you’ll be eliminated by society.”

Zuoyebang’s mission is to build a ladder to help more children better climb over society’s high wall.

A rather optimistic framing of a company that makes, among other things, a cheating aid and an NSFW chatbot.

Just like the first pair of apps, both Zuoyebang and Question.AI were able to solve the integration by parts problem we looked at earlier. Here’s what makes them different from the ByteDance products:

• Question.AI shows ads before it lets you see the solutions to a problem or enter the app. Zuoyebang shows some ads, but far fewer than the international version.

• Unlike Gauth, Question.AI does show the steps before the solution.

• Zuoyebang’s Chinese app requires a Chinese phone number to see solutions, which Doubao does not.

• Anecdotally, the solving algorithm seems a bit worse — Question.AI and Zuoyebang both produced the wrong answer when I asked them to solve the trig integral we looked at earlier.5

While Zuoyebang has not mastered the half-angle formula, the company’s Chinese app has several educational features that Question.AI doesn’t offer. These include digital planners, study guides, and a function to check students’ work after they’ve already attempted to do an assignment on their own, which is aimed at parents.

Finally, Question.AI declined to answer questions about Tiananmen Square, calling such information “inappropriate.”

Are We Cooked?

The reality is that the versions of these apps for the Chinese market are more educational, less aggressively advertised, and far less widespread. Perhaps these companies are trying to avoid the ire of regulators in Beijing, and thus the features they push in the Chinese market — like time management tools, supplemental study guides, AI tutoring, and tools for involved parents — are more pro-learning. It could also be that the focus on testing in the Chinese education system legitimately makes these apps less useful. In any case, ByteDance and Zuoyebang have decided that cheating aids are the best way to make money in international markets, yet decline to use that same strategy for profitability at home.

As ChinaTalk’s resident math major, I worry that these apps are robbing students of the opportunity to develop their critical thinking skills. The only way to ensure students develop math ability, it seems, is to weigh final grades toward in-class assignments, tests, and open-ended projects. But how can the mental scaffolding that comes from repeatedly solving homework problems be built solely in the classroom? Students simply don’t spend enough time in class for that to be possible. In reality, I fear that richer students (and those with more involved parents) will be sent to extracurricular tutoring centers to ensure they aren’t automating their homework, while everyone else falls behind.

I don’t see much downside to banning apps like these in the USA — and if parents and teachers make regulators pay attention, that could legitimately happen.

This is the second article in our series about China’s AI Education Industry. You can check out the first installment here.

2

As a nice bonus, the Gauth browser extension requires access to basically all of your browser data, but can’t be bothered to use proper notation for solutions like the mobile app does:

3

For this integral:

Gauth produces the correct answer:

Meanwhile, this was the best Doubao could do after 31 steps:

None of the steps in this image are related to each other.

4

Here’s Doubao’s response when I asked about presidential term limits in Chinese:

“We are temporarily unable to answer this question, try another please!” (Notice the watermark that says, “内容由AI生成“ “This content was generated by AI”)

5

For reference, this is the correct answer:

This is part two of our show with Ian Toll, author of the Pacific War trilogy. Here’s part one.

In the second half of our conversation, we discuss…

• The various command styles that shaped US military strategy in the Pacific,

• How General MacArthur and Admiral Halsey became media darlings —controlling public opinion and war politics in the process,

• The evolution of submarine warfare and Japanese defensive strategy,

• Counterfactuals, including a world where the Allies invaded Taiwan,

• Broader lessons for the future of warfare, especially in the Taiwan Strait.

Cohosting is Chris Miller, author of Chip War. Thanks to the US-Japan Foundation for sponsoring this podcast.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app or watch on YouTube.

“What Becomes of a General?”

Jordan Schneider: Let's talk about the generals and admirals, starting with Chester Nimitz. You have this wonderful opening of him taking this secret train ride across America and reflecting on what he’s about to do. He’s trying to relax and play poker with his buddy, but at the same time, he understands the gravity of the situation.

Chris Miller: I was struck by the extent to which Nimitz has now been largely forgotten in American public discourse, but in your telling he emerges as probably the most important strategic thinker of the war in the Pacific. The contrast between him and MacArthur was striking to me, given that MacArthur is the one who’s remembered.

Ian Toll: One of the things that I always find very striking when you look at the admirals and officers, the leadership in the Navy during WWII, is that you have a group of men who have lived parallel lives since the age of 17 or 18 when they entered the Naval Academy. They have been shaped by a culture, by a context, a profession that had rigorous ideas about what leadership should look like. Yet when they reach the pinnacle of their careers, you realize these guys are very different. They have different personalities, different styles, and different ways of making decisions. They present themselves differently.

The full range of personalities comes through in the way that the leadership class — this is true in the Army as well — approached winning this vast, unprecedented war that they had been preparing for their entire lives.

Nimitz was the handpicked choice of FDR. FDR was not just confident in the role of commander in chief, but in particular, he had a parochial feeling about the Navy because he had served in a sub-cabinet position earlier in his career and because he had been president for such a long time and had personally pushed through and run a vast expansion in our Navy, the Two-Ocean Navy Act, which had occurred before the beginning of the war. FDR was very involved in personnel decisions at the highest level of the Navy. He selected admirals. Nimitz was his choice.

He had first offered the job of Pacific Fleet Chief to Nimitz nine months before Pearl Harbor. Nimitz had demurred. He said he thought he was too junior an admiral to take the position, and that for him to accept that command would arouse opposition and resentment among some of the other admirals, and he thought it was a bad idea. They gave it to Husband Kimmel instead.

When the attack on Pearl Harbor happened, when all of our battleships were knocked out of action in the first 15 minutes of the war, when Husband Kimmel was made to perform the role of the scapegoat for that, Nimitz was first to understand that it could have been him. It would have been him most likely, if he had been there. We would have remembered Nimitz very differently. That’s a snapshot of how historical contingency can cast such a long shadow down the decades. Nimitz could have been in the position of Husband Kimmel, a person that we remember solely because he suffered a terrible defeat.

But Nimitz’s great strength was that he had a gentle touch. His leadership style was based on personal warmth. After the trauma of Pearl Harbor, he showed up in Hawaii. He had a fifth of the Earth’s surface within his theater command. It was an enormous command of not just the Navy, but the Army, the Marines, the Air Force in his theater. He’s able to preside over this fractious group of people who are arguing over how to fight this war and to get them to work together and to forge a team out of what was a somewhat dysfunctional system managing inter-service operations in the 1940s.

He was the right man for the job. You said that you thought he was forgotten today. That’s true, but even more true of Ernest King, who was his direct superior. He was the Chief of Naval Operations. He is forgotten even by people who are interested in military history and the history of WWII.

But if you look at the major decisions that were made on the way that we would fight and win the Pacific War, the way that we would pick up the pieces after Pearl Harbor and put together an offensive, which less than four years later would force the surrender of Japan, it was Ernest King more than anybody else who had a blueprint in mind for how we would do that and who was in a position to impose that imprint on the rest of the Navy and all of the military services.

Jordan Schneider: I want to talk about the contrast of thinking styles that the admiralty ended up having to employ. There are scenes of big conference room debates where MacArthur says we should go left and Nimitz says we should go right. They’re making lots of different styles of arguments — some from a logistics perspective, others from a morale perspective. This represents a model of slow thinking and deliberation.

After they decide on a course of action, you have all of these plans and logistics, and you get the boats in place. But because of the nature of carrier warfare during the Pacific War, incredibly fast-twitched decision making is required. You have imperfect information because your scout plane may have seen something, and then you have to make a split-second call.

One of the admirals described it perfectly — “These carriers are boxers with glass chins, but they have enormous left hooks, and all we're doing is deciding when to swing and hoping for the best.”

It becomes very human at both levels of thinking. With slow thinking, you have all these personal histories that are intertwined. Everyone is thinking about their reputation and trying to save their people and resources. Then with the admirals’ decisions, soldiers who haven’t slept in 48 hours have to make these calls.

There’s this other approach where one commander delegates everything because he knows he needs to be sharp and fresh for the big thinking — when he has to make these enormous strategic calls.

These flag officers have to operate in very different modes, which you explored beautifully. I'm curious about your reflection on that and what it reveals about the nature of warfare and the nature of people at this moment in time.

Ian Toll: It’s true because the planning and anticipation of how these battles would go were important. Getting those decisions right, moving your forces into position at the right time — at Midway, most famously, Nimitz had a picture of what the Japanese plan was, thanks to this extraordinary intelligence achievement of breaking the Japanese codes. He was able to move what forces he had at that point, which were three aircraft carriers, into position to do battle. But after that, everything that happened was a contingency. It was chaos. There were a lot of chances involved. That battle could have gone the other way.

You had Spruance and Frank Jack Fletcher, the two American admirals, making decisions with imperfect information, feeling their way through the fog of war. In the end, winning that battle narrowly with a pretty significant contribution of blind luck. You would see this again and again in naval battles in the Pacific. If the right plan is put in place, you’re improving the odds for your side. Yet there are still fast-twitch decisions that have to be made, these opportunistic decisions, probabilistic decisions when you don’t have all of the information you need.

Those are two entirely different ways of thinking about military command. They may play to the strengths or weaknesses of different personality types. But one of the things that Nimitz did particularly well was to develop a plan and to make sure that his subordinate commanders, his ocean-going commanders understood that plan and make sure they would execute this plan in the same way that he would if he were there commanding a task force at sea.

But then once they left, Nimitz was in his headquarters back in Hawaii, in Pearl Harbor, you’ve got Halsey or Spruance or whoever the task force commander is on the scene. Nimitz, although he was often tempted, never got on the radio and intervened and started forcing decisions. He delegated those tactical decisions, even in a major battle, without interfering — trusting to the judgment of his subordinates. Most of the time, that judgment was vindicated.

Chris Miller: Nimitz seemed to me the opposite of a gung-ho military leader stereotype. You use the words “leading by his personal warmth, being gentle.” That came through in the narrative. He felt like a grandfather figure to me. But it was super effective. The one time he came down hard on a subordinate with the “where is task force 37” telegram, it was the softest criticism you could imagine.I wanted to pick up on the fog of war.

Fog of war is a metaphor and fog of war is reality with the weather playing such a critical role in almost every battle.

Ian Toll: Fog of war is a very frequent metaphor in naval warfare and often becomes a literal problem.

Chris Miller: You felt the clouds rolling in and every single battle rolling in and out. Then the typhoon you have off of Leyte Gulf is extraordinary — you’re fighting a battle and then you’re also dealing with these ancient problems of seamanship at the same time. Talk about contingency, every single battle has this uncertainty: what will the weather be like in three days? Your ability to find or be found was hugely impacted in this era when radar was not very good by what were the cloud patterns. That was a great example of the contingency at every moment.

Ian Toll: The weather is this universal thing. I quoted Joseph Conrad, who was a sea captain before he was a novelist, and he’d been through a typhoon in exactly the same waters just off Formosa or Taiwan. It occurred to me as I was reading that description by Conrad, this is the same storm. It’s five decades, six decades later, but that’s Typhoon Alley.

You have those storms going through every year, and you could pick a description if one existed from 2,000 years ago, and you’d be describing the same storm. The navy and the navies of other countries in the Pacific today have got to deal with those same weather patterns. There’s something universal across time to that X factor of weather. I think that particularly comes to bear on naval warfare.

Jordan Schneider: The suspense of not knowing where the enemy ships are is foreign to a modern mind today. The 1940s are not ancient history, but there were no satellites. Radar was just starting. There were so many uncertainties that these folks were facing.

Ian Toll: You’re relying on your planes to be your eyes too. The patrol flights become absolutely essential. It’s very easy for a plane to fly directly over a ship and not see it in overcast weather. We saw that happen again and again where you had patrol planes moving out from these task forces. They’re supposed to be the first trigger to tell you if there’s an enemy there. There was much more of a sense, particularly earlier in the war, of the fleets being blind and having to make decisions without being certain where the enemy was, if the enemy was there, how far, what direction. That uncertainty, the tension and inherently the drama of that conflict.

Jordan Schneider: If Nimitz was a gentle, modern manager, Bull Halsey was the opposite. His famous quote was: “Before we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be only spoken in hell. Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs.” The guy was living up to his caricature, and then he embraced it.

There were numerous points where the mythos surrounding him was such that he was kept in positions longer than he would have been otherwise. FDR’s view was, “We’re already going to win, and it would be a weird sign to get this guy out of command.” His ethos was much more dualistic, reflecting the brutal mindset you needed to start these operations where you knew tens of thousands of people would die over the course of a fortnight.

Chris Miller: I was struck by the fact that some of the key, really costly errors that you describe were made by him, but it also seemed you were suggesting there’s strong evidence that the people under his command really loved him. Where’s the balance sheet there?

Ian Toll: There are some caveats to that. Halsey became very controversial within the ranks of the Navy in the last year of the war. He had some severe critics, including some of the rear admirals who were the task group commanders of the Third Fleet. These were the next generation of leaders — the guys who would be promoted into the senior positions in the immediate post-war period.

The piece that I think is often missing — and it’s true when you consider MacArthur’s career as well — is just how important their public images became.

They became important because the United States is a democracy that has elections during wartime, which makes us a little different from other democracies. The political influence of a military leader can become very great in wartime.

You had a new media environment. Film and radio, the ability to run the same photographs in newspapers all across the country. Many of these technologies that we take for granted today changed the political environment. When you had leaders like MacArthur and Halsey — I’ll put them in the same category — who were very good at speaking directly to the American people and to the rank and file of the military services through the media, they became media darlings. They became people that reporters always wanted to talk to because they wanted that quotable line, that photograph. It sold newspapers. The American people started to look at the war and understand it by listening to these very colorful, charismatic figures, and that became a political consideration.

1944 was an election year in the United States, and MacArthur was seriously considering running against FDR and was implicitly threatening to do that. At the same time, FDR was faced with the decision of whether to return to the Philippines. Halsey was making significant mistakes, most significantly in October 1944, when he made a mistake that could have led to disaster and only didn’t because of blind luck. It was well understood within the Navy that he had made this inexplicable error. There was a feeling that he should be held to account — that he should not be running the Third Fleet anymore, that he should be relieved of command, maybe put into a different position. But his political popularity, his profile with the American people as the unofficial face of the US Navy became a factor in the decision to keep him in place.

The interplay of politics, publicity, media, and the way that all of that influences the major decisions being made at the height of the bloodiest war in history — that is a fascinating story that hasn’t received as much attention in historical literature.

Chris Miller: I love the description of MacArthur’s press team as “the most well-oiled press team outside of Washington.” I learned a lot from that.

Ian Toll: MacArthur’s emergence as the principal hero — I don’t think it would be going too far to say that to the American people during the WWII, MacArthur was on a par with FDR as a national figure, a leader, a symbol. All of that happened extraordinarily fast. This was a lesson about the way media can work in wartime.

In the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor — I’m talking four or five days after Pearl Harbor — you had a sense of rage among the American people, anger at the Japanese, but also at our own military leadership, our Navy leadership in particular. How could you let this happen? How could we be blindsided like this in the heart of our fleet base? There was a sense of shame, a sense that we’d been humiliated. It was inexplicable.

Then, almost immediately, another storyline emerged from the Philippines, where the Japanese are invading and the Philippines’ beleaguered army is outmanned, outnumbered, and too far away for us to support them because of what had happened at Pearl Harbor. They’re fighting for their survival. MacArthur stepped in with a very aggressive and effective media strategy to shape the way that story was told and give the American people another storyline — a heroic storyline.

People who had been conditioned by movies to understand complex events through heroic narratives — MacArthur was stepping right into that and very effectively using media, photographs, the daily cables that he was writing describing the war, to establish himself as a singular figure. That continued right through the Korean War when he was fired by Harry Truman and almost caused a revolt within the Democratic Party. For ten years, MacArthur was able to ride that successful media strategy.

That’s interesting to me because in an authoritarian or fascist model of government, you don’t have that. You don’t have the ability of individual military leaders to challenge the political leadership by appealing directly to the people through the media and the press.

Jordan Schneider: There were a few other media beats that I thought were fascinating. One was this debate in October of 1944, just a few weeks before the presidential election, of whether or not to let the public know that the Japanese had sunk a carrier. One admiral said, “No, please don’t tell the Japanese that this carrier has sunk.” Another was saying, “There will be an enormous scandal if we don’t tell the American people the facts a few weeks before the election.”

But I think my favorite arc was with King and the press corps in Washington.

Ian Toll: The culture of the Navy had inculcated this anti-media, anti-public relations philosophy that it’s dangerous to play with the media. They can divulge your secrets. You should lie low. We should be the silent service. We’ll tell the American people what happened after we win the war. There was a joke going around that King’s philosophy of disclosure and media was, “We’ll tell the media and the American people absolutely nothing about what’s happening until the day the Japanese surrender, and then we’ll put out a two-word press release — ‘We won.’”

For a thousand reasons, that became a problematic, unsustainable approach. The Army — particularly MacArthur — was stepping into this void and shaping the way the American people understood the Pacific War to be unfolding. There was an understanding among all of the military services that as soon as the war was won, there was going to be a complete reorganization of the services. What we have today — a Secretary of Defense, a Pentagon, Joint Chiefs, a way of managing the different military services and forcing them to work together — none of that existed in the 1940s. It was understood because FDR had essentially decreed it — “We will reform and reorganize the military, but let’s get the war done first.”

The Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force — they all had their own agendas, and they were positioning themselves for this immense reform, this bureaucratic refashioning that they knew was coming. For all of these reasons, King was eventually convinced: “I can’t just ignore the media. This is a democracy. I’ve got to have some strategy.”

It was his own lawyer, who was a former reporter, who proposed: “Why don’t you start off-the-record briefings? Just get a bunch of reporters together in Washington. We’ll meet somewhere — not at your office, but at my house. We’ll get these guys together. We’ll have ground rules.” It would be what would today be called a deep background briefing, meaning you’re not going to use any of what’s disclosed. None of it’s going to be written up into any article. You’re not going to source anything. You’re not going to quote King, but it’s going to help you understand what’s happening. That will contribute to the way that you write the stories that you can write.

King thought this was crazy. “Why would you trust a bunch of reporters under these kinds of ground rules?” He was persuaded that if you get reputable reporters, they will adhere to these ground rules. After the first three hours of sitting with 20 reporters in Alexandria, Virginia, at his lawyer’s house, he realized, “This is exactly what I need to be doing because I’m getting these guys on side. I can then begin manipulating press coverage a little bit.” Even more than that, this was an opportunity for him to explain at a high level the strategic issues that they were dealing with to a bunch of guys who really were outsiders, but who were highly intelligent. King realized this was actually helping him to shape his own thinking in a beneficial way. For the rest of the war, he continued doing these deep background briefings.

I think that was an interesting arc. It helps us understand a little bit about who King was, but it also illuminates these issues that are unique to running a war in a democracy — different from the kind of challenges that Stalin, Hitler would face.

On Submarines and Taiwan Contingencies

Chris Miller: I was struck by the centrality of submarine warfare in the struggles that Japan faced. There have been some books on this in the past several decades, but relative to the Battle of the Atlantic, which takes center stage in histories of the war in Europe, the fact that the Japanese faced and lost the Battle of the Pacific in terms of shipping is central. I was struck by the way that you brought submarine warfare to life, with the USS Wahoo as a great case study. Upstream of that was the question of torpedoes — how do you get torpedoes that actually work, which ends up being a technical bureaucratic struggle.

Give us a bit of a glimpse into the trajectory of submarine warfare and its impact on the scope of the war.

Ian Toll: What you have in the submarine war — in any war of commerce, the Battle of the Atlantic being another example — is a cumulative way of fighting the war. You want to sink a certain amount of shipping, sink oil tankers, and little by little diminish the ability of your enemy to carry on the war. You’re attacking the economic underpinnings, the logistics underpinnings of the war. It’s a very different kind of campaign.

The war that the rest of the Navy is fighting, the Army is fighting, the Marines are fighting — you can diagram it on the map. We’re going to take this group of islands, and then we’re going to move, and we’re going to take this group of islands. We’re going to fight a naval battle here, and you could diagram the naval battle, and then you could show how that opens the way for us to make this next westward thrust, always moving closer to the Japanese islands.

Submarine warfare became death by a thousand cuts.

Sink one oil tanker at a time. There’s a cumulative effect that caused Japan’s war economy to sputter and run out of gas, and its ability to carry on the war became critical in the last year of the war.

You have to tell these stories side by side. You have to realize these were almost entirely separate campaigns. There’s very little direct coordination between these two campaigns, and they’re both important and they’re working together. That wasn’t the way the submarines had been envisioned before WWII.

An interesting part of the story is how the submarine commanders themselves came to realize: “We’re not using this resource in the optimal way if we’re using them to support fleet movements or to go out and be eyes and ears for the fleet.” This is the way fleet submarines — these diesel submarines — had been built with a very different role in mind. They were going to operate at the edges of these task forces as they went out. They weren’t going to fight the kind of long, solitary cruises where they’re going primarily to sink oil tankers and freighters.

It wasn’t until 1943 that the Navy realized we’re not using this resource the way we should. What we should do is largely disconnect the Navy submarines from what the rest of the fleet is doing and just send them out there to try to sink oil tankers. Let’s try to starve Japan of oil and other resources. Once they did that, once they fixed the torpedo problem, it became clear to the Japanese that they had nowhere to go.

Japan is a country poor in natural resources. It always has been. It has negligible oil production. It has always relied on importing oil. Their decision to attack us at Pearl Harbor was largely about oil. They had an oil stockpile, and they needed more. We had cut off the supply of Texas oil. They needed to go down to Borneo to take the Dutch and British oil fields there and replace that supply. Then they have the problem of transporting that oil from what is today Indonesia to Japan — 3,000 miles, an artery that if we could sever would cause the entire Japanese Imperial project to bleed out. That was what happened in 1944 and 1945.

You can tell this story with statistics. There were X many fleet boats that were going out. They were going on patrols of this average length for X many weeks. They were sinking X amount of ships on average. Those statistics will tell a story. But in order to bring the reader into what’s happening, you’ve got to show an individual boat and say, “Let’s imagine what it’s like to go on this cruise on the Wahoo and to see it from the perspective of those who were in the crew.” Use the example of that one very successful submarine and her career to illuminate the larger story.

Jordan Schneider: The Wahoo arc had aspects of a video game — we had to line up the shot and execute these crazy trick shots down the chute, diving while everything exploded around us. But it ties back to larger strategic questions. The bottom-up tactical innovations were fascinating, both understanding that the torpedoes were wrong and realizing we shouldn’t be going around with the carriers. We should be positioned between Japan and China to shoot down oil tankers.

One of the big themes is that technological innovation and change happened from 1941 to 1945, but more important were the failures of imagination. Starting with Pearl Harbor, there was this long evolution of understanding that carriers mattered more than battleships, then understanding that submarines were crucial, then not taking territory, and finally realizing we could skip islands without killing everyone. On the Japanese side, we’ve talked about the Kamikazes but haven’t discussed the infantry side much — going from Banzai charges 万岁突击 to honeycombing into ancient mountains. The fact that there was so much room to get better, even during moderate technological change rather than super rapid change, came through in your narrative.

Ian Toll: Japanese infantry tactics evolved, that was an important change. It happened primarily in the last year of the war when individual army commanders realized they had been using their army entirely wrong. If their goal was to exact the greatest possible price as the Americans came across the Pacific island by island, shrinking the ring around Japan’s home islands, then they needed to dig into the ground and make the Americans come to them — put five or six of their guys for every one of the Americans.

The Army abandoned the banzai charge entirely and began digging in. You saw this most effectively at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

Jordan Schneider: The fact that you can become 50% more effective by using the same available tools in a different way isn’t something you’d expect given how many experiments were being run. Even in Okinawa, they still talked themselves into some stupid attack because of the instinctive doctrines they’d been drilled in for decades.

Ian Toll: Their sense of honor, too. In Okinawa, you had a defensive line of fortifications that crossed the island. Okinawa is a long, narrow island about 60 miles long and maybe 9-10 miles wide. At the narrowest point, they picked rocky mountainous ground in the southern part of the island and built an extraordinarily ambitious string of tunnels and caves across the island.

If they were going to hold out, buy time, and inflict casualties on the Americans, they should have stayed in that high ground to use the advantages of terrain and prepared defensive positions. But once the Americans were ashore and had taken the major airfields, they immediately started preparing Okinawa as a stepping stone to Kyushu. They would use those airfields to bomb the Japanese homeland.

This created immense pressure within the Japanese army — “we’ve got to do something about this. We can’t just stay here. We’ve got to contest what the Americans are doing with the rest of the island.” Again and again, they sallied out from these defensive fortifications, got mowed down, suffered terrible casualties, and eventually realized they had to go back to this blueprint of trying to survive as long as possible while taking as many Americans with them as they could.

It was an evolving understanding of what the ideal tactics were in these battles. But there was also a subtle interplay of politics, policy, and the way military strategic decisions were made. You see that in Japan, you see that in the US, you see it in Great Britain. That’s part of the picture that’s important to illuminate and becomes relevant when we talk about the way different countries and regimes will wage war even when they have similar tools.

Jordan Schneider: It’s hard to second-guess wartime decisions because there was so much unknown in 1941 and 1942 about what carriers could do, what submarines could do, and what the Japanese political system looked like. Coming back to submarines — if the US just 10x’ed that effort, there’s a world in which very few people have to die because Japan decides to starve. Japan ends up starving, and that’s all she wrote.

Island hopping is another live debate about whether the US could have skipped more islands, Iwo Jima being the main one that people still argue about today. What do you think is the most interesting operational strategy or broader open questions when it comes to the way the war was fought in the Pacific that you’re excited to see more historians take on?

Ian Toll: There are a number of issues. What we found as we went along with this war was that we could go much faster — we could close the ring around Japan much more quickly than we thought. This is partly because we surprised ourselves with just how quickly we were able to mobilize our economy to get ships and troops and planes out into the Pacific.

But if you were to refight the war knowing what you knew in 1945, and if you were able to deal with the political challenge presented by MacArthur, who really was a force of nature all his own and who had the ability to shape decision making because of his political influence, what you would probably do is focus essentially all of your effort in a direct attack on Japan from Hawaii, moving directly through the Central Pacific (which is one of the routes we took), but not diverting into the South Pacific.

Take islands within bombing range of Japan and focus on cutting their supply lines with submarines in particular, then establishing the ability to bomb the Japanese homeland directly, which we did as well. If you took a more aggressive “close the ring around Japan quickly” approach, you would probably see a scenario where the war ends six months earlier and without using the atomic bomb.

That’s counterfactual history, but if you went back and applied the lessons that you got from the war itself, if you were able to use that wisdom of hindsight as you were doing it, we could have seen a shorter war or more efficient war, perhaps a war with fewer casualties, and that would force Hirohito and the ruling circle in Japan to recognize their error and that they needed to surrender.

One of the — at a high level — another counterfactual within the Pacific that is often forgotten by people who are familiar with the history is that we came very, very close to landing troops in what we then called Formosa, and today call Taiwan. It was Admiral King and most of the Navy planners, at least in Washington, who believed this was the key to forcing an end to the war — taking Taiwan.

It was Raymond Spruance, the Fifth Fleet commander or ocean-going fleet commander in the Western Pacific, who took the lead in saying we should bypass Taiwan. We should take Okinawa. Okinawa was smaller. The island is large enough for our purposes, essentially to establish as a stepping stone to an invasion of Japan as an air base, but will not commit us to this enormous undertaking of taking this very large mountainous island that has been a Japanese colony for 50 years.

What if we had taken Taiwan? It’s interesting to imagine how history might have unfolded. Would that have involved us in the Chinese Civil War, for example? That’s an interesting counterfactual. But if and when China does seriously consider rolling the dice and moving against Taiwan, it’s going to encounter many of the same issues that led our military to decide not to take that step in 1944.

It’s a large, mountainous, rugged island. It would require you to establish air supremacy over the island and naval supremacy at a beachhead to be able to maintain a continuous flow of supplies over that beachhead. Taiwan is 100 miles from China. That’s five times the width of the English Channel. These are immense problems that are not unlike some of the problems that we ended up solving in the 1940s, but should probably prompt military planners in China to think very seriously about this history and the nature of the challenge.

Jordan Schneider: We’ve run two articles in the past year, one on the debate around Operation Causeway and the other Operation Sho-2Go 捷2号作戦, which is the Japanese plan to ward off the Americans. They built all these relatively similar things that you saw in the context of Okinawa and Iwo Jima with all these tunnels.

I don’t think Americans on Formosa change a lot when it comes to the Chinese Civil War. The Americans were also thinking about invading Ningbo 宁波市, in Mainland China, and using that as a base to bomb Taiwan. The Americans did show up on mainland China after the war but did not stay long.

It seems to me that even if the Americans showed up in China, we would have pulled out really fast, like we did in a lot of the rest of the Pacific. The Korean War only happens because the Chinese Civil War happens the way it does and then everyone was on edge at that. Mobilizing America to do even more than what it did, which was already a lot when it came to giving Chiang Kai-shek 讲解可 a lot of weapons to fight in the late 1940s, seems to me to be a hard counterfactual to consider.

It was the Japanese invasion in the first place, which gave Mao Zedong 毛泽东 a shot. Can you imagine the world in which America went in with Chiang Kai-shek in 1946 and 1947?

Ian Toll: No, it’s unlikely. Our military services really felt an immense sense of relief that we did not have to invade Japan and had shared a realization of how costly that operation would be. To become involved in a civil war in a vastly greater country on the mainland of Asia would have compounded all of those issues.

But counterfactuals are always going to be somewhat controversial. There are many historians who think they’re not worth discussing at all. But so much happened in those last few weeks of the Pacific War that you’re almost forced to acknowledge that things could have gone differently.

The Red Army poured across the Manchurian border on August 9th, the same day we hit Nagasaki — a sudden declaration of war. Stalin let his war machine loose in Manchuria. If the war had lasted two weeks longer, if the Japanese surrendered less than a week later, if they had held out until the end of August? Would you have had a red army in Korea in a bigger way?

Stalin ordered his army to take Hokkaido. He wanted Hokkaido. He could have gotten Hokkaido if the war had gone on a few more weeks. Then you might have seen Hokkaido, the northern island of Japan, as the East Germany of Japan for 45 years through the Cold War.

All of those kinds of counterfactuals you have to take seriously, given how volatile the situation was. The real question about whether Japan would surrender, whether it would make any organized surrender at the end of the war at all, or whether the place would have collapsed into civil war and prevented any organized end of the Pacific War. Very different paths for Japan and for all of Asia in those final weeks.

Jordan Schneider: Another lesson when we’re talking about the Taiwan contingency today is that we spoke earlier in this conversation about how the die was already cast by January 1942 because American industrial might was what it was. But the balance of industrial forces plays out over longer time horizons and longer wars versus shorter wars. The importance of smaller technical decisions or point-in-time technological advantages can be amplified such that you don’t have these big national industrial tests of will.

Thankfully, we haven’t had too many of them when it comes to great powers going against each other since 1945. There’s a lot more uncertainty in the smaller wars where the national commitment level is one of the most important variables, which you’re gauging and adjusting for over time, as opposed to these scenarios where two empires are going all out to the death against each other, and then you can stack up the factor endowments and have a good sense of where it’s all going to end up.

Reading Recommendations

Jordan Schneider: You want to recommend some books, Ian? What have you read recently? Doesn’t have to be anything to do with this, but whose writing has impressed you of late?

Ian Toll: In These Times: Living in Britain Through the Napoleonic Wars, 1793-1815, which is a book by Jenny Uglow about Great Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. I have an interest in home front histories of all wars, the way societies deal with wars, the way they shape economies and politics.

Jordan Schneider: And maybe just some — are there voices or memoirs or letters? Many of these Americans and Japanese who lived through the Pacific War, they’re stylish writers. Which ones are the ones that stick with you these many years after writing this?

Ian Toll: Kiyosawa’s A Diary of Darkness. Kiyosawa was a scholar who was tarred as a liberal and marginalized in Japanese society, but he kept a daily diary through the end of the Pacific War that was superb in its observations of everyday life in Japanese at the time. He was a scholar who knew a little about politics, and his horror at the way Japanese media coverage was manipulated is recorded in the diary. The Japanese people were being lied to.

That’s a very good book that few people have read. It’s one of these books that was translated in the 1960s and published. Virtually no one read it, and today it’s almost entirely unknown. That’s one good example.

A US memoir, there are many that are very good. There’s a book by someone named Anthony Weller, who was an American correspondent who went into Japan immediately after the surrender. His book is called First into Nagasaki, and it includes a lot of the dispatches he wrote at that time, which were quashed by the American censors and never saw the light of day.

The book is partly about his visit to Nagasaki a week after the surrender, but there are also a lot of dispatches about Japan and about interviews with freed American and British and Australian POWs. It’s a terrific book. And again, one of these books that I don’t think has been very widely read, it is a neglected classic.

Jordan Schneider: Great. And I want to shout out a place. Yakushima, I ended up there in February of 2020. It’s this island off Kyushu. I was stuck because China already had COVID and America didn’t have COVID yet, and I was trying to stay in Asia.

And I’m really happy that Yakushima isn’t a place that now has to be associated like Okinawa or Iwo Jima as a horrific battle happening there. It’s one of the most magical places I’ve ever been. It’s a giant rainforest.

Ian Toll: Where the animated film Princess Mononoke was set.

Jordan Schneider: Exactly. It has enormous trees, and it’s really inconvenient to get to. There aren’t a lot of tourists, and America didn’t have to invade it because we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we’re not in the worst of all possible timelines. The path where you have that invasion of Kyushu, where a few more million people would have died, is something that is hanging over the specter of your final book. People should all go to Yakushima and be thankful that we haven’t had a nuclear war since 1945.

Mood Music:

A guest post by Professor at American University as well as the author of the new Xi Zhongxun biography and a book exploring succession politics in the USSR and CCP.

September 3 will mark the eightieth anniversary of the end of World War II, and Xi Jinping will host Vladimir Putin in Beijing for a military parade to mark the occasion. For both men, it will be an opportunity to assert the civilizational agendas they are pursuing.

Xi and Putin see themselves as men who inherited a baton from their forefathers to continue a struggle against outside enemy forces who have always wanted to eliminate their countries’ distinct national characteristics and subjugate them.

For both, the war was personal. During World War II, Xi’s revolutionary father Zhongxun concentrated his energies against the Nationalists and was never near Japanese forces. Yet Jinping’s mother Qi Xin personally witnessed the Japanese seizure of Beijing, was nearly killed by enemy cavalry, and witnessed atrocities committed by imperial forces. Xi Jinping even lost a first cousin, only an infant, to the fires of war.

Putin’s family also suffered. His father was severely wounded in combat against the Nazis and survived the Siege of Leningrad, where an elder brother died. His maternal grandmother was slain by Nazi occupiers.

For both Xi and Putin, victory then was costly, but incomplete. Although the war concluded before they were born, it resonates with them differently from other contemporary world leaders. Xi and Putin believe that “hegemonic forces” still want to impose a foreign model upon them and block their rightful place in the world. Now, they want to use the memory of the war to inoculate future generations against Western values and legitimate the global order they envision.

Having witnessed the chaos their nations faced for much of the twentieth century, both are deeply preoccupied with the question of political order. Xi Jinping was incarcerated and exiled during the Cultural Revolution and feared state collapse during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. Vladimir Putin famously saw the collapse of Soviet power in East Germany as a young KGB officer. Both Xi and Putin believe that their rise to power stopped centrifugal forces, supported by the West, that threatened to tear their nations apart before they came to power.

Commemorating World War II serves that mission. Both men clearly believe that their nations need a sense of idealism, sacrifice, and commitment to survive. History as moral education is a powerful tool for that purpose. World War II was a moment that showed their nations could achieve extraordinary victories.

Xi and Putin see the suffering their peoples experienced as something that deserves only the most profound respect both at home and abroad. The anniversary has been turned into an instrument to instill loyalty to the state among a younger generation. That message is especially significant for their militaries, as Russia continues its war against Ukraine and China prepares the People’s Liberation Army for a possible war on Taiwan.

It is also a time to remind the outside world what China and Russia think they deserve as major contributors to victory in World War II. At the war’s end, both nations were recognized as major powers. For Putin, Yalta meant Russia was given special rights in its so-called “near abroad.” For Xi, the defeat of Japan meant Taiwan should rightfully return to the Chinese mainland. Beijing and Moscow see American activities in their neighborhoods as a return to the power politics that led to war decades ago.

That is why Xi and Putin obsess over a perceived grievance that diminishes the contributions of the countries' role in the war. Control over history is literally a matter of regime security and strategic imperatives.

The Chinese Communist Party opposes any attempts to deny the Nanjing Massacre and the horrific biological and chemical warfare experiments on human beings at Unit 731 in Manchuria. Two movies, one on each of those topics, are being released this year in China. The party also opposes the largely accurate narrative that the communists sat out much of the war against the Japanese.

In Russia, former Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky used the words “human scum” to refer to anyone who debunked the legend of Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen, who allegedly all died fighting off the Nazis outside Moscow.

Yet questions remain about the long-term efforts by Xi and Putin to immortalize their regimes and their use of the memory of World War II for that purpose. The story of Chinese and Russian history is often one of unintended consequences. Mao Zedong launched his Cultural Revolution to prevent capitalism from appearing in China. It was such a disaster it triggered Reform and Opening. Mikhail Gorbachev’s attempt to save the Soviet Union destroyed it.

Putin sees the war against Ukraine as a sort of sequel to World War II that can help him recast another generation of Russians according to his vision. He sneered as young people fled the country to avoid the draft, describing them as “scum and traitors” that Russians would “simply spit out” “like a gnat that accidentally flew into their mouths.” He seeks to politically empower veterans – for instance through his Time of Heroes program to get them elected on his party’s ticket. Patriotic education has contributed to the militarization of society. The economy is now hardened against sanctions and geared to fight a long-term war. Yet what will Russia do without its most talented young people if they flee or die on the battlefield? Will Russians become exhausted by the war? And how long can prolonged competition with the West last with an economy whose future has been mortgaged on the war?

Xi can only use the memory of war and the possibility of potential war in the future. He uses the revolutionary legacy, of which the war against Japan was a part, to achieve what he calls “self-revolution.” It is a call to vigilance, a call to “eat bitterness,” a call to yet another young generation of Chinese to devote their lives not just to themselves but also to national rejuvenation. Yet Xi does not want his relationship with the West to go completely off the rails. Unlike Putin, he wants to benefit from economic, financial, and technological ties while he can. The question is whether Xi can achieve both struggle and pragmatism at the same time.

As for the international community, the commemoration in Beijing will likely not fundamentally change any feelings in the West towards Russia or China. No Western nation is convinced that the Ukrainians are Nazis, as Putin falsely alleges. And although China has sought to avoid economic and reputational costs, it has unambiguously been a major facilitator of Russia’s war machine. The military parade, along with the recent treatment of Japanese citizens and military exercises around Taiwan, might frighten China’s neighbors more than win them over with the memory of China’s role in the defeat of Imperial Japan.

No historian can deny the contributions of China and Russia in the defeat of fascism in World War II. But the war’s role in justifying authoritarianism at home and expansion abroad is not a tribute that will inspire everyone.

For more with Joseph Torigian, check out our podcast on his first book on CCP power struggles.

And the two-part five hour epic we did covering his monumental biography of Xi Zhongxun.

For the 80th anniversary of the Allied victory over Japan, ChinaTalk interviewed Ian Toll about his Pacific War trilogy, which masterfully brings America’s bloodiest war — and the world’s only nuclear war — to life. Ian’s detailed scholarship creates a multisensory historical experience, from the metallic tang of radiation after the bombs were dropped to the stench of Pacific battlefields.

Ian’s forthcoming book, The Freshwater War, will explore the naval campaign the US fought against Britain on the Great Lakes between 1812 and 1815.

Today our conversation covers….

• How Ian innovates when writing historical narratives,

• Whether Allied victory was predetermined after the US entered the war,

• Why the Kamikaze were born out of resource scarcity, and whether Japanese military tactics were suicidal as well,

• How foreign wars temporarily stabilized Japan’s revolutionary domestic politics,

• How American military leadership played the media and politics to become national heroes,

• Lessons from 1945 for a potential Taiwan invasion.

Cohosting is , author of Chip War. Thanks to the US-Japan Foundation for sponsoring this podcast.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

The Pacific War — A Writer’s Guide

Jordan Schneider: I want to start with your closest scholarly forebearer, Samuel Eliot Morison. He was FDR’s buddy who ended up getting presidential approval to be embedded in the fight in the Pacific. Over the next 20 years, he published a 15-volume, 6,000-page history of United States naval operations in World War II.

For this show, aside from reading your 2,000 pages, I also read a few hundred pages of Morison, which — while there are echoes — feels like it was of a different time, era, and audience. When reflecting back on where you chose to spend your time in research and pages, compared to what he thought was most interesting and vital, what were the things that you both agreed needed the full treatment? What were things that you felt comfortable writing in the 21st century that you could spend less time on? What were some of the themes that you wanted to emphasize to a greater extent than he did in his book?

Ian Toll: Well, Morison will always be the first, if not the greatest, historian of the Pacific War. It’s an unusual case because Morison pitched the president of the United States — who was himself a former assistant secretary of the Navy — this idea. FDR ran the Navy day-to-day during the Woodrow Wilson administration and was fascinated with naval history going all the way back to the American Revolution. He was a collector and an antiquarian.

FDR was unique as a president in anticipating the importance of research and writing to document the history of this war, even before it began to unfold.

Samuel Eliot Morison, a historian at Harvard who was well-established in the field, said, “Why don’t you just put me in charge of this whole project and let the Navy know that I get an all-access pass to the Pacific War as it’s happening? I will produce a multi-volume official history — but really a history written by me, Samuel Eliot Morison, with all of my strongly opinionated views, having witnessed many of these events, in some cases from actually being aboard a ship in a task force as it went into battle.”

Morison’s concern was to write the first draft of the history, and he did a remarkable job. He had access in a way that no outsider could possibly have had. He became personal friends with many of the admirals who fought that war and was a direct witness to many events. That was true in Okinawa, where he was aboard a ship in the task force and could work his personal impressions into the narrative.

All of that is very unique. Morison was seeing the war through the eyes of his contemporaries. He was very much involved in the debates that the admirals had as they were rolling across the Pacific. He was probably less interested than I am in the way that the war was experienced by the ordinary sailor, soldier, and airmen, and more interested in grand strategy.

I like to pull those together — the way the war unfolded in the eyes of those who fought it, but then also returning to the conference rooms where the planning unfolded. I wanted to understand how the politics of inter-service rivalries in the US military affected decisions — that was an important story unique to the Pacific because of the divided command structure.

This Solomon-like choice to say the South Pacific will be MacArthur’s domain — the US Army will be in charge of the South Pacific, the Central and North Pacific will be Nimitz’s domain — meant we were really going to divide this enormous ocean into two theaters. We were going to let the Navy have one, let the Army have one. That was to establish peace within this large and fractious military.

In some ways, that was a suboptimal decision. In other ways, it seemed to work out fine because the United States had the ability to mobilize such an enormous war machine, such that we could fight two wars in the Pacific.

We fought two parallel counteroffensives — one south of the equator, one north of the equator. Because we had the ability to do that, the Japanese really were unable to concentrate their diminishing forces to meet either prong of this two-headed offensive.

Jordan Schneider: As you’re thinking about how to devote your research time and the pages that you allocate to these stories, can you reflect a little about your process of having all these simultaneous strains of the experiences of these individual soldiers, as well as these grand debates between MacArthur and Nimitz and the president about how to put all the pieces on the chessboard? What was both the research as well as synthesis process for you in this comprehensive history?

Ian Toll: My process, from when I first began doing this about 25 years ago, is to read everything. Now, with the Pacific War, you can’t literally read everything. The first book I wrote, Six Frigates, about the founding of the US Navy, I felt at times I was touching almost everything that had been written. That will never be the case with a war this big.

But to read very, very widely — histories, the original documents, the planning documents, the action reports, the memoirs, the letters, the letters of the military commanders and the lowest ranking soldier and sailor who experienced these events. Casting a wide net and spending years. before sitting down to write, going out and gathering up an enormous amount of material, and looking at the subject from every different angle.

Then there’s a middle step, which is important and often neglected by a lot of historians, which is to take all of that material and file it in a way that when you come back to the part of the narratives that you’re writing, you can immediately put your hands on that source to work it in. It is an information management issue, which requires a lot of thinking about how to do the research initially and how to organize it so you can then use it in the writing.

Eventually, it just becomes many thousands of documents organized in a certain way, a narrative that is going to unfold. The narrative is iterative in the sense that I may go down a blind alley and decide I need to throw that out. I throw hundreds of pages out. I’m doing it again with the book I’m writing now. To try to give the reader a sense that you’re shifting between different perspectives constantly — the perspective of Nimitz and his staff at Pearl Harbor planning an operation, then shifting immediately to the perspective of Marines in the Fifth Regiment who are landing on a beach and then carrying out the operation that you were just seeing how this was planned, then shifting to the Japanese perspective and shifting back to the US home front.

It’s a constantly shifting narrative, in which you’re looking at the same subjects from a different point of view, but then integrated into a narrative that unspools a little bit the way a novel would.

Chris Miller: How did you learn to do that, shifting perspective so smoothly? Because it’s easy to say, “Oh, shift from Nimitz’s room where he’s looking at the map, then shift to Iwo Jima.” But you do that in a way that few narrative histories do. Jordan and I both agreed that we’ve never read a 2,000-page history and wanted another page until we read yours. How do you learn that scene shifting? What were you looking at as examples? What were you reading that gave you a model for this type of vast, sweeping narrative history?

Jordan Schneider: To give a sense of what Ian does — one of my favorite scenes was Hirohito’s surrender speech, which covers 30 pages. First, there was a debate over whether or not to surrender in the first place. Then 10 pages of incredible palace drama — is there going to be a coup? Then, there was a coup, and it failed. Then the scene moves to NHK, and the phonograph is being placed, and the guy bows at the emperor’s photograph. Then you have these scenes all across Imperial Japan of different people responding to hearing the emperor’s voice in different ways.

The speech was in archaic Japanese, so people didn’t even know what it was saying. Some people decided, “Okay, if we’re going to surrender, then that means I need to do my final Kamikaze run.” Other people were saying, “Oh my God, thank God.”

It sounds overwhelming and kaleidoscopic, but it is actually one of the most incredible pieces of literature that I have consumed. Where does that all come from? How do you develop this skill?

Ian Toll: Well, I really appreciate the praise. It’s praise that keeps me going because this is hard work. I’ve been doing this full-time since 2002. That’s when I signed my first book contract. That’s 23 years, and I have four books to show for it. Part of the answer is that I take a lot of time. I throw a lot of work out. Probably a lot of that work is good, but it doesn’t work within the narrative pacing that I was going for. It’s a lot of following instinct.

I said in an author’s note that there’s room for innovation in this genre of historical narrative. It’s been a genre that has been trapped within certain ideas about narrative conventions — the idea that if you use the storytelling techniques of a novel or even a film, you might be compromising the scholarly purpose of the work. I don’t believe that’s true.

You can borrow from the techniques of novels or even films, in a way that may illuminate certain issues that you’re writing about, that may bring the reader closer to the way it felt for the participants to be there. I use research that I’ve accumulated over many years and have cast a very wide net to try to find material that hasn’t received as much attention as it should have in previous works.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about that filmic quality.. There are these moments of terrific awe-inspiring beauty that you point to — these ships blowing up and these massive artillery barrages, the sunrise over Mount Fuji that the admirals see as they’re pulling into the harbor, about to accept the surrender of the Japanese and the way that they see that as this flag that they’ve been fighting against and finding on people’s corpses for the past six years.

Your book made me watch some more World War II Pacific movies, and I was disappointed, honestly, with what I saw relative to the incredible Technicolor visions that you and your narrative painted in my head. How did you develop that sensibility and when did it become clear to you that you needed to make sure that your readers have some of the images that were in these soldiers’ heads in ours as well?

Ian Toll: As I’m coming through these sources, I often zero in on these images, descriptions of images. One of the things you’ll find if you start reading Pacific War narratives again and again is that you will have an American from Illinois who had never traveled beyond a few miles where he was born, seeing these extraordinary things in the Pacific, this exotic, remote part of the world.

Often they’d describe the sunsets, and you’d get a sense that they are having a sublime, ineffable experience seeing these things. That grabs my attention when I see it. Then I want the reader to see that image, but then also get a sense of how that felt for people who had not traveled widely before being thrown into this extraordinary war.

On that subject, there’s a whole genre of wartime art. You have talented watercolorists working on a destroyer who took a sketchbook along and brought back images, which are particularly important because you weren’t permitted to take a camera with you in the Pacific War. You had to have special authorization to have a camera. The art sometimes is useful to see the war through the eyes of the people who were there.

Those aspects of the Pacific War narratives always jumped off the page for me. Then I tried to in turn weave them into the narratives.

Jordan Schneider: There’s beauty and there’s also horror. You spend a lot of time describing deaths. Even when people aren’t literally dying, the smell of some of these battlefields and the smell of the corpses is another thing that’s going to live with me for a while. That contrast struck me — these incredible sunsets and these spectacular displays of mechanical might and fleets that are extending farther than the eye can see. Then every once in a while, they blow up and people die horrific deaths because of what all these machines can do. How did you try to do justice to that as well?

Ian Toll: In the case of the Pacific War or any other war, really any other aspect of World War II, there’s plenty of carnage in the historical record. These things happened. The challenge becomes describing those in a way that gives the reader a sense of what it was like to be there. You’re right about the smell — that’s another thing that just jumps off the page. If someone describes a smell, whether it’s the awful smells that you get on a battlefield or even the smell of flowers on a beach, those tend to leap out at me, and then I try to find a way to work those in.

We have five senses. If you can get three out of four of the physical senses into a description of a battle scene, you’re able to reach the reader through more than one route. Those images, those impressions, tend to build on themselves. If you can get many of them into a narrative — not doing what a novelist does where you make it up, you need to pull these details from first-hand accounts that are reliable — but if you get many of them, that tends to build to where the reader gets a sense of what it was like to be there.

Jordan Schneider: This is my big note for the Chip Wars revised edition. Chris, we need more smell in it.

Chris Miller: You know, the place that really stood out for me in the book was on Iwo Jima, which everyone knows is this absolute bloodbath. But the discussion of the sulfuric volcanic ash all around in these subterranean caves — you got smells and also tastes, talking about the water being sulfuric in its taste. It felt like I was walking into Mordor, but it wasn’t made up in Tolkien’s mind. It was a hellhole on Earth.

Jordan Schneider: The smell and the taste that’s going to live with me forever is the Enola Gay dropping the bomb and the pilots tasting metal because of the radiation. They hadn’t looked back, but they knew that the bomb had gone off because they felt it in their molars. What more can you ask for from a historian?

Ian Toll: That detail really grabbed my attention too. That’s in one of the pilot accounts, I believe. You had this electric taste in your mouth from the explosion, from the bomb. They noticed that at the Trinity test, the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico, as well.

Chris Miller: You have these juxtapositions of extraordinary heroism and extraordinary barbarism on both sides. A lot of military histories tend in one direction or the other and don’t balance out both. You show them both being constantly present in different ways, competing impulses. Can you walk us through the ethics of what you’re recounting and how you, as a historian, try to properly balance these two competing impulses?

Ian Toll: You mean the impulses to acknowledge the humanity and suffering of the enemy — it’s part of what makes good war histories memorable, is that you have a situation in which it’s impossible for people on the battlefield not to feel a sense of hatred toward the enemy. This is murder on a mass organized scale. Then you have a war like the Pacific War, where, in some ways, that hatred reached a pitch that we haven’t seen, at least in any other American war — this dehumanization and hatred that was felt. Much of it was justified, honestly.

To evoke that for the reader, that sense of hatred, that sense that many Americans had that the Japanese were somehow less than fully human and that this justified wiping out their cities — to feel that in a visceral way for the reader because of the way you’ve shown how the war was experienced by the Americans who experienced it, by the POWs, by the civilians who were caught in the war zone in the way of rampaging Japanese armies. But then at the same time to acknowledge, to fully understand the humanity of the Japanese and the suffering of the Japanese.

It comes down to weaving these different perspectives together into one integrated narrative. Many others have done it well — such as John Toland’s book, The Rising Sun, which I recommend. He was one of the first to write the history of that war from the Japanese perspective in a way that was broadly sympathetic to the Japanese people and their suffering, while acknowledging that the Japanese militarists had tyrannized and abused that country and eventually brought on the immense suffering of 1944 and 1945.

The Kamikaze — A Problem of Scale

Jordan Schneider: The kamikaze dynamics that we get into in 1944 and 1945 are some of the most artful sections. The training system for Japanese airmen was incredibly selective, where a thousand people joined and only a hundred made it out the other side.

That led to this very elite core of fighter pilots, but ultimately, they were short of decent pilots such that pilots were so useless by 1942 and 1943 that the most efficient tactical maneuver to spend the least steel to deal the most damage on American ships was to use pilots as the 1940s version of guided homing missiles. It’s much easier to teach someone to fly into a plane than it is to dogfight with a Zero.

On one hand, it makes sense. On the other hand, you’re sending people to their deaths. On a lot of these missions, which aren’t literally suicide missions, you have Americans who are at some level doing the same thing, with flights that go off carriers where 12 planes go out and one or two make it back. But there is something that is particularly resonant and horrific about Kamikaze flights. My guess is, 500 years from now, if people are talking about anything when it comes to the Pacific War, the Kamikaze flights are going to be one of the three lines that people still remember.

How did you approach that? What are the different aspects of the story that you wanted to hit as you were describing the different parts of the Kamikaze story?

Ian Toll: The Japanese had trained what may have been pound for pound the best cadre of carrier pilots in the world at the beginning of the war. They were superb. There had been a national selection process, extremely difficult — tougher than getting into Stanford today — for getting accepted to naval pilot training in 1939-1940. Then they went through this extremely rigorous pilot training process that built these superb pilots. But they never thought seriously in Japan about the problem of expanding that training pipeline to produce many more pilots in order to fight a war on the scale of the Pacific War.

When their first team of pilots was killed off in 1942-43, with few left by 1944, they did not have a next generation of pilots to come in and carry on the fight. The decision to deploy Kamikazes on a mass scale was tactically correct in a sense. If you have pilots who you cannot afford to train — you don’t have the time, the fuel, the resources to train pilots to effectively attack ships using conventional dive bombing attacks, conventional aerial torpedo attacks, the kinds of attacks that the Japanese had used effectively in the early part of the war — then maybe what you do is train the pilot to fly a plane with a bomb attached to it into a ship like a guided missile. Maybe that’s simply the best tactical use of the resource that you have.

That is ultimately what persuaded the Japanese to go ahead and deploy Kamikazes on basically their entire air war — their entire air war was a Kamikaze war in the last year of the war. Then you have, on top of that, this question of the morality of sending 20-, 21-, 22-year-old men to their certain deaths in this situation.

The part of the story that has been neglected and forgotten in the West is that this was immensely controversial, even in Japan. The Kamikazes came to be revered. But at the outset, even within the military, within the Navy — the Navy was mainly the Kamikaze service that launched the Kamikazes — there was immense opposition to this within the ranks of the Japanese Navy. It took time for this to be accepted, but this was the way they were going to fight this war.

Trying to understand what it was like to be a Kamikaze pilot, to draw upon these letters and diaries that have been published, many of them in English, but then also what it did to the crew of a US ship to know that they were under this kind of attack. The unique sense of horror that they felt operating off of Okinawa in particular — the height of the Kamikaze campaign — where 34 ships were sunk, and many more were badly damaged with US Navy casualties running well into the thousands. Certainly, more Navy personnel were killed than Army or Marines at the Battle of Okinawa, as bad as the ground fighting was. That unique sense of horror and loathing that they felt as these planes came in making beelines, flying suicide runs, and doing terrible damage.

Chris Miller: I was struck by the other facet of how the Kamikazes emerged. There’s the logic of how you most efficiently use your limited number of airplanes and pilots to sink ships. But it also seemed like the Japanese army and all of its island defenses were pursuing a Kamikaze strategy. In all these island campaigns, 90% plus of the Japanese garrisons were killed. They would start the battle knowing they would lose, but trying to exact as much punishment as they could, which at a strategic level is rational, but tactically a brutal way to fight a campaign.

I found myself wondering, did the Japanese army have its own version of the Kamikaze mentality? Was the entire war effort on Japan’s side suicidal after 1942? It was obvious to everyone that the production differences were large enough that Japan would definitely lose. Is there something to that analysis?

Ian Toll: Absolutely. You could say that Kamikazes are a metaphor for the entire project of Imperial Japan, particularly after Midway and Guadalcanal when we reached the second half of the Pacific War, when it was clear that Japan was going to lose the war. Whatever that meant — losing could be many different versions of losing the war. But historians have traced a cultural change that occurred in the Japanese military after the Russo-Japanese War and then after the First World War, in which the Japanese Army leadership convinced itself, “We have got to do something about this problem of our soldiers surrendering. That’s not acceptable.”

They actually altered the military manuals and the standing orders to say, “You shall not surrender in any circumstance. There will never be any surrender in the Japanese Army.” That was a very fateful decision because once you’ve put your soldiers in that situation, which they know they’re not going to survive, that they’re going to fight to the last man, that alters the psychology on the battlefield and leads inevitably to a much more brutal environment.

On one island after another, starting most famously on the Aleutian island of Attu in the spring of 1943, you had entire Japanese garrisons fighting and dying to the last man. This being celebrated in Japan by a press that was being very closely guided and censored by the regime, building in Japan a sense that this is an extraordinary act of bravery, of commitment, of fanaticism that the allies, the Americans, would never be able to match.

This was going to be the secret weapon for the Japanese, showing that they were willing to make much greater sacrifices than their enemies were.

As the war went on and US forces drew closer to Japan, the story changed to, “This is how we’re going to protect the homeland. We’re going to show the Americans that the cost of invading our homeland, of trying to occupy our homeland, is so great that they won't want to pay it.” It became a question of whether they could force the Americans to the negotiating table to resolve this conflict in a way in which Japan would have to acknowledge its defeat. That would mean giving up some portion of its overseas empire, but preserving its emperor system and keeping American and allied troops out of Japanese territory. That became a driving obsession of the Japanese leadership in the last year and a half of the war.

These fanatical demonstrations, fighting to the last man on one island after another, the Kamikazes, all became a kind of theater. A way of showing the Americans, “This is what you’re dealing with. We’re different from other people. We’re willing to die — the whole country will die to the last man, woman, and child if necessary.” Wouldn’t it be better to sit down and negotiate some solution to this war, which leaves us with some vestige of the Imperial project intact?

Inside Japan’s Imperial Project

Jordan Schneider: There’s of course the irony that by the time the Americans land, MacArthur says, “Actually, when we got here, we were taking a big bet that they wouldn’t want to fight anymore.” Somehow, someone snapped a finger and the rebellion turned off, or we would be in trouble. We didn’t have enough troops to do this. But the fact was, once the war was done, the war was done. The only people still fighting were five guys in the hills of the Philippines who just didn’t get the message or something.

Another contrast is why Nazi Germany took it to the end and why the Japanese took it to the end. With Nazi Germany, it was one guy and all the generals. Definitely by late 1944, you had a whole plot. Everyone saw the writing on the wall, and there was a wide consensus — enough to have a whole conspiracy. You had these back-channel feelers to the English. But because of the lack of a focal point and because you had a consensus, even though you had dissenting voices, they weren’t able to mobilize even as much as the Operation Valkyrie folks were.

You have this thesis in Japan of, “If we just show them how crazy we are, then they’ll come to the negotiating table.” But they never really tried to do the negotiating in the first place, aside from this conversation with the Soviets, which anyone really could have seen wasn’t actually going anywhere.

Let’s talk about elite Japanese politics as well, starting in the second half of the war. Even though everyone was doing these suicide missions, even though everyone knew they were on this national suicide mission by 1943, a few million more people had to die before we got to the inevitable conclusion. Why is that?

Ian Toll: To understand what was happening in Japan’s ruling circle in the last year of the war, it’s necessary to go back to the beginning of the 1930s and understand how Japan descended into militarist tyranny. The story is one of extraordinary turmoil, chaos, revolutionary energy, assassinations, uprisings, and almost a complete breakdown of discipline within the ranks of the army, but also the Navy.

Again and again, hot-headed extremist officers and factions of younger mid-ranking officers threatened the Japanese leadership at gunpoint, forcing a much more right-wing, fanatical, imperialist, and aggressive foreign and domestic policy. Increasingly, the generals and admirals were running every aspect of military, foreign, and domestic affairs. The army took over the Japanese education system in the 1930s.

What happened with the China incident — the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 — and then the attack on Pearl Harbor and the war with Great Britain and the US beginning in 1941, was that these large foreign wars tended to heal, or at least stabilize, this domestic turmoil within Japan.

The leadership saw war as a way to maintain a fragile peace and stability within a society that was in many ways very revolutionary.

As you approach the end of the Pacific War, the problem isn’t whether to surrender or not. The problem is that whatever Japan did as a country — if they surrendered, if they initiated negotiations, if they tried to use diplomacy to get out of this war — there was the threat of a resumption of these assassinations, a civil war. You could have a civil war between different elements within the Army. You could have fighting between the Army and the Navy. This was seen in Japan as a real danger.

To complicate the picture even more, in the US we had a window — imperfect, but we had a window — into what was happening within the ruling circle in Japan because we were reading their diplomatic mail. We had broken their codes, communications between the foreign ministry in Tokyo and Japanese embassies throughout the world. We were intercepting those messages, decoding them, and reading them.

We were aware that the Japanese, by the spring of 1945, had seen their last hope as bringing Stalin and the Soviet government in to mediate between the US and Great Britain. The Japanese had a historical precedent for this. The end of the Russo-Japanese War ended with a negotiated peace between Russia and Japan, which had been mediated by the US. Theodore Roosevelt won a Nobel Prize for Peace for that mediation.

They were trying to replicate what they had seen as the acceptable end to the Russo-Japanese War — a negotiated settlement which allowed them to maintain and build their empire. Here, they would like to try to negotiate a truce. They were deeply divided within the ruling circle over what such a negotiated arrangement might look like. But the point often forgotten in the West is that it wasn’t just a division — it was a fear of a descent into complete chaos and civil war, which would make it impossible for the Japanese government to do anything in an organized way.

Our leaders understood enough of that dynamic that we saw the necessity of strengthening the peace faction within the ruling circle, and neutralizing the Army in particular, which wanted to fight on. The atomic bomb became a means to that end.

Chris Miller: But the violence of Japanese politics in the ’20s and ’30s ends up seeming like a really important driver of the violence of Japan’s war effort and even the suicide dynamics that we just discussed. You get some of that in Japanese army politics in the ’20s and ’30s as well. It’s almost as if the Japanese army took over the entire country not just in terms of running the schools, but in terms of running the culture to a substantial degree.

Jordan Schneider: Yamamoto famously was doing his best to talk everyone out of bombing Pearl Harbor. But then at a certain point, he says, “All right, you guys are dumb enough to do it. Might as well do the dumb thing the smart way.”

The thing that strikes me about the tension of this narrative history is that once you get to Pearl Harbor and the American political reaction to it, that is your turning point — America’s decision to fight this war in the first place. Regardless of whether Midway had gone this or that way, if the Marines had gotten kicked off of Guadalcanal, you have such an enormous material imbalance between the Americans and the Japanese.

If, because of Japanese politics, you’re taking off the table Japan ever wanting to cash in their chips and negotiate, then it seems like a US victory was inevitable. What do you think about that inevitability question? If it’s all inevitable, aside from the human drama of the smells and the visuals, what is the point of spending so much time and energy studying the Pacific War?

Ian Toll: It’s an issue that will never be resolved. It’s the question of whether we want to take a determinist approach to understanding WWII. I probably lean a bit more toward the determinist way of thinking about it.

Winston Churchill, in his post-war memoir of WWII, had a famous passage in which, as soon as he had heard the news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he said, “So we had won after all.” Meaning that this entire conflict, including the conflict with Nazi Germany, was now going to be settled. It was just a question of the proper application of military power. Now, that was written many years later. I think it was deliberately provocative in that mischievous, Churchillian way. But I do think it is true that before the attack on Pearl Harbor, you had a deeply divided political situation in Washington in which the isolationist movement was perhaps gaining strength in the fall of 1941.

This is a movement that had strength in both the Democratic and Republican parties. It had strength in every region. It was a formidable force in our politics, a sense of real moral fervor around the idea that we were not going to be dragged into a global war. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, that movement collapsed overnight. When I say overnight, I mean literally overnight. FDR asked for a declaration of war against Japan the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It passed both houses of Congress. I think there was one dissenting vote in the house. There was a unanimous vote in the Senate.

It does not go too far to say that this one decision the Japanese made to attack and launch a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor completely altered the domestic politics around going to war against Japan. Three days later, Hitler made the curious decision to declare war on the United States when we hadn’t declared war on him.

Then it was a global war, and the largest economy in the world — the economy with the greatest latent military power — was a combatant.

Not only were we combatant, but we had the broad public political consensus that we needed to quickly mobilize our economies for war, which we did. I think that was the turning point. It was the attack on Pearl Harbor and the reaction — the political reaction within the US — that really made it inevitable that not just Japan, but Nazi Germany would be finished within three to four years.

The one other major contingency is that the Soviets were able to stop the German attack on the Eastern Front and stabilize that war and survive long enough so that Allied supplies could get in, allowing them to turn the tide. If there had been some surrender on the Eastern Front, that could have taken the entire war, including the Pacific War, in a different direction.

“What Becomes of a General?”

Jordan Schneider: Let's talk about the generals and admirals, starting with Chester Nimitz…

Paid subscribers get early access to the rest of the conversation, where we discuss…

• The various command styles that shaped US military strategy in the Pacific,

• How General MacArthur and Admiral Halsey became media darlings —controlling public opinion and war politics in the process,

• The evolution of submarine warfare and Japanese defensive strategy,

• Counterfactuals, including a world where the Allies invaded Taiwan,

• Broader lessons for the future of warfare, especially in the Taiwan Strait.

Read more

The Schneider clan will be heading to the Bay Area from September 9 through the rest of the month. If you're interested in meeting up or doing a house swap with a two-bedroom in Manhattan, or just happen to have an empty apartment that can fit a few adults and a very cute baby, please do reach out to jordan@chinatalk.media.

Dan Wang at long last makes his solo ChinaTalk debut! We’re here to discuss and celebrate his first book, Breakneck.

We get into…

• Engineering states vs lawyerly societies,

• The competing legacies of the 1980s in China, One Child Policy and Tiananmen vs intellectual debate, cultural vibrancy, and rock and roll,

• Methods of knowing China, from the People’s Daily and Seeking Truth to on-the-ground research,

• How to compare the values of China’s convenient yet repressive society with the chaotic pluralism of the USA,

• What Li Qiang’s career post-Shanghai lockdowns can tell us about the value of loyalty vs competence in Xi’s China.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

From One-Child to Zero-COVID

Jordan Schneider: So Dan, you chose Robert Alter’s Hebrew Bible translation to sit next to your book. What can the Bible tell us about modern China?

Dan Wang: Something I wonder about is thinking less about the Old Testament, but more about the New Testament and the Catholic Church in particular. The Catholic Church and the Communist Party are very similar organizations, and it might be the case that the CCP and the Catholic Church will be enduring institutions that we’ll still find around 100 years from now — maybe even 500 years from now.

It’s no accident that the CCP resembles the Catholic Church, partly because, according to Kerry Brown, the Communist Party has spent an immense amount of effort trying to understand the Catholic Church. The Communist Party isn’t simply copying the Catholic Church, though. I understand the Communist Party to be a cross between the Catholic Church and the Sicilian Mafia, with this incredible sense of omertà and a very strong understanding that you can’t only be thugs. One has to build a church; one has to have an ideology. What we have is a very powerful Catholic Church in China that also has the omertà — that also has the gangsterism.

Jordan Schneider: One of the things I most admire about this book is how it looks forward multiple decades in a way that doesn’t bore me — unlike when someone like Peter Zeihan does it, talking about demographic destiny or geography. The way you incorporate different data points and pieces of context that you’ve absorbed over your years on this planet gives it weight that I take very seriously.

However, my critique is that you may have over-indexed on Xi and the Xi era, which at some point is going to end. Many of the forward-looking projections you have on the Chinese side are premised on whatever comes after Xi looking like what Xi was. Dan, how do you think about that issue?

Dan Wang: It’s interesting that you start by saying I may be over-indexed on Xi, because one strain of criticism I’ve seen is that maybe I’m under-indexed on Xi. In my central thesis of the engineering state, one can question whether Xi is really an engineer. On one hand, he is because he has a degree in chemical engineering from Tsinghua, but he also has a doctorate in Marxist economics, also from Tsinghua. There’s been debate about whether Xi is an engineer in the hydraulic mold set by Hu Jintao.

It’s very valid to consider that the China of the future will not look like the China of the present. In fact, we can guarantee it. But I have no confidence about what China of the future will look like in a post-Xi world. It could be that Xi Jinping represents someone like Chun Doo-hwan, South Korea’s dictator who intensified Park Chung-hee’s rule and triggered disaster as a result. Maybe someone who comes after Xi is an intensification of Xi in all aspects. Maybe it’s someone who looks quite different.

Given that we have to draw lines forward to some extent from what we have right now, I’m reluctant to assign a big rupture in China’s political traditions based on the idea that whoever replaces Xi might not end up looking like him.

Jordan Schneider: The story you focus on from the late 70s and 80s — which was a time in CCP history when you see more vibrancy, more lawyerly energy coming into the party — you focused on the most horrific, repressive arc of that period, which was the one-child policy and all the state invasion and suppression required to execute it.

But there are other stories you can tell about the late 70s and 80s that speak to many of the challenges you see in China today and project into China’s future. There’s the idea of a society that can create interesting cultural goods, party leadership that distrusts the people, bottom-up political innovation, economic innovation beyond what the state controls — and the state being more understanding of that than maybe it is today. How do you read that history beyond the universe that the one-child policy created?

Dan Wang: The 1980s were certainly China’s most interesting decade, and maybe it’s understudied and under-theorized. As you note, I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the one-child policy, and I didn’t quite grasp how brutal its enforcement was, partly because it was a while ago. The peak enforcement happened in the early 80s and then another wave in the late 90s, before both of our lifetimes. Much of the one-child policy enforcement focused mostly in rural areas, and we don’t have as many rural perspectives relative to elite urban perspectives.

That was one of the big stories of the 1980s. But you’re right — there were many other big stories. The 1980s is cited by many people, especially of my parents’ generation, as a decade when every question could have been asked inside Chinese society, inside the Communist Party. This was the decade of rock and roll. This was the decade when people really believed that China would have some degree of political liberalization.

Those questions kept persisting and might even have had a resolution different from how we know it resolved in June 1989, when the forces of liberalism were comprehensively crushed and the party took a pretty different direction. We could draw a different line from the 1980s, and maybe we should. But given that it ended with a really dramatic act of political repression and given that the conservative reformers — perhaps represented by Deng Xiaoping as well as Li Peng — had the upper hand, maybe the story is still more about politics than creativity.

Jordan Schneider: You have these two lines that capture the inverse of what the 1980s felt like. Someone you met in Chiang Mai who left China told you that contemporary China “feels like a space in which the ceiling keeps getting lower… To stay means that we have to walk around with our heads lowered and our backs hunched.” You also write that, “After six years in China, I missed pluralism. It’s wonderful for me to be in America now, in a society made up of many voices, not only an official register meant to speak over all the rest.”

The flip side of those two lines captures some spirit of what the 80s were like. I buy your argument that one side has won. They’ve been winning for the past 40-plus years. But even with the White Paper movement, there are still undercurrents that seem impossible to disappear.

Dan Wang: Absolutely. The currents are always out there. This is part of what makes people like Ian Johnson’s work really interesting. When he documents something like Mao’s quote that “a single spark can start a prairie fire (星星之火，可以燎原),” he’s absolutely right. It has become really difficult to comprehensively and decisively eliminate the forces of creativity — that desire for a different future. That’s always there and always worth supporting.

Jordan Schneider: As an aside, I went into this book thinking you wouldn’t tell me many new things — that I would get your takes, but not much fresh information. The one-child policy in particular was the section that I hadn’t fully internalized. The magnitude and personal horror attached to what that meant for tens of millions of people was striking. This goes to show why everyone should read the book and not just listen to all the podcasts Dan’s going to be on over the next few weeks.

It’s a book written for a mass-market audience, but it’s also something that every single listener of ChinaTalk will derive something new, unique, and insightful from — whether it’s from your historical work, the memoir sections, the travelogues, or the big thoughts.

It’s a remarkable achievement, and I want to congratulate you on it.

Dan Wang: Thank you, Jordan. I’ve used different registers, and you picked up on exactly that. My favorite chapter to write was unexpectedly the one-child policy, because I didn’t really expect that the emotional arc of the one-child policy still produces so much anger in people. Many normally temperate people in China would be driven to a froth of rage when they remember that era. We all know a lot about Zero COVID, which is also one of the social engineering projects I write about. But the one-child policy is understudied and perhaps under-theorized.

Jordan Schneider: This is striking because we have many folks from the mainland who moved here, and there are many Chinese Americans too. Chinese Americans have siblings, but mainlanders who’ve moved here over the past 30 years basically don’t. It’s wild to have an entire generation — for literally all of human history, you have total fertility rates above 2 — and for it to go below that in such an intrusive and brutal way. Not in a slow fade you’re seeing in South Korea, but something truly heart-wrenching.

Dan Wang: I had a really interesting conversation with someone who read that chapter recently — someone who was adopted himself in the US Pacific Northwest. We’re of similar ages. One of the things he told me when he read my chapter was that when he was growing up in the late 80s and early 90s, he would sometimes go to gatherings with other adopted children. A majority of the adopted children you could find in the US Pacific Northwest were Chinese girls. This is another one of those things that unless you have some experience here, is much less vivid than you might imagine.

Jordan Schneider: It’s the ghosts of all these lives that weren’t lived. What was it, something like 40 million?

Dan Wang: That’s the best estimate right now. We still don’t have a really comprehensive consensus on exactly how many lives the one-child policy cost, partly because the data is sketchy and it’s difficult to draw these hypotheticals. According to the Communist Party, state propaganda claims that the one-child policy averted something like 400 million births. That seems to be subject to strange extrapolation that not all demographers accept.

Some demographers say that the one-child policy was pure brutality without substantially affecting the birth rate in China. Even on this crucial period — and I acknowledge this in my book — it has become difficult to figure out exactly how many births the one-child policy era averted. But based on some of the more accepted scholarly estimates, there are 40 million Chinese girls. The femicide produced by the one-child policy was very intense, with families forced to keep boys and forced to discard their infant girls.

Jordan Schneider: I don’t know if I have a transition for that. It makes me think of the Bible. I have a new one-year-old, which you were just holding for a while, and reading that chapter in the context of now being a parent hit differently. You tell these truly horrific stories — you only give two paragraphs about some bureaucrat who was the “worst performing” when it came to births and decided “we’re not having births for a month.” There were abortions on the delivery table.

It felt cliché where everyone says, “Oh, the way you read the news and see the world is going to change when you have a child.” That chapter was maybe one of the first times where I experienced a piece of history or literature that sat with me in a different way. I don’t know if I want to thank you for that?

Dan Wang: Well, I thank you, Jordan, for letting me hold this extremely cute one-year-old. Part of what made this chapter difficult to write was that my wife suffered a miscarriage, coincidentally, just as I was writing this chapter. To think that it was a matter of state policy to have conducted over 300 million abortions — which is the official statistic from the National Health Commission — as well as many forced sterilizations, the brutality meted out against overwhelmingly female bodies. That was a challenge to think about, to try to place myself back in the 80s.

Methods of Knowing China

Jordan Schneider: …And we’re going to hard pivot. Methods of knowing. You’ve worked at a similar job that I had, covering Chinese policy at a very close, full-time clip. You’ve traveled around, you’ve read extensively, you slowed down and hung out in Michigan, looked at a pretty view, and wrote a book. You explore different levels in this book as well. I guess the answer is all of the above, right? Because it’s your revealed preference. But what are the limits of those different methods of exploring the world that you’ve used that ended up creating this book?

Dan Wang: There’s never enough information and sourcing about anything to satisfy even the most niche-specific question. This is something you know as an analyst or researcher. No matter how narrowly you try to define your research task, you’ll find that the literature is endless. Many people have covered this, and yet what they have is also totally incomplete.

I didn’t try to be overly formalist in my study of China. One could spend a lot of time thinking about everything Xi Jinping said. One could simply travel around the country and talk to people and experience how life differs between, say, Shenzhen and Guizhou. One could hang out mostly in Shanghai and try to be an analyst, figure out data, and talk to business executives.

I decided that I was going to do all of the above. I was going to read every speech published in Seeking Truth 求是, the party’s main theory magazine. I was going to read some of the necessary documents, but I wasn’t going to read every issue of People’s Daily. That would be madness. Thank you to the people who do this work — you’re doing God’s work. Not really for me, but I’m glad there are people synthesizing all of this excellent work.

I decided that I had to spend considerable time traveling around the country to physically see some of the ways Guizhou is improving through the build-out of better airports, better train stations, and bigger bridges. I decided that I had to spend time talking to folks in Beijing and Shanghai — the capital for politics, the business center for how executives think about the world. I did my best to try to be synthetic and not let any single perspective override the others, but to be as synthetic and comprehensive as possible, to produce whatever mix it ends up being.

Jordan Schneider: Not to praise you too much, but many people can choose to spend their time spreading their bets across different modalities of knowledge. Your ability to abstract away to get to the aphorisms and provocations while also being able to go levels down and levels up is what makes you a unique mind. But I’m going to stop giving you compliments.

Dan Wang: This is your show — you can give me all the compliments you want. The most important thing is to tread softly and lightly. Sometimes you need to dip deeper into a particular pond, but otherwise, maybe you should just be out there figuring out new ways to explore different areas.

Jordan Schneider: Maybe this is just me talking about myself, but going deeper and narrower seems easier to be useful and interesting, versus trying to do the big synthetic thing you did with this book, which is a higher degree of difficulty.

Over the long scope of ChinaTalk, I’m trying to think over a multi-decade horizon. But you’ve shown me what it actually means to do that in this book. You showed me a different way of going even further out, to levels of abstraction in a way that’s still interesting. Maybe the biggest provocation I’ll take from this is to try to think more at that level.

Dan Wang: Shucks, this is too many compliments, Jordan.

Do Books Matter?

Jordan Schneider: All right, let’s get some critiques. Your grandfather was in the PLA during the China-Vietnam War, and he was a propaganda officer. His job was dropping leaflets on Vietnamese troops urging them to resist. That, in retrospect, sounded laughable because these guys had just fought foreign colonialists for 30 years. What was a leaflet written in shitty Vietnamese going to do to them? But you think books matter?

Dan Wang: Books do matter. Maybe books matter a little less than they used to, but even if books are declining in importance, authors are gaining in importance. Especially if we are in the age of AI, as we seem to be, authors are gaining in importance. Maybe some people are just going to be Viet Cong troops trying to resist whatever big idea is going to threaten to enter their field of vision. But it’s still important for us to try to create knowledge.

This is something I admire you for, Jordan — maintaining ChinaTalk after a rebrand, having done this for so long. You were one of the first China podcasts, right? To have persisted in this format that was novel is admirable as well. That’s something we should applaud you for. If leaflets aren’t very good, well, maybe podcasts are the answer. Thank you for taking us there.

Jordan Schneider: Speaking of podcasts, you recently did a show with Stephen Kotkin — two hours, excellent, everyone should take a listen. He spoke in a misty-eyed way at some point about the dream of authors — you write a book, it’s read one year from now, read 10 years from now, maybe even, God willing, read 50 years from now.

I found it ironic that you both brought up The Power Broker with him and had this whole nice riff in your book about The Power Broker having soured the minds of a generation of Democratic politicians. Square the circle for me, Dan.

Dan Wang: Such is the power of books. No one would describe The Power Broker as a mere leaflet, which is what I’ve written with Breakneck. But The Power Broker has certainly had tremendous influence. It’s one of several books that we can pinpoint as having created the lawyerly society. Robert Caro’s monumental work is subtitled Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.

Aside from The Power Broker, we can probably name Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which is about pesticide use in the United States. There’s also Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Maybe we can toss in The Population Bomb by the Ehrlichs as well. These four works were very important in confronting the mistakes of the American engineering society throughout the 1950s — which sprayed too many pesticides, which rammed highways across too many urban neighborhoods, which had exhausted itself with these gigantic land wars in Asia. They presented a very useful corrective.

If we doubt the power of books, let’s look at The Power Broker, which just celebrated its 50th anniversary. Now, I certainly don’t have aspirations that Breakneck would be read 50 years from now. I don’t have many aspirations that it will be read one year from now. But having just a little bit more to work with to think about — it’s always going to be important to have a sense of mutual curiosity between the US and China. Even if we can get people interested for just one year, that’s very well worth doing.

Pluralism in China and America

Jordan Schneider: You brought us to America. I want to come back to this idea of pluralism that you brought up. I was having a conversation at some very fancy China meetup — is there any other kind? — which was mostly white people. One of these white people had lived in Shanghai for a very long time, had become very wealthy, was an investor, and a ChinaTalk listener. He asked me, “Jordan, why don’t you live in China?” My response was, “Well, I couldn’t do my show in China.” He said, “But you’d have such a great standard of living. You’d be a great McKinsey consultant.” (He’s wrong — I’d be a terrible McKinsey consultant.) “You could have three nurses and two house cleaners, and if you just didn’t make any trouble, then you could have a really great life there.”

Reflecting on why I left China — the proximate reason was COVID; I was outside when the country closed and couldn’t get back — but the reason why six years, which is how long you made it, probably would have been my shelf life too, is this idea of living in a pluralist society. Having the freedom to say what I want and talk to people openly who have very divergent opinions is just core to what living a good life means to me. What’s my question? Is this enough to win a cold war? Should we go there? Where do you want to go with pluralist society?

Dan Wang: Your attitude towards this former Shanghai resident — I probably have the same attitude. This is insufficient for a flourishing society. But let me acknowledge that certainly for many people, a life in Shanghai or perhaps another first-tier city in China — maybe we can throw in Hong Kong here — is desirable because it is very convenient. This is one of the words that many Chinese bring up — that life is just very fāngbiàn, very convenient, to be in one of these big Asian cities.

There’s no doubt that life is very fāngbiàn in Shanghai or Hong Kong. The subways work very well, there’s excellent public order, there are great ways to try out new bars and new restaurants. One could have a nanny from probably Indonesia or the Philippines if you’re living in a city like Singapore, maybe from inland China, from Anhui, if you’re living in Shanghai. There are many ways in which life in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, or other first-tier Chinese cities is just much more pleasant than in New York, where we’re chatting. Here, the subways are extraordinarily loud, the streets aren’t necessarily very orderly and clean.

We can accept all of these things. But what we also have in New York — and this is part of the reason that I’m drawn back to the US again — are bookstores. At these bookstores, one can find books very critical of the US government, very critical of both the Republicans as well as the Democrats, who have both made incredible errors. For the most part, though there have been some restrictions on protests under Trump’s regime in America right now, there still is broad latitude for people to protest all of his illegal or inhumane actions, and that is still very real. Protest culture online is also very real.

What I’m saying is that I hope we don’t have to choose. The United States should be able to have, at its present levels of tolerance of dissent, as well as very functional cities that have good subways, good bus systems, nice airports, and where people are able to get around and have a rate of improvement that doesn’t come at truly absurd financial costs. New York in particular has a really hard time building anything. I don’t see why we should have to choose between having bookstores and Port Authority bus terminals that are well renovated in less than five years — which is not within the current project as proposed by Governor Hochul right now. We don’t have to choose.

Certainly, I acknowledge that for many Chinese who move back, they really like having the convenience of their food delivered to them. They get to save quite a lot of money because their rent isn’t necessarily very high. Maybe they really don’t care to think much about politics or philosophy or ideals. But there are also plenty of Chinese who do crave these things. These are creative types — journalists, feminists, people who are interested in ideas. They’re really keen to make something of their lives in cities like New York. That’s something we should welcome here in the United States and allow them to pursue the sort of activity that is borderline impossible in China.

Subscribe now

Jordan Schneider: You mentioned convenience. You had a whole chapter about when China was the least convenient place in the world. I love this line:

I often think about the China Daily headline “Shanghai Has No Plans for City Lockdown.” It could be read in two ways. I first understood it as a denial that the city would impose a lockdown. I understand it now as a totally accurate explanation of what happened next: The city had made no plans for confining twenty-five million people to their homes for eight weeks.

Dan Wang: Yes.

Jordan Schneider: Breakneck written in 2019 is a much different book than Breakneck written in 2023, 2024, particularly because since 1989, we really had close to three decades of the state not really imposing on people’s lives — as long as you were Han — in a way that really wrecked what you expected a functioning middle-class, convenient urban life to be.

Dan Wang: That’s one of the scary things about the engineering state: the capability is always there to make a lot of people’s lives go off track in really big ways. Throughout the 1950s, under this earlier, more idealistic era of the pursuit of communism, maybe most of the 1950s was pretty good if you weren’t a landlord, if you weren’t a kulak. But then that terminated with Mao’s great famine, in which these quack agronomy techniques, as well as lies to the central government, terminated in a famine that killed perhaps 30 or 40 million people.

After we felt that Mao was chastened, he again unleashed the forces of total mayhem to plunge the country into the Cultural Revolution. That is perhaps not so much a typical move by engineers. Mao was much more of a poet — he was romantic, he was a warlord. That was his answer to “bombard the headquarters.” The next great trauma that the Communist Party visited was the one-child policy, which was mostly against the rural areas.

You’re right — it was good for about three decades, if you didn’t mind the steadily worsening repression from Xi Jinping, which closed off a lot of avenues for creative expression as well as dissent, both online and offline. Maybe it would have been good if you weren’t a Uyghur in Xinjiang, if you weren’t a Tibetan in Tibet.

Then everybody around the country was plunged into this pandemic control, the apotheosis of which was Shanghai — probably the greatest lockdown ever imposed in the history of humanity, when 25 million people were unable to leave their apartment compounds over the course of eight to 12 weeks in the spring of 2022. The government organized, in the early stages, no adequate food delivery to many families who went hungry so that parents could save food for their children. That was about two weeks of the Shanghai lockdown, in which the food situation was quite severe.

In the midst of all of this, you have four decades of astonishing growth from China, in which the country was growing at a rate of 8 or 9%. That created tremendous wealth, alleviated poverty, and made a lot of Chinese right now feel really good about what the country was able to accomplish. This is where I really want to grapple with both the good aspects as well as the bad aspects of China. Yes, it’s absolutely the case that the wealth creation here was astonishing. That has been much more impressive than what any other developing country was able to achieve — India, Indonesia, Brazil have not had the economic takeoff that China enjoyed that brought so many people out of misery and poverty.

At the same time, we have more novel forms of political repression that humanity has never seen before. Both of these trends are real, and they both have to be acknowledged.

Jordan Schneider: If there’s one thing that’s missing in the book, it’s the Xinjiang chapter. Given that each chapter has some personal connection or observation from you, I get it — maybe you just didn’t spend a lot of time in Xinjiang. The Yunnan arc which you portray is this happy, fun, free place where these minorities are in the mountains so they can get away with not actually doing a lockdown.

The Xinjiang arc has an engineering story there. There’s an engineering of the soul story, which is probably even more dramatic than the digital authoritarianism arc. It’s this idea that you can do to the Uyghurs what you did to all the other minorities — basically wave your hand enough and then they stop being minorities anymore. Do you want to do your analysis of that? Did it get left on the chopping block? How do you think about covering that story?

Dan Wang: You’re absolutely right that I try to cover the stories that I have some personal experience of, something like Zero COVID. You’re right that I’ve never been to Xinjiang. I wish I had the opportunity to go, but it was challenging because foreign nationals — I’m a Canadian citizen — are tracked more intensively. I never quite had the courage to spend time in Xinjiang and see things for myself. I was actively discouraged by some folks in Beijing from even attempting the trip.

I try to write about things that I could talk more knowledgeably about. There was no other reason that I left off Xinjiang. I wrote a little bit about the treatment of Tibetans, mostly going off journal articles that I synthesized into the book. But there were plenty of things left on the chopping block. I could have written more about the Three Gorges Dam, which is the world’s largest power plant and displaced about a million people in China’s southwest. I could have written more about all aspects of social and digital control that people in China have to go through.

But I also wanted to write a relatively short book. My book is under 300 pages, and I wanted to hear that people criticized that I wrote a book that was too short by 100 pages, rather than a book that was too long by 100 or 200 pages. That’s where I chose to land and that was the side I chose to err on. But certainly if I had the ability to do some reporting and if I did take a look at this analysis, I would have written much more about the ethno-religious oppression that took place mostly under Xi.

Jordan Schneider: You did cram in a lot of good writing. Some quotes:

The Chinese government often resembles a crew of skilled firefighters who douse blazes they themselves ignited.

The engineering state can be awfully literal-minded. Sometimes, it feels like China’s leadership is made up entirely of hydraulic engineers, who view the economy and society as liquid flows, as if all human activity — from mass production to reproduction — can be directed, restricted, increased, or blocked with the same ease as turning a series of valves.

What’s the point of good writing? You could have done this faster, presumably, without having nice sentences and extended metaphors.

Dan Wang: I write for one reason, which is pleasure. In my daily life, all of us must attend to our daily pleasures, and that’s going to be very important. I don’t read that much poetry, although I expect that I want to. But I spend a lot of time thinking about the voluptuous beauty of Italian comic opera. I take a lot of inspiration from the cadences and beats of composers like Mozart and Rossini and Bellini and Donizetti and Verdi. There has to be something important about if you’re going to write any sentence at all, why not make it beautiful and readable and full of cadence and full of splendor?

Jordan Schneider: We’re going to do a few more.

“As more Americans retreat into a digital phantasm, Xi will be shepherding Chinese through the physical world to make babies, make steel, and make semiconductors.”

“When Song assured China’s leadership that the population trajectories could be as firmly controlled as missile trajectories, they listened.”

“Skeptics of a one-child policy were making population projections with the aid of an abacus or a handheld calculator. Song Jian presented his group’s projections in precise machine-generated lines on graph paper; other groups drew uneven squiggles by hand. It wasn’t even a fair fight.”

Dan Wang: What does beauty mean to you, Jordan? How do you practice it? How do you try to enact it in your interviews, in your podcasting and your writing?

Jordan Schneider: I don’t know. I feel really sloppy and I guess I’m okay with that. It’s not something I spend a lot of time cultivating. We’re gonna have 200-plus newsletters this year. That means I’m not laboring over every sentence. Every once in a while I do, and then I think, “Oh wait, but if I do this, the output changes and it won’t be as much."

The subtext, the psychological undercurrent of why I do so many shows and write so fast is to quiet my brain. I’m scared of silence and the contemplation that’s necessary to do something this considered. Or maybe there’s just too much ADD to do writing like this. But yeah, I should give it a shot every Thursday — slow down and try to actually write something really worth reading.

Dan Wang: Sometimes it’s really important, Jordan, to have a pause.

Mao 70% Right, Xi 60% Right…

Jordan Schneider: Xi Jinping, 60% right? Derek Thompson says that Trump is a great assignment editor. Is it too early to give him a percentage? Because I do feel like a fair amount of the stuff he’s gesturing towards is adjacent to the critique of this lawyerly society. He’s Nietzschean and beyond law in a certain profound sense, right?

Dan Wang: I call Xi Jinping 60% correct on everything for two reasons. Many of Xi’s motivations for trying to restrain the debt of property developers or to examine some of the anti-competitive behaviors of internet companies in China — these are completely valid and well-reasoned motivations. It’s just that often the solution, Beijing’s solution, is often worse than whatever scary problem China has. I also assign Xi to be 60% correct on everything, partly because Deng Xiaoping assigned Mao Zedong to be 70% correct on everything (三七开定论). Xi would be the last person to put up his hand to say that he’s better than Chairman Mao in anything. So 60% correct for Xi.

Jordan Schneider: Pretty good, but 70% is high for Mao.

Dan Wang: Well, that’s the official verdict of history.

Jordan Schneider: Okay, but what’s your number for Mao?

Dan Wang: Mao was probably 30% correct. That might be the right projection for Trump. It’s too early to say. We need to have Trump move on from this world before his successors can really assess his legacy and maybe give him something like 70% correct in most of the things he did. Perhaps we’ll have that. Who’s going to be the Deng Xiaoping of America, Jordan?

Jordan Schneider: …Amy Klobuchar?

Dan Wang: Maybe… probably not.

Jordan Schneider: I don’t know. Jake Paul? There’s no one man.

I departed the country with a better appreciation of the self-limiting features of the Chinese system. Most notably, the Communist Party distrusts and fears the Chinese people, limiting their potential for flourishing.

If you want to make the inverse of the argument that I made at the very beginning — if we’re presuming a party is still going to be there and we’re presuming that that party has still internalized the lessons of Gorbachev, who probably didn’t fear the Soviet people nearly as much as maybe he should have if he wanted to keep the party — the guarding, literally and figuratively, is a constant you can draw through not just the post-Mao folks, but really everyone. Even the Hu Yaobangs and the Zhao Ziyangs, the most liberal folks we’ve seen, still distrust and fear the people at some elemental level. To imagine a Chinese leader coming up through the party system who doesn’t have that in their core is hard for me to project forward.

Dan Wang: That’s absolutely right. Maybe the Chinese are looking at the United States and saying, “Well, in 2016, maybe the American elites should have feared their people a little bit more, and they didn’t have quite enough fear there.” That’s certainly a possibility. Yes, it’s going to be the case that the Chinese are never going to fully trust their people, or maybe even not trust them very much at all. This is one of the reasons that China will not have a flourishing liberal society by any stretch of the imagination.

If the Communist Party goes away, we would still have a party. If the Nationalists had won before they were ejected to Taiwan in 1949, we would still have a country nursing its grievances over imperialist incursions in the past, still very intent on achieving some degree of technological primacy over the rest of the world. They probably wouldn’t be trusting their people very extensively either.

I hope that China could develop a regime that does trust its people much more than they do now, because the Chinese people are such a lovable folk. Don’t you agree, Jordan? They can be extremely creative. Their memes are no less than what American 20-year-olds and 14-year-olds are able to produce online. There’s so much wordplay with the Chinese language. There’s a lot of joking throughout China. The Chinese are very funny. People in Yunnan are very funny, which is my heritage. People in Beijing are very funny. The people in Shanghai… maybe not so funny, but most people everywhere else can be very funny.

I wish that the regime could recognize that it has a lot of people who have wonderful, creative spirits who are going to have great memes all day long. They’re going to create wonderful pieces of artwork and literature and all sorts of great shows, great movies. If they had that opportunity, they would have all sorts of wonderful jokes that they could play on us. I’m really optimistic that the spirit of the Chinese teenager is indomitable, just as the spirit of the American teenager is completely indomitable. It’s only that one of them is very actively suppressed by the state and the other is not.

Jordan Schneider: The one line I disagree with was when you say, “I missed the ambient friendliness of Americans,” as if you didn’t get that in China. I moved through the country in a different way than you did with my face, but it was still very friendly. That’s one of the things that will never leave me. You mentioned it at a different point in the book, talking about why this is the destination of choice for so many Chinese. It’s not just because it’s rich and a land of opportunity, but the cultural overlaps in terms of entrepreneurship and ease of engagement with other folks are really profound.

Dan Wang: Well, I would say that you do have a good face, and I wouldn’t sell it short. I have a different face. Not all of us can be so blessed. Certainly there is ambient friendliness in China. But there can also be an ambient “get in your face about your business” sense. There’s sometimes an ambient aggressiveness and pushiness in China, as there is in the US as well.

This is more stark to me because I spent some time in Europe. I just traveled to Europe for two months and we were mostly in Denmark. One of the things we hear about Danish folks is that they have a really hard time making friends after high school. You would have your friends from elementary school, some friends from university, maybe some friends you made when traveling to the United States. But after that, people have enough friends. They’re good. People travel around in roving packs to the bar and then they don’t really socialize with the other roving packs at the Danish bar.

It’s much easier to have a conversation with someone on the bus in New York, on the street in New York, walking around, and they don’t get up so much in your business. You’re right that there’s absolutely a lot of ambient friendliness in China. That’s one of the things I really enjoy about the place. But the flip side of that coin is that they can really get up in your business. How often are you asked as soon as you meet a new Chinese person — Are you married? How many children do you have? What’s your salary? Sometimes I don’t really feel like answering those questions. It’s a bit odd.

Jordan Schneider: The ambient anxiety as well is something very different in the US. Even when you have these think pieces about how people can’t afford rent and life is terrible, it’s not a nationally defining thing in the US the way modern anxieties are in China.

Dan Wang: This is certainly one of the many reasons I am glad that I did not grow up in China, especially not as a woman, because the pressure that women face in China is completely insane. It’s not only workplace stuff. In the workplace, you and I both know that Chinese women are many of the most capable people. They do most of the work; often they are the most efficient people in every organization and they are consistently passed over for leadership because they are not a guy. China really doesn’t treat women very well in the workplace.

Then imagine the pressure you face once you are seeing your neighbors or even worse, family over the most important Chinese holiday. Over Lunar New Year, every woman is asked one question. To the single: Are you married yet? To the married: When will you have children? It feels like, unless a woman has produced at least one child and at least one son, then she will not have broader respect within the family. Chinese women are consistently the most undervalued people, and they are the ones who should be elevated the most.

Generally, China is just a high-pressure society where one does need a little bit of pushiness to get ahead. That can sometimes be pretty wearing once you’ve spent enough time in China, because the pushiness is not really wonderful. The overworked aspects of a lot of people — 996 is real for a segment of the population who work from nine to nine, six days a week. Then they go home and face a lot of family pressures. Many people don’t have an easy time being able to afford their apartments in Shanghai or Beijing. It’s a high-pressure environment. That’s one of these things where you come to the US, you’re left alone. You go to Florida or Texas, and people aggressively leave you alone. That’s something I crave after being over there for a while.

Jordan Schneider: The pushiness of both the one-child policy stuff and now the party telling you that you need to have more kids is just — you have a number of these Orwellian flips which you document in modern society. That’s one of them. The other, of course, is COVID being this thing that would kill you and is worth not getting your cancer treatment in order to prevent, to “Oh, it’s a flu — and by the way, you don’t even need ibuprofen to get through, much less a vaccine, much less a Moderna vaccine."

You see echoes of it in the US sometimes, where Trump says, “Oh, don’t care about Epstein anymore.” But it doesn’t work really to completely turn on a gravity distortion field and just say when you were saying A is A one day, to say B is A the next day. That’s another benefit of a pluralist society — to have people, to have noise that pushes back on that.

Dan Wang: Well, this is what engineers do. They tell you for a while, “You must not have more than one child,” to “You really should have three children.” To hear that COVID is this life-threatening thing and it is our national duty to prevent any transmissions, to “Oh, it’s not that big of a deal.” This is how engineers treat society — they swerve really suddenly every so often. At some point, that is going to give people very severe whiplash.

Jordan Schneider: “Beijing has been taking the future dead seriously for the past four decades. That is why they will not out-compete the United States.” What a line!

Dan Wang: The country that will outperform in the world has a sense of humor, and Beijing has the least sense of humor of all of them — at least official Beijing. Unofficial Beijing is very humorous. One of my favorite recent pieces is a gag where Alex Boyd, who is part of Asia Society, found and translated this page of official jokes from Xi Jinping.

You can read some of these jokes from Xi Jinping himself and decide how many of them are actually funny. Humor with Chinese characteristics isn’t really going to knock us off our feet. I prefer the superpower that isn’t taking the future with such seriousness. By taking the future with such gravity — this is one of the great insights from Stephen Kotkin — there is this apocalyptic sense in communist systems. You liberalize a little bit, you slip out a little bit, and somehow the entire system will collapse. Every day becomes an apocalyptic, life-or-death struggle for the Communist Party. That sort of system will end up being fairly brittle.

Subscribe now

Jordan Schneider: Another quote:

Engineers don’t know how to persuade. The Communist Party insists on a history in which the party is always correct and where all errors come from traitors or foreigners, rather than acknowledging fault and telling persuasive stories. The instinct of the engineering state is simply to censor alternative narratives. Xi comes off as someone who is a little too eager for groveling respect from the rest of the world, which is exactly why he’ll never get it.

Dan Wang: Yes.

Jordan Schneider: The other Kotkin-esque moment you highlighted is this idea that Li Qiang, who was the mayor of Shanghai initially, was one of the people trying to keep his city more open. But once it came down to it and he got the order, he implemented the biggest lockdown in human history. He became the most reviled local politician in the entire country, and then he got the biggest promotion anyone can get — to be premier. It’s such a reminder that while China is a country where people are promoted on performance at some level, once you reach the top rungs of power, it’s about loyalty. This man delivered on what he was told to do, even when it came at what would be considerable political cost in a democratic society. This is still a crazy system we’re dealing with — that’s not political logic.

You make the point that basically every party in the world that was in charge during COVID lost votes after COVID ended because people were upset about that time in their lives. But to have the emblem of bad Omicron-era COVID policy now be someone people are going to see on their TV for the next five years — this is remarkable.

Dan Wang: Well, maybe he’s going to be squeezed out of TV because he seems to be a remarkably weak premier by the standards of Chinese premiers. You’re absolutely right that in every pandemic country, the ruling party lost vote shares. It’s only in China that the most hated emblem of zero-COVID restrictions gets promoted to the top — the highest any politician could go under Xi.

Jordan Schneider: The idea that Kamala would have Fauci as her running mate is basically what we’re talking about.

Dan Wang: Yes, that would be quite something, wouldn’t it? This surely degrades and erodes some of the competence of other people inside the Politburo and Central Committee, because there were plenty of people who perhaps administered their cities more effectively with pandemic control policies.

One could debate how effective Li Qiang was. One could say he did his best trying to resist a very fierce lockdown, and then when that shifted, he was in charge with another vice premier of implementing that lockdown. Maybe he simply followed orders and did the best job he could. But certainly, I wouldn’t have expected after the Shanghai lockdown that Li Qiang, who was one of Xi’s protégés, would be promoted to anything as high as premier within the Chinese system. For him to become premier must surely have bred considerable resentment within his peers who looked at what an awful job he perhaps did. You can maybe debate that, but Li Qiang certainly created a lot of misery. For them to see this guy vault over them in terms of party hierarchy cannot feel good for other cadres.

Cold War 2.0?

Jordan Schneider: You’ve got Rickover, Moses, and Eisenhower as Americans you’re shouting out — all perhaps peaked in the 1950s or early 1960s, all products of Cold War America. Moses was doing his thing even in the ’30s, but there’s a narrative that was maybe a little more prominent in American politics a year or two ago: that Cold War framing is the thing that will get the US out of its engineering rut. We will do big things because now we have another adversary, and we’ll break eggs and build amazing stuff again because we have a new replacement for the Soviet Union. You’re still hopeful, though, that we can get there, even if this isn’t the defining framework for America for the next few decades.

Dan Wang: I certainly don’t hope we repeat all the mistakes of the last Cold War, which wasn’t very cold for Vietnam, which wasn’t very cold for Laos, and which wasn’t very cold for Afghanistan. The US and Soviet Union made tremendous mistakes and inflicted horrors on foreign populations, as well as somewhat on their own populations, in the course of pursuing the Cold War. I’m reluctant to say the US should desire or embrace anything resembling a Cold War, given how the last one went.

I’m hopeful the US will be able to recover some of its engineering chops, because it’s become tremendously obvious that the US needs to do this without any framing of China as the great adversary. We’re in New York right now. Affordable housing is a very big issue. New York can’t build subways at less than $2 billion per mile, which is far above European levels of construction. The US can’t fix Port Authority Bus Terminal in under five years. This is to say nothing of Massachusetts or California, which have really bad construction issues. None of that needs to implicate China. That’s purely an American lawyerly society problem.

We have movements like the Abundance Agenda trying to make sure US big cities are able to build quite a lot more. There’s broad complaint within both the American left and right that the US manufacturing base has rusted top to bottom, where apex manufacturers like Intel and Boeing have just an unbroken tail of woe if we look at any of their headlines. The US manufacturing base wasn’t able to produce anything as simple as masks and cotton swabs in the early days of the pandemic. That was pathetic.

We also have a defense industrial base that has significantly rusted, with the US unable to produce a lot of munitions or naval ships on time. Maybe the defense industrial base has to implicate China, but really that implicates already existing problems as well as the war in Ukraine, which took a lot of munitions from the United States.

The US needs to fix its own problems, not to be able to confront China, but because it has been doing pretty badly itself. The same goes for China — the contest will not go to the country that builds a bigger rocket or more homes. The contest will be won by the country that’s able to deliver better for its own citizens. That’s ultimately where both countries really need to get to.

Jordan Schneider: I agree with that. The question is: if we need a fundamental rethink and Cold War framing from 2020 to 2024 didn’t get us there, is Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein and Dan Wang evangelizing enough to have our Sputnik moment 2.0? Not only does it address the international stuff, but it also gets you the interstate highway system equivalent for what we need today. That’s our only data point. Maybe we can go back further in history.

Dan Wang: I’m also unsure that Cold War framing will work because right now, as we’re speaking at the end of August 2025, President Trump seems to be the most pro-China member of the White House, and he doesn’t seem terribly interested in a Cold War. A reporter asked him whether he should welcome more Chinese students to the United States. He responded, “It’s our honor to have them.” He’s right. The US should be attracting more students from China as well as from all nations. That won’t work if the commander in chief is uninterested in having a cold war.

We’ve tried to impose this Cold War framing for a while, and it hasn’t worked, at least so far. Maybe we will get there in some other way, but there isn’t a single knockdown argument that will have the US recover some of its engineering chops. There need to be many types of arguments, and the worse the situation becomes, the more the US needs to do.

Jordan Schneider: Mike Gallagher had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal basically saying we should dramatically tighten immigration policy from China. You have a USCIS head saying that F-1 visa holders should understand that they’re not welcome here after graduation, and OPT may be going the way of the dodo bird. We’ll see how it plays out. It’s clear that Trump is not entirely on board with this. But I wonder if Xi is going to do something more dramatic than a balloon — which doesn’t necessarily have to be an invasion of Taiwan — that clicks, that gives the Cold War framing a second breath of fresh air.

Dan Wang: Maybe. But I suspect Xi has studied his history and is really reluctant to give Americans an excuse to engage in another Cold War. Even the balloon seemed like it might have been an accident where the leadership didn’t know about it. We can deal with balloons, Jordan. We can deal with balloons all day.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah, but can we deal with 50 Filipinos dying or something? We’ll see. As Kotkin says, history’s full of surprises. One thing we know about history is it’s full of surprises.

Share

On the Cold War stuff, when I had you and Ezra and Derek on, you asked me if the US should have a goal of constraining Chinese growth. Do you have an answer to that question? How would you frame our policy optimization function when thinking about that?

Dan Wang: The US should not be seen as being in a position to constrain China’s growth. It would be disastrous for the US if the Chinese earnestly believed that the US government was trying to hold down China’s innovation prospects or economic growth prospects, because that would seem very dramatically unfair. Now, there are some people in Beijing who already believe some version of this, but that’s not necessarily consensus.

It’s important for the US government to communicate that it wants a good future for Chinese people everywhere. There’s nothing Trump would lose by saying that he wishes the people of China can be rich, well off, and happy.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s close with some book recommendations. I don’t know why — read the Bible, Stendhal, someone you recommended to me the other day.

Dan Wang: The Book of Exodus, Jordan. That’s where it’s at. Maybe bested by the Book of Genesis. But the five books of the Torah — that’s something really important here.

Jordan Schneider: But you’re just shrugging off Prophets and Writings?

Dan Wang: Well, Ecclesiastes is very beautiful. As Robert Alter translates, the chapter is called Kohelet. There’s certainly a great deal of beauty in the Song of Songs and in the dreariness, frankly, of Ecclesiastes or Kohelet. Something important for us all to keep in mind is that the heart of the wise dwells in the house of mourning, while the heart of fools dwells in the house of mirth.

Jordan Schneider: Dan, what’s our outro song?

Dan Wang: There is no music more sublime than the ending of The Marriage of Figaro by Mozart, in which the Count asks and begs for forgiveness from the Countess for all of his incredible indiscretions.

The Schneider clan will be heading to the Bay Area from Sept 9 through the end of the month! If you’re interested in doing a house swap with a 2BR in New York, or happen to have an empty apartment that can fit a few adults and a very cute baby (no babyproofing or kid stuff required), please reach out!

This is a cross-post from the Cold Window Newsletter, a literature Substack about new and untranslated fiction from China. Each month, it features a handful of authors, books, trends, and news items from the Chinese literary world that haven’t yet caught much attention in English.

Over the last few months, I’ve sampled nearly every new Chinese short-story collection that’s come out this year.1 I want to tell you about my favorites.

Special: In search of the best new fiction in China

As of this summer, Chinese literary fiction is in a bit of a tough spot. Inside the country, there’s undeniable suspicion of literary writing affiliated with the cultural establishment: it is not a compliment to call someone 体制内, “inside the system.” A recent plagiarism scandal implicating many young establishment authors, and the schadenfreude with which their downfall was greeted on the Chinese internet, made this distrust abundantly clear.2 Outside of China, translators are working as tirelessly as ever to bring worthwhile stories out into the world, but there are still far too few young Chinese writers who get any sort of attention abroad (although I do think this tide is beginning to turn).

That’s why I decided to try reading everything newly published in China this year. This project was intended to be a pulse-check, an attempt to investigate in good faith the throwaway complaint that you see from Chinese readers online all the time: there’s no good literature in China anymore.

Surprise: that complaint is wrong. The five books below are some of the best I have ever read in Chinese. They’re mostly by women. They’re all by writers born after 1980. And, to a greater and greater extent as you move up my ranking, they all poke at the boundaries of today’s urban, technologized, hyper-globalized society, until it’s hard to tell what’s fantasy and what’s reality. That’s the kind of story that makes Chinese fiction worth reading right now. And it’s the kind that can only be written by young authors.

Let’s get into it.

Some stray thoughts on this project as a whole

• Speculative elements were extremely common across the whole sample and were nearly ubiquitous in my top 5. Not the hard sci-fi that China has become known for since The Three-Body Problem, but more commonly the uneasy, dreamlike invasion of magical or uncanny elements into everyday life.

• Related: stories about the internet were everywhere in the collections I read. English-language authors accurately capturing a text conversation in Serious Literature still feels like a rare achievement, but Chinese fiction seems to include convincing text-speak as a matter of course at this point.

• Domestic abuse and sexual assault were notable recurring themes across the sample, but I generally found that they were treated with the appropriate gravity, which is not always a given. If you read along with my recommendations, be forewarned that the top two entries on my list are particularly graphic in this regard.

• My favorite stories, nearly without exception, were long-ish novellas of the kind that are too long to ever ever get published in an English-language literary periodical. Someone invent a platform where we can publish high-quality translated novellas!!!

• Chinese cover design is just better than almost all of what I see in the US. Look at the book covers below. I’m not crazy, right?

• Overall: this project required a lot of reading. Some of the books on offer were boring, some were bewildering, and a handful were just bad. At least one was a strong contender for my top 5 but had to be dropped when that summer plagiarism scandal hit. I didn’t read any of the books in full, just in pieces, whittling away the ones that lost my interest until I was left with the list below. (I know I picked a good top 3 because they kept me reading late into the night, long after I should have set them aside and moved on to the next contestant.) Reading all these stories was exhausting and super fun, and I’d love to reprise the challenge for the second half of 2025.3

5. 邵栋《不上锁的人》(Those Who Leave the Door Unlocked by Shao Dong)

This entry is the odd one out on my list. I’d never heard of the author until he was nominated for the Blancpain-Imaginist Prize 宝珀理想国文学奖 earlier this month; he’s a bit younger than the other writers below, the only man of the bunch, and, judging by the pieces I read, the one who’s most grounded in realistic stories about traditional life. He won me over with the story 《文康乐舞》 “Recreational Dancing.” Its protagonist is a young female documentary student from Hong Kong poking around Fujian for material, and something about her voice as a narrator, both savvy and genuinely curious, made her feel like a real person in a way that not all literary narrators do. The nauseating, heartbreaking evocation of her father’s death during pandemic quarantine kicks the story into a darker mode and proves that the author has real range. I don’t think he’ll win the Blancpain prize, but he’s got me in his corner.

Shao Dong 邵栋
Born 1989

Recommended story in Chinese: 《文康乐舞》(excerpt)

Originally from Changzhou in Jiangsu Province, Shao Dong holds a doctorate from the School of Chinese at Hong Kong University. He currently serves as an assistant professor in the School of Humanities and Sociology at Hong Kong Metropolitan University. His fiction has appeared in Harvest, October, Shanghai Literature, and Hong Kong Literature and has been recognized with the first Lin Yutang Literature Award and the Hong Kong Youth Literature Award. His books include the fiction collections 《空气吉他》 Air Guitar and 《不上锁的门》 Those Who Leave the Door Unlocked, and the academic monograph Projecting on Paper: Yingxi Novels in the Early Republic of China. Air Guitar and Those Who Leave the Door Unlocked were both nominated for the Blancpain-Imaginist Literary Prize.

4. 默音《她的生活》(Her Life by Mo Yin)

I’ve always been curious about Mo Yin. I like that she translates novels from Japanese, including one by Yoko Tawada (Memoirs of a Polar Bear) that has gotten a lot of acclaim in China this year. I like that she has a reputation for mixing genre elements into literary writing. I like that this Reddit user went to the effort of making a (really good!) guide to her work, even though nary a word of her fiction has ever been translated into English so far. Sounds like something I would do...

《她的生活》 Her Life seems to have flown mostly under the radar within China, a small flourish between her better-selling novels and translations, but it proves that everything I’d heard about her writing is true. Consider the novella 《梦城》 “City of Dreams,” a sci-fi take on Hollywood set in future Japan. Through the eyes of a TV producer navigating corporate interests and cast-member intrigue, we explore a sci-fi world that feels upsettingly familiar: climate crisis, celebrity deepfakes, portable VR technology (“dreamvision”) that encourages you to isolate yourself from the world. I only learned later that Mount Fuji Diary, the book being adapted for dreamvision throughout the novella, is a real diary by Takeda Yuriko that was translated into Chinese by Mo Yin herself. The density of the ideas and references that Mo Yin plays with here is astounding.

Mo Yin 默音
Born 1980

Recommended story in Chinese: 《梦城》(excerpt)

Mo Yin is a novelist and translator. Her books include the fictional works 《甲马》Warhorse, 《星在深渊中》The Star in the Abyss, 《一字六十春》 One Word, Sixty Springs, and 《尾随者》 Tailgaters. She has also translated many literary works from Japanese, including Handymen in Mahoro Town by Shion Miura, Memoirs of a Polar Bear by Yoko Tawada, Normal Temperature in Kyoto by Kiyokazu Washida, Child’s Play by Ichiyō Higuchi, and Daily Notes and Mount Fuji Diary, both by Takeda Yuriko. Her newest collection of short fiction, 《她的生活》 Her Life, is accompanied by a sister book entitled 《笔的重量》 The Weight of the Pen, a collection of literary criticism.

3. 郭爽《肯定的火》 (Undeniable Fire by Guo Shuang)

I only read one of the three long pieces in this book, but it immediately made me want to press it into a new reader’s hands. The novella 《拱猪》 “Push Out the Pig” (named after a card game) is just such a perfect showcase of what new Chinese fiction is so good at: documenting the anxious disconnect between old and new, between parents who grew up in poverty and their children who grew up on the internet. I don’t know if Guo Shuang is a participant in fan culture herself, but she does an admirable job portraying how absorbing, liberating, and ultimately crushing it can be for a working-class child to seek escape inside online fandom. This deserves to be one of the first books people read if they want to learn about class in contemporary China.

Guo Shuang 郭爽
Born 1984
Paper Republic

Recommended story in Chinese: 《拱猪》(full story)

Available in English: review of 《月球》 Planet Moon in the China Books Review

Guo Shuang was born in 1984 in Guizhou. Her fiction has been published in Harvest, Writer Magazine, Mountain Flowers, Zhongshan, and West Lake. Her books include 《月球》Planet Moon, 《我愿意学习发抖》 I Want to Learn to Tremble, and 《正午时踏进光焰》 Stepping into the Noontime Light. She has been the recipient of the Selected Fiction Newcomer Prize, the Zhongshan Star Young Author Award, the West Lake–New Chinese Literature Award, and the Chu Jiwang Literary Award.

2. 杜梨《漪》 (The Ripple of Shattered Cuckoo by Du Li)

Now we’ve arrived at the truly magical writing on my list. I predicted in my end-of-year coverage for 2024 that 杜梨 Du Li would be an author to watch this year, and I’m pleased to discover how right I was. Her writing is not easy to read, at least for a non-native speaker—it’s dense, fast-paced, and prone to unexpected leaps into hallucinatory nightmarescapes. But it’s worth the effort.

There’s 《三昧真火》“True Samādhi Fire,” a novella about an amateur rapper named Najia who has to contend with unexpected fame after her verses at a local competition go viral. In mingling satire about Beijing youth culture with a gradual excavation of the troubled life Najia left behind in her home province, the novella manages simultaneously to be silly, contemplative, learned, and very dark.

And then there’s 《鹃漪》 “The Cuckoo Vanishes,” Du Li at her unsettling best. A young couple moves into an apartment known for uncanny occurrences—and, as in any good haunted-house story, it’s less the apartment that turns out to be haunted than the occupants themselves. At every turn I found myself thinking back to 《竹峰寺》 “Zhufeng Temple” by 陈春成 Chen Chuncheng, one of my favorite short stories of all time.4 Both stories use the collision of traditional culture with the present as the root of a mystery story—in “Zhufeng Temple,” it’s a legendary stone stele that has gone missing; in “The Cuckoo Vanishes,” it’s a Ming-dynasty text linked to women disappearing into their dreams. The difference is that Du Li, unlike Chen Chuncheng, likes to dive deep into the haunting nonsense aesthetics of a nightmare. The worlds she describes are disturbing—both the dream world, and the real world that it masks.

Du Li 杜梨
Born 1992

Recommended story in Chinese: 《鹃漪》(excerpt)

Du Li is a novelist and translator. A contracted author at Beijing’s Lao She Literature Institute, she received a master’s degree in literature in England and currently lives in Beijing. Her books include 《致我们所钟意的黄油小饼干》 You’re the Holy Light of My Junky Life, 《孤山骑士》 Knight of the Lonely Mountain, and 《春祺夏安》 Seasons of the Palace. She has received recognitions including the Hong Kong Literary Award, the Paper–Mirror Image Nonfiction Award, the Zhongshan Star Best Young Author of the Year Award, and a gold medal at the He Cailin Science Fiction Awards.

1. 张天翼《人鱼之间》 (Beyond Truth and Tales by Zhang Tianyi)

One thing that this project has taught me is that I like fiction that overflows with ideas. If an author has a capacious enough brain to come up with ten wildly different storylines and figure out how to weave them together, I don’t want her to cut a single one out. Give me writing like a rainforest: bursting with so many sights and sounds that I can’t take it in all at once, but still somehow forming a single dense, fecund ecosystem.

That describes all the books on this list to a greater or lesser extent, but none more than 《人鱼之间》 Beyond Truth and Tales. 张天翼 Zhang Tianyi takes the elements of the other books I liked and dials them up to eleven. Allusions to classic texts? The whole book is structured around postmodern deconstructions of myths and fairy tales.5 Speculative elements reflecting the excesses of real-world pop culture? This is the only book on my list where you will find a candy-colored parody of Hogwarts where students wear skinsuits to look like their favorite celebrities. (See《豆茎》 “The Beanstalk,” the collection’s closer.)

Most of all, Beyond Truth and Tales is just fun to read. Like Du Li, Zhang Tianyi knows how to make a silly moment deadly serious—and more importantly, she knows how to pull a deeply upsetting plot out of a tailspin and give you permission to laugh. I couldn’t help getting deeply attached to the awkward, endearing protagonists of 《雕像》 “The Statue” (a classical-art-themed romance)! And at the end of “The Beanstalk,” when it finally clicks into place how the story’s various threads link to each other—reader, I gasped aloud.

Zhang Tianyi is already a celebrity for her prior collection, 《如雪如山》 Like the Mountains, Like the Snow, which is among the most influential works of Chinese fiction from the last five years.6 If her writing stays this good, then we’re going to be reading her for a long, long time.

Zhang Tianyi 张天翼
Born in the 1980s

Recommended story in Chinese: 《豆茎》(excerpt)

Available in English: “Pottery Husband” (purchase); 2023 feature in ChinaTalk

Zhang Tianyi is a freelancer and a handcrafter of novels. She enjoys tulips, islands, swimming, cheese, and horror movies. She is catless. She once grew an osmanthus tree. Her books include the fiction collections 《如雪如山》Like the Mountains, Like the Snow and 《扑火》 Jumping into the Fire, as well as the essay collection 《粉墨》Face Powder. She has received the Zhu Ziqing Literary Award, the Zhongshan Star Literary Award, and the Flint Literary Award, and her work has been adapted into film.

That’s it for this issue. If there’s more good fiction you think I missed, let me know. Look forward to a shorter, more personal interim post in the near term, and another full issue next month. Thanks for reading.

Cold Window Newsletter

Reading, recommending, and reporting on new literature from China.

By Andrew

Kyrgyzstan is Central Asia’s island of democracy…relatively speaking. As a mountainous, landlocked state without oil or gas endowments, the country faces a difficult development path. Yet, Kyrgyzstan’s GDP has grown at a rate of 9% every year since 2022, and unemployment recently reached a record low of 1.6%. In the capital city of Bishkek, there is an air of optimism, national pride, and commitment to economic growth of the sort I’ve only ever felt before in Poland — and partnerships with China are an important part of that story.

This month, I (Lily, ChinaTalk’s lead editor) spent some time exploring Kyrgyzstan and speaking with locals about Chinese influence in their country. Here are my reflections.

Setting the Scene

Bishkek is a green city full of trees and flower gardens. The preferred colors for front doors and other infrastructure seem to be sky blue and sea foam green, which complement the natural landscape nicely. An exception to this trend is the fleet of “Comfort”-class taxis, which are pale orange models purchased from Korea. The summer weather is mild, and the parks are full of little children laughing and enjoying the long days. Most restaurants have super comfortable chairs with thick, bouncy cushions.

Possibly my favorite thing about the city is the abundance of 24/7 flower shops — you know, for when your event needs a midnight flower supplement, or when you need to prove your dedication to a dance partner with a bouquet.

China x Kyrgyzstan

In Kyrgyzstan’s largest cities, Bishkek and Osh, there are construction sites everywhere, usually operating with Chinese or Korean equipment, and often financed with Belt and Road loans. Notable works in progress include a new transnational highway, regional airports, a BYD factory, and the largest ski resort in Central Asia (opening winter 2026!).

After Kyrgyzstan joined the BRI in 2013, opinion polls year after year showed that Kyrgyz people were skeptical of China’s economic influence, though they welcomed economic engagement with Russia, their former colonizer. That began to change in 2022 — positive feelings toward China proliferated rapidly in the booming post-pandemic economy. By 2023, a large majority of the Kyrgyz public supported new Chinese investments in their country, according to polling conducted by the Central Asia Barometer. Those surveys (as well as Gallup polling) indicate that educated people and individuals with higher incomes are especially favorable toward China, a trend that also held in neighboring Kazakhstan.

This data indicates that people are seeing, or expect to see, real benefits from dealing with China. Already, the Ala Archa National Park has its own fleet of Chinese-made electric buses to shuttle hikers into the park, and the city of Bishkek has purchased hundreds of Zhongtong buses from China in the hopes of reducing traffic jams and air pollution.1 (This is a noble effort, but traffic is still quite bad. What Bishkek really needs is a metro.)

Still, even as people support Chinese investment, trade, and technology, they continue to feel negatively about Chinese workers in their country. To make sense of this disconnect, we have to understand that Moscow bombarded Central Asia with propaganda about a looming Chinese invasion for decades following the Sino-Soviet split. Remember that there was active combat on the border between Kazakhstan and Xinjiang during the undeclared 1969 Sino-Soviet war.2

The Kyrgyz government caps work permits for foreigners at about 15,000, and 75% of these permits go to Chinese workers. That doesn’t sound like much, but to quote Bruce Pannier of Radio Free Europe, this represents “the biggest influx of an outside group since independence.”

Three protests against Chinese laborers broke out in Bishkek between December 2018 and January 2019, incited also by the news that the Chinese government was detaining ethnically Kyrgyz people in Xinjiang.3 While only around 500 people attended the largest of these protests, the unrest sparked a national conversation when 21 protesters were arrested.

In the months following the protests, government officials worked to dispel anti-China sentiment in preparation for a state visit by Xi Jinping, including by speaking to the press about the protests and publishing evidence disproving rumors of mass illegal immigration (and of Chinese leftover men seeking Kyrgyz brides). In the words of Carnegie’s Temur Umarov, Central Asians “don’t fear China per se — they fear that their own elites are not loyal to the national interest, but loyal to their own cynical interests.” Today, sentiment surrounding Chinese immigrants is improving, but their favorability is still underwater.

Subscribe now

In Central Asia, Belt and Road projects are mostly staffed by local people. Apart from the cap on work visas, imported Chinese labor is far more expensive than hiring locally. Instead, Chinese immigrants mostly work in technical or managerial roles, where they oversee and, crucially, train large teams of Kyrgyz employees. So, the vast majority of China’s economic impact in the region comes in the form of completed infrastructure, employment opportunities, and cheap consumer goods — not from the presence of Chinese people on the ground. As Chinese companies increasingly outsource operations to cheaper pastures, Belt and Road investments represent a platform for future business partnerships.

The Chinese workers I met in Bishkek had come to Kyrgyzstan to mine precious metals, to open restaurants, or to import Chinese goods to sell at local markets. (I visited three of these markets — Dordoi, Osh, and Madina. Dordoi was my favorite by a wide margin.) None of the Chinese people I met could speak Russian, much less Kyrgyz.

The Chinese food I had in Bishkek was pretty good, as far as international Chinese food goes. Upscale Chinese restaurants are quite trendy, usually serving photogenic versions of classic dishes with a local spin. There are also more authentic Chinese restaurants where the vast majority of customers are Chinese immigrants.

Travel Notes

Central Asia has disproportionately high fertility for its level of development. Some people attribute this to increasing religiousness after the fall of the Soviet Union. Anecdotally, I didn't observe mothers covering their hair at a higher rate than the general female population. In any case, large, close-knit families are culturally the norm and Kyrgyz weddings usually have 500-1000 guests!

Physical fitness seems really important in the national consciousness. I arrived on the same flight as the Kyrgyz national wrestling team, who were returning from an international competition and were welcomed by hundreds of people at the airport at 5 am. The national sport is kok boru, which is like soccer, except instead of kicking a ball into a goal, the players ride horses and compete to throw a 90lb (40kg) dead goat into an elevated pit.

Grocery stores sell a truly staggering array of sweets, as well as a diverse range of dairy and meat products. They don’t offer many fresh vegetables, but there is usually a counter where you can order tasty premade salads. My favorite was the “Caucasus salad” that comes with beef.

I spent a week in Bishkek, which wasn't nearly enough time to explore all the beautiful landscapes and historical sites around the city. My favorite excursion was a hiking trip to Konorchek canyon. I had a fantastic guide named Chinggis (who is now ChinaTalk’s second listener in Kyrgyzstan) — I laughed, I cried, and learned a ton about Kyrgyzstan’s democratic revolutions! People in general were so friendly and helpful, and they seemed to really care whether I was having a good time in their country. They even complimented my Russian skills — which never happens when I’m talking to Russian people.

Finally, Kyrgyzstan is very good at sunsets. Here’s my favorite:

Are GPUs being smuggled into China? Nvidia says no. But Steve Burke, editor in chief of Gamers Nexus, has traced out the entire smuggling chain in an epic three-hour YouTube documentary. Earlier this year, he also he filmed another masterpiece of independent journalism exploring the impact of tariffs on America’s gaming computer ecosystem.

In today’s conversation, we discuss…

• Steve’s investigative process, including how he found people in mainland China willing to speak on the record about black market GPUs,

• The magnitude of smuggling, weaknesses in enforcement, and crudeness of US restrictions,

• China’s role in manufacturing GPUs they aren’t allowed to buy,

• And what it takes to stand up to Nvidia as an independent journalist.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

As of August 21st, YouTube has removed the full documentary via DCMA.

Having watched the entire documentary, I can confirm this video had zero business getting struck. GamersNexus is working on getting the video back on YouTube, but you can watch it here in the meantime.

From Craigslist to Shenzhen

Jordan Schneider: Steve, you are a madman. What motivated you to try to trace the GPU smuggling supply chain from the US into China?

Steve Burke: Honestly, I saw a Reuters story a couple of years ago about the concept of a GPU black market, and that concept is dystopian, cyberpunk, and weird. It’s really compelling because you normally don’t think of something that was historically used for playing video games as being marketable on a black market. That’s what started it.

We sat in the background for a couple years, and then this year, with all the policy changes, it came up naturally. Plus, Nvidia almost seemed to be inviting a response with their whole “smuggling doesn’t happen and it’s a non-starter” stance.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah, at one point they’re writing blog posts saying no one’s smuggling GPUs, while there are photos from the Hong Kong Police Department — DEA-style shots of captured CPUs instead of drugs, smuggled with fake pregnancy baby bumps or by packing the CPUs with live lobsters. It’s an interesting communication style that was so strident it attracted moths to the flame of incredibly ambitious YouTubers. How does one start reporting something like this?

Steve Burke: The concept of the story was simple — there are GPUs that are not permitted for sale into China by United States companies, but they’re getting there anyway. We wanted to find out how.

Our tariffs video introduced a new style where we flew around and spoke to people affected by the issue. Instead of writing the story around the information we gathered, we ran their discussions mostly unedited and learned a lot from it. We thought it would be great to go out to China and talk to people involved in GPU smuggling to see what they’d say.

I spent a lot of time looking for people to talk to, collecting research, and figuring out who the key players were. At some point, I decided we just had to pull the trigger and get on a plane.

Jordan Schneider: It’s interesting because there’s nothing illegal in China about bringing banned GPUs into the country — they’re not banned there. There’s this weird dynamic where these people aren’t criminals in the PRC. If they were, they probably wouldn’t be speaking to a Western journalist. You found this gray area where someone was buying RTX 4090s on Craigslist in the US and shipping them off by flying to Hong Kong and China. Connecting that full chain was really remarkable. Walk us through some of the steps.

Steve Burke: The hardest part of putting together a story where you’re relying on people to explain their part of the chain — and we wanted them to explain it themselves, not through me — was finding the first person.

We found Dr. Vinci Chow, who works at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He was referenced in an old Reuters story, and I emailed him. From there, I was able to ask him about the steps involved. He couldn’t reveal his sources or supply chain for how he buys export-controlled GPUs, but he pointed us in the right direction to find people ourselves.

The first step was crawling through Alibaba listings. As stupid as that sounds, I typed in the names of banned GPUs into Alibaba, and they’re everywhere. I started messaging people, always telling them, “We want to make a video. I’ll buy a card if I have to, as long as you talk to me.” A lot of them responded with confusion, asking if I actually wanted to buy something or not. But we found a couple people who were game for it.

The two main sources we found were basically middlemen for these GPUs in China. Both of them wanted to be involved because they were curious about how Western media works — they wanted to see the process.

From there, the next step was taking it further. We had the user — Dr. Vinci Chow, who uses these GPUs — and someone representing the middlemen. What we really needed were the people supplying the middlemen, which would be the smugglers we found. We also needed anyone else in the chain who might be modifying cards or exchanging them in another middle process.

Basically, we broke down the supply chain into categories and needed to find one person for each category to follow a GPU from start to finish. That was the goal.

Jordan Schneider: There are a lot of fun, colorful personalities you met along the way. Why don’t you give some profiles? We start with the university professor who’s maybe the easiest to picture — he’s just teaching his students and has three or four A100s. Not an enormous national security risk, in my humble opinion, but you start upping the level of sketchy characters.

Steve Burke: First, it’s important to point out that at no point did I feel unsafe with any of these people. I was at an Asian grocery store a couple days after publishing this, and someone from China who was visiting ran up to me. The first thing he said was, “Oh my God, this seems so dangerous!” I think that’s the common conception, but we never felt unsafe with anybody.

They were all very interesting characters. The sketchiest guy would have been the person in the US from China who buys export-controlled devices from Americans through normal Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace sales. Then he gets them back to China to collect a profit. He was the only one where — I’m not versed in criminal law — but I’m pretty sure he was definitely breaking laws.

The middle people we worked with in China, who sit between the users and the smugglers, basically buy from people in the US. It was amusing talking to this one guy, Vincent. He’s basically a solo operator running a trading company. He doesn’t care about GPUs or any of the stuff he sells — he just knows it makes money. He can buy it, sell it, and make money.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah.

Steve Burke: He didn’t even know which cards were banned and which weren’t. In the video, he asked me, “Is the RTX 5090 banned or not?” I said it was banned, and he replied, “But you can just buy them on the market.” It was baffling to him — they’re right there, so how are they banned?

Jordan Schneider: Those visuals are incredible — you’re just in a room with walls of these GPUs.

One of the big takeaways for me is that yes, fentanyl is banned in America, but there’s still a lot of fentanyl in America. There are millions and millions of these GPUs made, so it’s not shocking that there’s some leakage. The fact that there are enough of these people out there for Steve to build a whole story around it — and as someone who has tried and failed for years to get mainland guests to come on shows with me in either English or Chinese — you have to imagine an enormous iceberg under this little thing you were able to capture on camera. What other indications did you get of the magnitude of this?

Steve Burke: One of the better examples was the repair shop. It’s just a repair shop that fixes video cards. They’re not formally involved in any black market — they’re not intentionally part of some illicit market. They just fix GPUs, and as part of that, they happen to fix export-controlled GPUs that are on what the US would consider a black market.

This was really interesting because it didn’t click for me until I got home and started editing. The repair shop owner talks about how he modifies these GPUs to increase memory capacity and make them more viable for AI users. What I picked up on was that it’s keeping export-controlled silicon in circulation.

Normally, the part that dies on a video card isn’t the silicon itself or the GPU — those are super resilient. It’s usually a MOSFET or a capacitor that costs three cents to replace. In the US, these types of shops that can modify memory are relatively uncommon. I don’t know of a single one, though there might be someone out there.

The point is that in China, if this silicon is export-controlled and there’s restricted flow into the country, you have these shops that can keep devices in service through no illicit intent of their own. They’re just repair shops making money. That’s really interesting because you can see how it prevents their supply from diminishing when devices go out of service due to something fixable breaking.

Jordan Schneider: Playing Nvidia rep hat here with some critiques — there are a handful of gaming PCs slightly above the thresholds, but the things folks are more worried about are accelerators and full racks. You have quotes from Jensen and David Sacks saying these things are really big and heavy — how could anyone smuggle them? What’s your take on that line?

Steve Burke: He said something about not being able to fit a Grace Blackwell system in your pocket. It was a brilliant misdirection for someone who doesn’t really understand the device he’s talking about, because there are a few problems with that.

First, you don’t need the device in China to use it — you can remote into it somewhere else. The problem with that approach is the data is remote, so processing is slow. If they have a lot of data and really need it on-premises, then you would still want to get it in country.

One of the companies we found and spoke to in Taiwan is basically a testing firm. What they do is bring devices on behalf of other companies, test them, clear or screen them, then forward them to the company that hired them to test the device. Maybe they’re testing a server rack or cooling solution to make sure it’s sufficient before forwarding it.

These types of companies can also work to forward export-controlled racks. The one Jensen was talking about in that video — yeah, you can’t fit it in your pocket, but you can fit it in a crate and ship it from Taiwan.

From what we saw, it happens. We weren’t allowed to film this part, but we were in a room where they had Grace Blackwell systems just sitting there. I asked, “Where are these going?” The response was, “China — there’s a company that hired us, and we’re sending them to China when we’re done testing.” He thought nothing of it, as if he wasn’t revealing some big secret.

Jordan Schneider: The stuff you got on camera was more small-scale operators, but it makes sense that this larger-scale smuggling is happening. This is a desirable product, after all.

The thing that’s different with fentanyl is that it’s illegal in America, so you have domestic law enforcement making it harder for gangs and cartels — they have to get creative, creating a cat-and-mouse game. But if the destination for the black market goods is outside the export-controlling country, and the rest of the world doesn’t care, then it’s much easier once this stuff leaves the US. Tens of billions of dollars of this product ships every year.

Particularly when we don’t have systematic tracking — there was this Reuters article that seemed like a deep state warning saying they put tracking devices on things, but you don’t really have systematic tracking. What I assume is happening is the DOJ is building a handful of cases against these smuggler people, not a systematic effort to track tens of billions of dollars.

Steve Burke: Especially because most of these devices are made in China. Almost all of them are manufactured there, so the DOJ isn’t at the end of the factory line putting trackers on products. It would have to be somewhere else — maybe at Nvidia’s warehouse or whoever handles their logistics locally.

It’s definitely possible, but I think a lot of this stuff isn’t distributed through a chain that would ever be intercepted by the DOJ. If a factory in China is assembling an accelerator and “oops,” this accelerator has a defect, it’s not going to America — it’s going in the bin. What happens after it gets in that bin is unclear.

In at least one instance, we found that with the university’s accelerators, it appeared that an accelerator with a defect was assembled from other components kept from other defective units or spares. It’s almost naive to think that every one of these devices has to go through an export flow through the US that would be trackable by the US or Nvidia. Stuff can just disappear.

Jordan Schneider: The packaging happens in China. What sort of level of involvement does China have in the process?

Steve Burke: The assembly process works this way — Nvidia designs the silicon (done all over the world, but they’re headquartered in California), and TSMC manufactures and fabricates the silicon in Taiwan. Then, Chinese companies manufacture — and sometimes engineer through contract — the cooling solutions, the PCB (printed circuit board), and source all the capacitors and voltage regulator components. Everything that makes one of these devices — pretty much everything — is sourced in China.

They bring it to a factory that assembles it on an assembly line, typically with automated machines called SMT lines (surface mount technology lines). These pick and place thousands of components down the line, with some manual assembly of the heat sink, and then it comes out the other side. They box it and ship it if it’s going to retail, or if it’s something going on a server, it’s simply shipped to the next location.

The assembly locations act as collection or aggregation points for everything else. The company that assembles the video card receives components from at least dozens of other factories. The company that puts that accelerator or video card into a server is itself receiving components from dozens of factories. They assemble it, and from there it should go out to whoever the customer is, which is often Nvidia.

Jordan Schneider: This needs to sink in for people. There are server racks which the US government — even the Trump administration — has decided are too powerful, too dual-use, too scary to give China access to. But we still need Chinese firms to make these things.

Share

Steve Burke: Yes, but they’re not allowed to have the thing that they make. It’s very interesting. I tried to drive this home in the video — it’s a black market from the US perspective. The people we spoke to in China see it as just the market.

The guy Vincent we spoke to in his small shop — we asked him, “Does China care? Does the Chinese government care?” His answer was essentially that it’s none of China’s business. They don’t have a reason to care about what he’s buying or that America thinks it should be export-controlled. As a small business owner, he doesn’t have any control over it anyway. If it’s on the market, he buys it. If someone wants it, he sells it. It’s really that simple.

Jordan Schneider: Then there’s the question of where Nvidia fits in all this. Clearly they’d like to sell as much as they can, but they also don’t want to literally break the law. I thought it was very funny that you had four or five different interviewees basically hit you with the same Chinese idiom.

Steve Burke: “Open one eye and close the other (睁一只眼闭一只眼).” Yeah, they all said that. The question I asked pretty much everyone was, “Does Nvidia know, and do you think they care to control it?” The answer was that they just turn a blind eye.

I do think there’s truth to that. Jensen’s on camera one day denying this is a thing, talking about how it’s a non-starter because some smugglers got arrested. But then you look at it — well, they made tens of millions of dollars, according to the DOJ, before they were arrested. Is it really a non-starter? That much money is a pretty good starter.

Jordan Schneider: That’s a pretty good starter, and these are the stupidest ones.

Steve Burke: Yes, these are the ones who got caught. Exactly.

Jordan Schneider: I just asked ChatGPT, and it said that Blackwells are mostly assembled outside of China. But the RTX 5000 series — are those the ones you’re referencing?

Steve Burke: We could talk about that. It depends on what they mean by assembly, because Blackwell includes RTX 5090s, which are assembled in China — a lot of them. A lot of Hopper is done in China. The GB — I’m not 100% sure where Grace Blackwell systems are all assembled, but I know for a fact that some of Nvidia’s largest partners for manufacturing and assembling the boards we’re talking about are in China. The RTX 5090s most certainly are.

Jordan Schneider: Gotcha. Just to close the loop on this — we had Chris Miller and Leonard Lerer on last week. Leonard was pounding the table on the idea that if we want this to happen and we’ve decided it’s okay for China to get GPUs, let’s keep doing the playbook we have now where you can have cloud access in Singapore and Malaysia. There’s a little lag, but you can train all your models. It’s easier to see if someone’s doing something sketchy if it’s happening in Malaysia versus in a data center in western China. If the world really goes to shit, it’s much easier to turn those off if they’re in another country than if they’re already in the PRC.

ChinaTalk

EMERGENCY POD: H20 Drama

We’re bringing back Lennart Heim of RAND and Chris Miller author of Chip Wars and newly on substack, to discuss the new H20 drama, when exports were banned in April, and now selling it with a 15% export fee…

Read more

2 months ago · 48 likes · Jordan Schneider

Steve Burke: It’s interesting where, with sufficient power, an open market leader also benefits from being the leader of a closed market or black market. If those in charge — Nvidia and the government — decide that access in Singapore, Malaysia, or wherever is safer because it can be toggled or monitored for military use, the interesting byproduct is that it’s creating or fueling this secondary market in China for these devices to be purchased locally.

The most interesting thing to me personally is that we cover this stuff as gaming hardware — DIY PCs that you build to play video games. That’s how it started. What stands out is that gaming users, when they look at content about the product, aren’t trying to figure out how much money they can make from it. They want to buy it and use it to play video games. They’re not making money.

The whole thing has shifted now with AI use cases being so in demand and everybody trying to make a buck off of it. The person at the other end of the product consumption pipeline is trying to figure out how much they can make on this and whether it’s sufficient for the thing they’re trying to use to make money — like an H100 with higher memory capacity.

From my perspective, it feels so much less innocent than where it started with Nvidia’s GPUs, which was about getting high frame rates in Quake or Counter-Strike.

Jordan Schneider: I remember literally talking to people in the White House over the past few years, and they’d say, “We’re not trying to screw over Chinese gamers here. This is not our intention.” But the past 30 years of what Nvidia has built is so odd and happenstance — the thing they’ve been developing happens to enable you to create God as well as render 3D environments.

We’re in this weird moment where the RTX 5090 is marketed and sold as a gaming card, and that is its primary use case. But if you take that technology and put a lot of them together, you can train AI models that can do lots of wonderful things — and also train your AI drone swarms on how to target Taiwanese Marines.

Steve Burke: That’s the other thing that’s interesting — the computing time. One of the points brought up by one of the two professors we spoke to was, “Okay, you’re forcing me to use a slower device, but it can still do it, so I’ll just wait another day or two for that processing.” From the perspective of the US Government, that is still somewhat of the impact they want. If you slow someone down to two days instead of one, that’s a big difference — a 100% increase in processing time.

At the same time, it’s interesting from our vantage point as a more technical outlet — the US government really doesn’t know how to control any of this. They don’t seem to understand how performance is calculated. They don’t use benchmarks that make any sense. If they were to contract someone making YouTube reviews from a bedroom, they might have a better formula for controlling these things.

Subscribe now

Instead, what we get is, “Well, let’s just take the FLOPS from the brochure and multiply it against the bit length of the operation or something and see if that works out.” It seems like they backwards-computed that formula until they restricted the ones they wanted, and then the formula broke when the next generation came out.

The US doesn’t seem to have put the right people on this or done it in the right way to think through the problem. As a technical reviewer, I look at it and wonder: why are we not benchmarking something that considers time to complete, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and then maybe FLOPS at the end and clock speeds? For whatever reason, that’s not what the formula is.

It blows my mind that it seems so naive to not factor in these other specs on the spec sheet when judging performance, because every application is different.

Jordan Schneider: We should explain who you are and what Gamers Nexus is.

Steve Burke: Generally speaking, we do consumer hardware-facing product reviews and benchmarks — technical analysis of computer components to help people decide whether they should or shouldn’t buy something, whether it’s accurately represented, things like that. We also do consumer advocacy reporting. We’ll take stories about companies screwing over the little guy — warranty denials, things like that.

It’s an advocacy approach where we’ll take a case from a viewer who feels they’ve been wronged by a company, then we’ll take ownership of it and see it through to the end. We try to fix it while also figuring out what went wrong.

On YouTube, we have something like two and a half million subscribers. I started it in 2008 as a website — an article-driven website. Our core team currently has four members, with eight to nine people working on stuff daily.

Tariff Mania and 21st-Century Journalism

Jordan Schneider: All right, tariffs. What was the story you guys tried to tell with that documentary?

Steve Burke: The tariff story was fun because that was a three-hour documentary — our test case for this approach. We got to the GPU story because of the tariff story, where we thought, “All right, that formula worked, let’s try that again."

The way we got to the tariffs story was through conversations I’d already been having with hardware manufacturers who were warning me of price increases. They were trying to figure out how to convey this incoming increase to an audience that would be very upset about it. We were already having those conversations when what I believe was called “Liberation Day” — those tariffs came down.

That was the day I immediately started calling everybody I knew, dating back twelve years in the industry, to see if we could get them on camera to talk about this. Everybody was freaking out because this would potentially mean — in some cases — up to 170% tariffs. It was also starting to target other countries that companies had just started moving to in order to avoid tariffs.

The topic was hot, everybody was upset, and they were willing to go on camera. The problem they ran into was, “We’re going to have to skyrocket the prices on a computer case that should be $90, and customers are going to think we’re gouging them.” In some cases that may be true — that can also happen — but it was just the right moment to try and talk to everyone.

Jordan Schneider: There were two levels that made it such compelling content. First, you had Corsair, but it was mostly small to medium-sized businesses saying, “Oh, Steve’s coming. Let me share a spreadsheet of our future cost structure.” You had these very granular case studies of what the Liberation Day numbers would mean to these companies, as well as the emotional impact of all these conversations.

People forget that when you have a new tariff number, it means an enormous amount of stress on management thinking, “Oh shit, do we need to cancel this buildout? Do these SKUs need to die? Our entire business plan is thrown out the window.” Because this number went from 3% to 50%, down to 20%, up to 25% — and every single one of them repeatedly saying, “There’s absolutely no way I’m building a factory in America. I’m not embarking on a manufacturing renaissance of PCB boards or coolant or decals or whatever, because I’m just trying to stay alive. I’m not trying to plan for the future here."

Steve Burke: Most of these companies don’t own their own factories. Even if they wanted to make products here, that’s not their decision — they don’t have the capital, and the supply chain isn’t here.

Personally, as an individual endeavor, I can take a 3D rendering of a product idea to SEG Market (赛格电子市场) in Huaqiangbei in China, show it to a guy who prints PCBs and a guy who sells capacitors and MOSFETs, and probably have a sample within a couple of days. That doesn’t exist here. That’s a problem if you want to move the supply chain, because you can’t just bring over the end product — you have to bring over all the components that go into it to avoid these tariffs.

For some companies in the story, like Hyte (a small computer case and cooler company), they decided it was easier to halt shipments to the US and move all their advertising and product sales to Germany, England, and anywhere they wouldn’t get hit with these tariffs. They focused on those markets instead.

It ended up creating the opposite of the intended effect — now you’ve got a shortage of products in the US that people really want, and prices are going up due to low supply and tariff concerns.

Jordan Schneider: It’s interesting — it doesn’t really show up in inflation if the thing doesn’t exist anymore. That was really striking. In the interview, you asked if companies might die from tariffs:

Steve Burke: “Do you think this kills some American companies? Not necessarily anyone’s here at this table.”

Guest: “Oh yeah. This is a high-stress event. This will kill some people.”

Steve Burke: That’s a good point. Even for non-owners — just someone whose job is logistics for a company — if you’re responsible for millions, tens, or hundreds of millions of dollars of product and you’ve got the company breathing down your neck not to screw it up, that’s an enormous amount of stress for something they have very little control over. It comes down to decisions like “Do we take it off the boat or send it back to China?"

Jordan Schneider: Steve, watching you take these big swings and put out two of the most remarkable pieces of journalism I’ve seen this year has been fascinating. You have this deep domain expertise, decades of connections, and experience as a live player building things and seeing the industry evolve. What has the experience been like for you and your team to bite off these stories?

Steve Burke: First, it’s always weird coming off the back of these stories because we post something about black market GPUs and US export control in China, and then in a couple of days I’m going to post a review of a computer case.

One of my friends in the industry recently said to me at a trade show, “What are you doing running around the show floor talking about computer cases?” I still enjoy that stuff — it’s fun for me, easy, and interesting. But for the audience, the biggest thing we have to navigate is that the audience isn’t fully cohesive. It’s not one big mass. You’ve got people who really enjoy these stories and people who really don’t.

What we’ve been trying to do is focus one of our two channels on reviews content. Eventually, a lot of this reporting will probably move over to GN2, which is our consumer advocacy channel. The reason is that YouTube poses a big challenge: if someone subscribed because they enjoy these pieces — tariffs and geopolitical ones — but then they don’t click on anything reviewing a CPU because they don’t care or understand it, YouTube will mark that person as having become disengaged, even if they’re actually just waiting for the content they want.

We’ve been trying to allow the audience to choose if they want one or both types of coverage. That’s been an interesting journey. There’s this background battle people don’t consider — we’re also battling with the YouTube algorithm, which nobody understands. YouTube can’t tell me how it works. They don’t know. They built it and then it went off and became the Terminator.

For the team, it’s been fun because it’s a creative challenge. It’s interesting to talk to all these different experts and learn. At the end of the day, if we want a break from the travel and these stories, we just go review a computer part, and that’s still just as fun.

Jordan Schneider: How do you monetize something like this? It’s an enormous amount of effort to pull one of these together.

Steve Burke: This one was expensive. The travel alone, not counting staff costs, was maybe $15,000. We were overseas for three weeks with a lot of flying around.

For this particular story and most of our funding, it comes from audience support — things like Patreon or our own store where we make computer building products that people can use to help build PCs or other miscellaneous items. That’s the biggest component of our revenue.

Then there’s YouTube AdSense, which is pretty small — those third-party ads that everybody hates and hopefully can skip at the beginning of a video. Finally, there’s direct ad sales where we go to manufacturers directly and offer to sell them an ad for their product, though we didn’t put any of those in this video.

Jordan Schneider: Do you think other corners of your micro-niche are interested or have taken these other swings? How do other folks conceptualize speaking to bigger stories?

Steve Burke: Micro-niche is a good phrase for this. Because we’ve been so historically embedded in benchmarking components and testing video games, a lot of the people I know and respect are in that segment. A couple of the guys I’ll shout out — Hardware Unboxed does excellent benchmarks. He’s talked to me at shows, and the paraphrase of the conversation was more or less, “You can have those stories. I don’t want them.” Fair enough — if you enjoy what you do, then sure.

I don’t think a lot of the people I know directly want to do hardware component-oriented political coverage. No one really wanted to talk about politics in any capacity. I certainly didn’t. I’m on record in a lot of videos in the past saying we’re just reporting on this as hardware-relevant news and keeping all the politics out of this particular story.

As time has gone on and especially as companies like Nvidia have become more relevant to governments, I decided it’s not only not possible to fully separate it anymore — it starts to become almost irresponsible at some point to try to keep separating it because it’s integrated.

A lot of people are just happy to benchmark computer hardware news. This kind of coverage causes a lot of new stresses or problems because you’re potentially stepping on the toes of an audience that’s thinking, “I just watch you because you talk about computer cases. I don’t want to hear you talk about Donald Trump."

Jordan Schneider: The LeBron James “shut up and dribble” mentality. But let’s do a little Steve history — did you work for your high school newspaper? Where did this come from?

Steve Burke: I did. That’s funny, I forgot about that. I also distributed a — God, I was probably 10 or 12 or something — neighborhood newspaper that I wrote for my local area. I forgot about that too until right now.

Jordan Schneider: It’s interesting, the choice to do more political coverage and reporting. There are people like Tim Ferriss who comes to mind — a very popular person who just leaned out of any of this and lost national relevance. You see folks like Joe Rogan or All-In Pod getting much more into this, and the audience excitement and interest for these types of things increasing over time.

Watching the micro-niches I follow — yours and other sports-style coverage — it’s very bifurcated. There are people who have something in their past where they wrote for a high school newspaper and are just into this, and then there are other people who say, “Look, this is not my thing. I enjoy my niche. I don’t want the smoke that comes with it."

Steve Burke: It’s very uncomfortable to get into political stuff. For me, it’s one of those situations where we’ve got a story we think is interesting to everybody, regardless of politics, but we can’t separate it from politics. There’s a chance we piss off someone who we want to come back tomorrow and watch a computer case review. That’s uncomfortable.

It can also be uncomfortable because you’re making some of those people in the audience uncomfortable — maybe they’re confronted with these reviewers now having opinions they don’t agree with about things they don’t think we should talk about. There’s validity to that.

At the same time, I feel our job is to push buttons and be a thorn in the side of big companies. If that means making some people feel a little uncomfortable with this being different — “I don’t know if I enjoy it, but I’ll try it” — that’s kind of where we want to be. We’re saying, “It’s relevant enough. Hear us out. We’ve earned your trust so far. Just hear me out."

Jordan Schneider: There are a few levels to this. One is that you’re coming at this from a consumer advocacy perspective, and you’ve been getting into arguments with Nvidia about warranties and the Bitcoin GPU situation. Having the wherewithal to pick fights with trillion-dollar companies is step one.

From the audience perspective — and let me know if you think I’m practicing what I preach here — authenticity really helps. Look, I voted for Biden and I voted for Kamala. I don’t think anyone who listens to the show is surprised by that. But that’s not what defines this show. What defines this show is that I’m really curious about China and technology. I think this stuff is important and I want to explore these issues.

Coming at it from a place of investigation and curiosity as opposed to strict advocacy — you weren’t starting from the premise that “Trump’s an idiot, let’s use this tariff story to make him look really dumb.” Your premise was, “This is a really big deal for this industry that I cover. I want to show my audience and the world more broadly what these policies are doing to these businesses.” Through that, you had a really fascinating exploration. I’m not worried about you. You’re two for two right now, Steve. It’s going to be fine.

Subscribe now

Steve Burke: I appreciate it. It really helps to let the people you have on just speak. Going into it with the plan of “I’m just going to ask questions and see what they say, and that’s kind of it. I’m not going to push them on their beliefs. I’ll ask more questions maybe, but I don’t really care what this person does or doesn’t believe. I just want to know what they think.”

Then we put it together with all the other stuff people think, and the audience can decide who they agree with. That approach really helps defuse a lot of it, because then you’re just coming up with good topics and going from there.

Jordan Schneider: From my perspective, I do an interview show, not “Jordan talking for an hour.” It’s much more fun for me to learn as opposed to trying to argue with someone or convince them of something. Starting from a place of curiosity is generally a good thing.

By the way, there’s another media aspect worth processing that you mentioned with the government folks — it’s the same with mainstream media reporters. They’re not coming to this having been computer nerds since they were eight years old. They’re coming to this because they were assigned to it — they became a journalist and the Financial Times or Reuters or Wall Street Journal said, “You’re on this beat right now."

The level of connections, sophistication, and specific knowledge that you can bring to these stories is really rich in a way that mainstream media and reporting has a lot going for it, but deep subject matter expertise on the part of the reporters themselves sometimes happens but isn’t really the default. Specifically when you’re talking about stories that have such an industry technical component, being able to tell them through the eyes of someone who really knows their stuff adds another level of sophistication that really shows.

Steve Burke: I used to be worried that this would be a one-hit wonder type of thing — okay, it’s pretty narrow, I happen to overlap with this expertise, but does this happen again? I don’t know. But now, you look at it — Nvidia really is the best example. They are so intertwined with government and Intel now. The government’s talking about buying 10% of AMD, and they’re in the audience for some of these things.

It seems like this line is going to continue to be blurred between tech — especially big tech companies — and government regulation in ways that are still very strange to me. I know the people who are talking to Donald Trump. I’ve met a lot of them in these different briefings, and I know them because they told me how many frames per second their product gets in this video game. Now they’re talking to him about whether this thing should or shouldn’t be banned from another country. It’s very strange still.

Jordan Schneider: It’s such a wild arc. I’m going to refer folks back to the episode on the history of Nvidia I did with Doug O’Laughlin. He was making video cards for gamers — that was 95% of his business for decades. Then crypto gave them this big capital infusion. Jensen was a man with a dream, and it turned out he was right about parallelized computing. He made the best chips in the world, which were able to make GPT-3, and then we’re off to the races.

This is not baked in, and it’s fun for you and for the broader community of people who grew up reading PC Gamer every month, thinking “Oh man, this new chip is so crazy. Let’s see if I can steal money from my parents’ wallet to buy it at CompUSA.” Now this company is probably the most important company in the world.

Steve Burke: Yeah, it’s very bizarre.

Jordan Schneider: Steve, I hear you’ve got a follow-up.

Steve Burke: Yes. The only follow-up I’ve promised to the audience so far is that we will try to find literally anybody in government to interview about GPU export controls. I don’t care who it is, what their viewpoints are, or what state they’re from. We’re trying to find any politician or someone attached to politics — attorney general, whatever — to talk about GPU smuggling, GPU black markets, and export control. We want to understand more of that political viewpoint.

I don’t know who we’ll find. It’s not really the circle I run in.

Jordan Schneider: This seems like a Gamers Nexus–ChinaTalk collaboration opportunity.

Steve Burke: Sure.

Jordan Schneider: More to come on this front. I’m really glad to have you on this beat, Steve. It’s great to have new voices. This is a really important story that has flown under the radar — investors know about it, but this isn’t something your average American has any understanding of. But it’s a big deal, and there are a lot of changes happening. I trust you more than anyone else to tell this story.

Mood Music:

Mick Ryan is a retired major general in the Australian army and author of three books — War Transformed: The Future of Twenty-First-Century Great Power Competition and Conflict, White Sun War, which is a piece of fiction about a near-future Taiwan war, and The War for Ukraine: Strategy and Adaptation Under Fire. He also writes the excellent Substack, which has taught me a tremendous amount over the past few years. The way Mick synthesizes history and contemporary conflict makes it one of my few true must-read Substacks.

In today’s conversation, we discuss…

• Lessons from the history of warfare, and how to apply them to modern conflict,

• Why superweapons don’t win wars, and how the human dimension of war will shape military applications of AI,

• Why economic integration alone cannot prevent a US-China war,

• The role of deception and the limits of battlefield surveillance, with case studies in Ukraine and Afghanistan,

• Mick’s four filters for applying lessons from Ukraine to a Taiwan contingency, and the underappreciated role of Taiwanese public opinion in shaping CCP goals.

Thanks to the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology for sponsoring this podcast.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app.

Why Humans Win Wars

Jordan Schneider: We’re not passing up an opportunity to open a show with Andrew Marshall. You’re fond of the following quote from him:

The most important competition is not the technological competition. The most important goal is to be the best in the intellectual task of finding the most appropriate innovations in the concepts of operation and making organizational changes to fully exploit the technologies already available and those that will be available in the next decade or so.

Is that really the key to fighting and winning wars?

Mick Ryan: There’s only one real future of war, and that’s the human being. If you take the human out of it, it’s not war by definition. That quote really gets to the human aspects of competition and warfare. Regardless of how spectacular technology might be — and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a longbow, a tank, a B-29, an atomic bomb, or AI — it’s ultimately humans who develop those technologies and humans who employ them as part of a larger national warfighting system, not just a military system.

I think it’s a really important quote and really needs to continue driving how military and national security organizations think about absorbing and integrating new technologies into their capability.

Jordan Schneider: On the other side of the spectrum, you have a book like Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. I thought it was interesting and almost ironic that he writes this book, Engineers of Victory, which contains these wonderful little jewels of chapters that goes into specific technological innovations and how they get deployed and scaled up to have operational and ultimately strategic impacts. But at the end of the day it was really the broader industrial weight of what the Allies could bring to bear that decided the war for the most part. If you zoom out on a century-by-century level, that’s definitely what he argues in Rise and Fall.

Why isn’t it just the GDP or correlation of how many factories you have that ends up deciding this stuff? What was Andrew Marshall actually getting at?

Mick Ryan: Well, I think they’re complementary ideas. I don’t think they exist in tension, because at the end of the day, in the wars he examined — and it’s a fabulous book — both sides had industrial capacity, but the one that’s able to leverage it cleverly is the one that wins.

In the Second World War, Germany started with massive industrial capacity, but it didn’t mobilize it until too late. It didn’t mobilize its national workforce very well by still having servants and people working in household roles well until the third or fourth year of the war. Ultimately, it was about decisions made by humans — politicians and industrial leaders — to cleverly apply, prioritize, and mobilize industrial resources that won them the war.

Yes, in the macro, it was industrial capacity that won, but it was those who most cleverly mobilized, applied, and prioritized their industrial capacity that won.

Jordan Schneider: Here’s a relevant quote from Paul Kennedy’s Victory at Sea:

“[I]t would be a very grave error to think that great contests are won solely by larger and larger forces moving inexorably toward victory, by global trends, or by sophisticated causation-chains. To be sure, if vast shifts occur in the economic substructure and productive forces (for example, if an entire American continent is mobilizing for war), and an overwhelming flood of ships, planes, and guns is being sent to the battlefields, then it is more than likely that the enemy’s battalions will be crushed; indeed, if victory did not follow, the historian would be hard-pressed to explain that. But the deficit in all deterministic explanations—the substructure alters, therefore the superstructure is changed—is that they lack human agency. The victor’s ships, planes, and guns need courageous men to steer them, insightful men to organize them, and clever men to give them superior battlefield performance.”

Mick Ryan: We thought the future of war was drones, and then Bakhmut happened. At the end of the day, there is no technology that fully replaces every other technology that’s gone before it. That just has never happened. Even the longbow, revolutionary as it was, didn’t replace every other technology that went before it.

War is what I call additive. It just adds layers of sedimentation of everything that’s gone before it, and the new technologies add something on top. Even in Ukraine, drones have not — and I’ll repeat this — they have not changed a whole lot of existing ideas and technologies. They’ve evolved some of them, certainly, but largely what drones have done is extended what military organizations have done, not totally changed them.

At the end of the day, on the ground, you have to fight and take ground. That has not changed. Drones help with that; they help with holding ground. But if you talk with any Ukrainian soldier, they will tell you drones alone are insufficient. There’s a whole lot of other things that are required. It’s the same in the land, in the air, and in the maritime domain.

Jordan Schneider: Mick, can you imagine a future where the longbow makes a comeback?

Mick Ryan: Yeah, World War IV, I think, to paraphrase Einstein — but I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Jordan Schneider: Low signature, very quiet, doesn’t emit anything. Come on, it’s gotta be something, right?

Mick Ryan: Well, you just never know. But I did recently attend the Chalke History Festival in England, and they did have someone there teaching all about the longbow and giving demonstrations of its efficiency.

Jordan Schneider: Speaking of human beings, another book which I’m going to credit you for turning me onto is On the Psychology of Military Incompetence, written by Norman Dixon. He was a Royal Engineer for ten years, then became a professional practicing psychologist, and ten years into that decided to write about all the poor decisions that British generals have made throughout history.

The book came out in 1976, but in the introduction, he has this great little riff where he writes about generals.

“The contemplation of what is involved in generalship may well, on occasion, suggest that incompetence is not absolutely inevitable — that anyone can do the job at all. This is particularly so when one considers that military decisions are often made under conditions of enormous stress, where actual noise, fatigue, lack of sleep, poor food, grinding responsibility add their quotas to the ever-present threat of total annihilation. Indeed, the foregoing analysis of generalship prompts the thought that it might be better to scrap generals and leave decision-making of war to computers.”

What reflections does that quote prompt for you in 2025?

Mick Ryan: I think he got it partially right, but it’s not the full story. That was his view, and notwithstanding the fact we’re both engineers, there’s also counter-evidence. If you read studies — for example, Aimée Fox’s Learning to Fight is a wonderful study of how the British Army became a learning organization during the First World War — you can imagine a universe or history where both exist at the same time.

Every military organization has rock stars and incompetents. He focused and chose to focus purely on the incompetents, but there are also many rock stars — brilliant people involved in planning, execution, and leadership of military affairs. You need to consider both in the same context.

Having war taken over by computers — “taken over” is the wrong term — but guided more by computers is already here. We’ve seen that since 1991 in the First Gulf War. But computers making key decisions about strategy and operations? We’re not there yet, and I don’t know whether we want to go there. I would be deeply concerned if we went that way.

However, short-term tactical engagement decisions have been made by computers in systems like close-in weapons systems and air defense systems for a very long time. The range of tactical decision-making by AI and computers will continue to be extended. But the big questions about war — whether to go to war, the key trajectory of war, whether to end a war — will remain human.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about the crawl up the command chain that autonomous decision-making could have. We’ve been doing targeting since the 1990s, but there’s an aspect that seems inevitable at a surface level: once systems get smart enough, you’re going to want them to take up more and more of at least the decision-making space.

Maybe there are things on the battlefield that humans can do that machines can’t, but this orchestration — if it is more effective and you have this competitive dynamic between two reasonably equally matched adversaries — if there’s an advantage there, someone’s going to lean into that, right?

Mick Ryan: Absolutely, and for the most part we’d be crazy not to. But there are still limits to seeking advantage. We’ve accepted that through the Biological and Chemical Weapons Convention, so it’s not a 100% free-for-all — it’s about a 90% free-for-all when it comes to weapons and the conduct of war. We’ve also signed up to things like the Geneva Convention.

Even though war is the most awful thing that can occur to human beings, we’ve still accepted that there must be some limitations on it. Now whether those limitations continue to hold is an open question. Russia has clearly decided that it will no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. It has rarely done so in the war in Ukraine — it has executed POWs, tortured virtually every single POW it’s taken, deliberately murdered civilians, and used chemical weapons on the battlefield in hundreds of recorded incidents.

China will be learning from that, and we might surmise that they might decide it’s in their advantage not to abide by those rules. Whether the norms about limitations on warfare hold, or whether we find ourselves falling into total war — and I mean real total war — remains to be seen.

Jordan Schneider: You’ve seen this increasing digitization of command and control. Right now we’re in a very interesting, sticky moment on the front in Ukraine. At what point are we going to have AIs making recommendations which humans are going to follow because they trust the AIs more than their own intuition about how to deal with a front where there’s some tactical breakthrough? That’s an interesting one to ponder at least.

Mick Ryan: There’s a lot of talk about static front lines in Ukraine and how to break them, but they’re not truly static — they are moving. As we’ve seen throughout the course of the war, surprises are possible and you can do things that generate an advantage resulting in penetration and breakthrough, at least on the ground. We’ve seen that in the air as well.

This has not really been an air war — it’s been a drone war, but there hasn’t been a large-scale air war. The future of air warfare is probably more about what we saw Israel using against Iran than what we’ve seen in Ukraine. The same applies to maritime warfare — we haven’t seen a full-on maritime war. Ukraine offers us many lessons, but not in every single dimension and domain of warfare.

Jordan Schneider: I want to come back to human fallibility one more time. Maybe this was a theme in your novel — you kept emphasizing when people were tired. It seems clear to me that of all the things most legible for an AI to process and spit out recommendations for, these point-in-time decisions of “do we do A or B or C” seem to be on the multi-decadal timeline of things that are coming.

Before we’re going to have humanoid robots that can do everything infantry do, before we’re going to have robots make crazy material science breakthroughs, the types of things that someone in a command post or someone managing a battalion does — those decisions seem closer than AGI or what have you.

From another angle: what would you need to see from your war games or your interactions with some automated command and control system in order for you as a commanding officer to start handing more and more of the reins over — up from the super tactical stuff towards the more operational decisions?

Mick Ryan: We already see this happening in digital command and control platforms that the Ukrainians and many others are using. They offer very good situational awareness. Just the recall function alone — you don’t have to have people marking maps anymore. It’s automatically updated with friendly and enemy locations. That alone is an enormous step forward from many traditional ways of warfare.

The ability to understand the capacity of friendly units and those you’re opposing — their weapon ranges and holdings. The ability to quickly contact neighboring units in ways you may not have been able to do with radios in certain circumstances. Then there’s the ability to support planning and decision-making with data that you’ve either forgotten or wouldn’t traditionally access. The ability to quickly war-game lots of different options rather than having to do it manually when you’re tired, wet, hungry, and under threat.

These are the kinds of tactical functions that digitization and bespoke AI offer at the moment and will continue to improve. We’ve seen it really close the kill chain. Others are using it to work on what they call the “live chain” — casualty evacuation operations. AI is not just about improving the speed and capacity to kill people. It’s also improving the speed and capacity to treat, evacuate, and save people’s lives on the battlefield as well.

Learning from History

Jordan Schneider: Your most recent book is this extended meditation on what the war in Ukraine confirms about the nature of war broadly, as well as what disjunctures we may see today and tomorrow. I imagine there’s an aspect of this being surreal. The fact that we have now spent three years living through a high-intensity conflict that many people imagined was much more far-fetched than it turned out to be.

What has it been like following this halfway across the world, traveling there, traveling back, meditating on it, and living and breathing the conflict that we hoped wouldn’t happen in the 21st century?

Mick Ryan: The whole reason I wrote War Transformed is because these kinds of wars are inevitable. Humans are not smart enough to prevent war. I don’t care what any academic says about this issue — 5,000 years of history prove that humans are not beyond fighting each other yet. Unless there’s some change in the fundamental nature of humans, and there hasn’t been for a long time, we will, through calculation or miscalculation, continue to fight and kill each other. That was the core reason why I wrote War Transformed and how it might look in the future. Then nine days after that was published, Putin invaded Ukraine.

For me, the surprise was only about timing, not that it happened. Unfortunately, politicians and citizens still believe, or at least before 2022 believed, that this kind of thing was impossible — that conventional war wouldn’t take place because of economic integration. Well, once again, that’s a very old idea that’s been proven wrong in the lead-up to the First World War, even the US Civil War. If you look at that, the economic integration between the North and South was enormous, yet they still went to war.

Once again, there are all these fallacies that tend to become facts in the minds of many people about warfare. At the end of the day, you just need one person who miscalculates for us to fall into some massive conflagration. As I’ve written in White Sun War and elsewhere, that’s entirely possible in the Asia-Pacific. It’s very imaginable that America and China could find themselves at war regardless of any economic interest they have in not going to war.

It’s a little bit like climate change. The science is all there to say that things are clearly going to get worse over the course of this century, yet we still have politicians and people going on about how there’s no such thing as climate change, or it’s a made-up thing, or it’s a natural thing when all the science disproves that — and we’ve failed to act. Ultimately, humans are pretty good at ignoring facts and data if it’s in their economic or ideological interests. Because of that, we’ll continue to do things like go to war, just as we have in Ukraine and just as we may in other places in the future.

Jordan Schneider: Do you want to do a US Civil War detour? Do we have lessons from that conflict for Ukraine or Taiwan?

Mick Ryan: Well, every war has lessons. Many of the lessons from the US Civil War apply to Ukraine. There are lessons about mobilizing industrial production — clearly the North was able to mobilize its industry. It had more industry to start with, but it was able to mobilize it. It was clearly able to look at new technologies and absorb them into the military: telegraph, steam train, steamboats along the coast and along the Mississippi. There are lessons there about integration of new technologies, particularly at the operational and strategic level.

There are good lessons about civil-military relations. Both the North and South had issues with this, but there are some amazing and wonderful case studies about the interaction between Lincoln and the commanding generals of the Northern armies throughout the war, and then the relationship he had with Grant, which found its right level. Then there are great lessons about keeping citizens informed about good national strategy.

All these lessons from the Civil War — and there are great lessons about training, leadership, and these kinds of things as well — are every bit as applicable today, notwithstanding the different technological era, because these are human things. The human element of war is its enduring part, which Clausewitz wrote and is yet to be disproven.

Jordan Schneider: Another thing you point out in War Transformed is this idea of the future shock moment of the 1900s and 1910s being perhaps the one most applicable to today, just in terms of all this new stuff making your head spin perspective. If you could go back and be a war correspondent or work on a general staff, is that the time period you’re picking to get a better sense of, or are there others on your time travel list that you’d be excited about? Cholera notwithstanding.

Mick Ryan: It was an interesting period because the Second Industrial Revolution threw up all these new technologies that really disrupted the conduct of warfare in all the domains. There was a lot of thinking before the First World War about how these might impact. There was a lot of fiction written — hundreds of books literally sought to understand the impact of these new technologies on strategic competition and warfare. Lawrence Freedman has actually written a tremendous book that looks at this, but I look at it in War Transformed as well. Fiction has been a very powerful way of looking at the future of war.

I think that’s a very important period. Philipp Blom’s book, The Vertigo Years, looks at each year in the fifteen years that led up to the beginning of World War I, and looks at societal, technological, and industrial issues that emerged and how the world in 1914 ceased to exist by 1918. We could lay that over the top of 2022 and 2025. The world that existed in 2022 doesn’t exist anymore. The security architecture of Europe doesn’t exist like it did three years ago. The security situation in the Pacific doesn’t exist like it did three years ago. There are lots of parallels there, lots of rhymes, as Mark Twain might tell us.

I think that’s a really important period for study, probably one of the most important periods to study. But there are lots of other periods of human history that are equally worthy of study, from the ancient Greeks and the Peloponnesian War to Rome’s rise, its heyday, and its eventual fall. All of these offer profound insights into how humans think about governance, about war, and about competing with their adversaries.

Jordan Schneider: If you could spend one year as a fly on the wall in which bureaucracy over the course of the past 300 years, do you have a top three?

Mick Ryan: The first one for me would be 1939 in the Australian military, to see how they worked with government to industrialize and prepare for the Second World War. Probably the next one would be 1942 in the same place, to look at how the entry of Japan into the war fundamentally shifted everything. Those two periods for me would be really interesting.

Then probably the United States in 1940-41. There’s a lot of great literature on that period, but just to see how the United States planned to mobilize for the Second World War — the strategic and political decision-making that was involved and the political leadership that was required by the President to drag the American people into an understanding that they couldn’t avoid this forever. That was very interesting and very relevant to the contemporary world.

Jordan Schneider: Maybe that’s a good transition to talk about how the strategic level often completely wipes out whatever creative stuff you could do at the tactical or operational level. It’s the way you avoid wars in the first place. We’ve seen a lot — your most recent book on Ukraine as well as the subsequent year have cataloged an enormous amount of creative and awe-inspiringly horrific strategic decisions. What have the past few years made you reflect upon most about how the strategic level relates to other levels of war?

Mick Ryan: First, I’d start with the Russian side of things. Before he decided on this invasion, Putin had a series of strategic assumptions. This speaks to the importance of getting your assumptions as right as possible. At the start of the war, he had three big assumptions.

1. That the Ukrainian government would run away and he could insert his own government,

2. That the Ukrainian military was analogous to the 2014 military and wouldn’t last very long,

3. That NATO would act like it had for the preceding ten years over Russia’s invasion and illegal takeover of Crimea and parts of the Donbas.

He got all of those assumptions wrong, and we’re still in this war because he got those assumptions wrong.

From a European perspective, they assumed that they could continue being economically integrated with Russia and that would condition their behavior towards its neighbors. Very much the old Norman Angell “won’t go to war because we’re economically integrated” model. Once again, Russia proved Europe wrong and that it wasn’t a reliable energy provider.

The US Administrations made some assumptions about Ukrainian capacity up front. They didn’t think they’d last very long. The Ukrainians proved them wrong, thank goodness. They made assumptions about how much risk they were willing to assume in dealing with Russia in the first year. Because of the risk aversion in the Biden administration in the first year of the war and the very slow pace at which they made decisions about support — I remember when towed artillery was considered escalatory — well, it’s impossible to escalate when you provide a piece of equipment to a friend that’s being used against them the whole time. The Russians used everything in their inventory against the Ukrainians, so none of this was escalatory. But it was used by the peaceniks and the risk-averse in the Biden administration to slow down aid.

It manifested in the Ukrainians not being able to exploit the defeat of the Russians at the end of 2022. The great strategic lesson from the end of 2022 is: if you have your boot on the neck of your enemy, don’t take the boot off. That’s what happened at the end of 2022 with European and American decision-making in this war.

Surprise, Deception, and Taiwan Tripwires

Jordan Schneider: Let’s turn to Taiwan for a bit. Obviously you’ve been thinking about what is and isn’t applicable from the past three years and have a new piece coming out in the next few weeks. What’s the right framework to start taking and applying lessons?

Mick Ryan: The first thing is to understand what China wants. What does the CCP want? What does Xi want? That’s the start for any investigation of Taiwan. If you don’t understand that — if you haven’t read all of Xi’s speeches over his term as president and chief of the Chinese Communist Party and head of the Chinese Military Commission and every other appointment he’s got — you don’t understand the overall situation. That’s a good starting point.

Then you need to understand the aspirations of Taiwan and look at different literature that relates to that — the speeches by this president and his predecessors over many years, and how the Taiwanese democracy has developed. The polls that look at Taiwanese views of themselves — are they Chinese, are they Taiwanese? These are the necessary foundation for any exploration of the ongoing tension and competition between Taiwan and China.

Then of course, you need to understand regional dynamics. There’s no regional NATO. There are some alliances that are very important, and INDOPACOM in Hawaii is central to all those. Those are the essential ingredients of any understanding of the situation in the western Pacific.

Then it’s just about continuously tracking Chinese military aggression and where countries are pushing back against that, and the level of deterrence that might be achieved against a Chinese Communist Party that is hell-bent on taking Taiwan — on unifying it with China. You have an aging Chinese leader who’s looking at his legacy. He is looking at how does he get himself a fourth term in office. All these things come together in the second half of the 2020s in ways that don’t augur well if we’re not decisive and determined in standing up for not just Taiwan, but all democracies in the western Pacific and pushing back against coercion, subversion, and aggression.

Jordan Schneider: You lay out this framework of four filters for interpreting what you’re seeing in Ukraine and applying it to Taiwan. You have geography/distance, terrain/vegetation (underappreciated), weather, and political environment/adversary capabilities. Pick your two favorites.

Mick Ryan: The first one is always you’ve got to focus on the enemy, and you can never take your eye off the adversary. That one is very important in the Pacific region because, unlike Europe, where they’ve only got to deal with Russia, in the Pacific, they’ve got to deal with China, North Korea, and Russia. You’ve got three very different but connected adversaries that have formed a learning and adaptation bloc — not an alliance, but a series of interactions where they’re learning from each other in a way that they haven’t done before, more quickly and more substantively.

You also have a significant potential adversary in China who’s bigger, richer, and more technologically advanced than any other adversary that Western democracies have ever come up against. Ultimately, this is an ideological war. You have two very different ideologies rubbing up against each other, potentially causing even more conflict and war down the track. We need to understand the dimensions of that ideological conflict. Is there room for agreement or accommodation, or will it eventually and ultimately lead to some kind of showdown over who is the top dog in the world? That’s the really scary part of a future conflict. If it does occur between the US and China, it will be about who is number one in the world. Traditionally, the number one doesn’t like to give up that spot, and they can fight pretty hard and ruthlessly. We need to understand that dimension.

My other favorite is terrain and vegetation, primarily because so many people think Pacific war is a maritime war. That is not the full truth. It’s partially the truth because yes, there’s lots of water, but a lot of that water is just in parts of the Pacific that we’ll be traveling or fighting through, not fighting for. There’s nothing in the middle of the Pacific worth fighting for. It’s an area you go through, not an area you go to. The western Pacific is where the real competition is, and that’s a mix of air, land, sea, space, and cyber conditions. There are lots of green bits where there is potential to fight. Those green bits might be jungle, those green bits might be cities. But we really need to understand them because that’s where people are and, importantly, that’s where the politicians are that ultimately make the big decisions about war and about ending war — who need to be influenced.

I emphasize that because we absolutely have to push back on this being a naval war or a maritime war. It’s a multi-domain war. The area of decision will be that strip of land within 1,000 kilometers of the Eurasian heartland that runs from Vladivostok to Tasmania.

Jordan Schneider: Foreign tripwires in Taiwan feature prominently in your novel. Where are you today on the idea of sending bodies in harm’s way as a way to signal commitment to Taiwan?

Mick Ryan: I think it’s still the way we do business. You’ve seen a step-up in foreign assistance to Taiwan even though not all of it will be declared. But it is a way of signaling that you are taking a big risk of targeting Taiwan because if you hit these people of ours, regardless of which country they’re from, you will have to answer to us. That’s still a valid theory. It can be dangerous and it can be provocative at times, but it’s also a good way of signaling will and your determination to support friends and security partners and indeed allies.

America has forward-based ever since the end of the Second World War. It’s done it in Europe as a statement of commitment and will and as part of its signaling to an adversary that if you invade West Germany, you’re not just coming up against us, you’re coming up against an entire alliance. The United States has done it in Japan since the end of the Second World War to signal other countries, whether it’s North Korea or Russia or others, the same kinds of things it did in Europe. Forward basing by America and others is still a valid part of national strategy and probably will be for some time to come.

Jordan Schneider: This idea of surprise is somehow still underappreciated, even though we’ve had a number of wild surprises just over the past three years. What is that? People just get too confident? Why is pricing in the idea that you can be surprised such a hard thing?

Mick Ryan: There are lots of reasons for this. Lack of humility is a really important contributor to this. A lack of understanding of the enemy is another one. If you look at 1941, most Western allies really discounted the capacity of the Japanese to fight. They said, “Well yes, they’ve been fighting the Chinese for X years, but when they fight us it’ll be totally different.” It wasn’t. The Japanese achieved massive surprise and were able to launch this six-month offensive that spread out across the Pacific.

You see that kind of arrogance in Western military organizations today. You’ve seen many, particularly in the first eighteen months of the war in Ukraine, going, “Yeah, well, I don’t think there are lessons for us because it’s different and we’re far smarter.” We should call bullshit on those assumptions. Never underestimate the enemy because they will surprise you and they will hurt you. Once again, we have 5,000 years of case law to support that case. Humans have not changed.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about the transparent battlefield. That is a fallacious view. It’s wrong — it’s not transparent. It’s highly visible, there’s no doubt about that, and better visible than ever before. But that hasn’t stopped Ukraine and Russia from surprising each other, even down to this latest twenty-kilometer penetration of the Ukrainian front line just to the north of Pokrovsk. There have been lots of examples of surprise in this war in what was supposed to be a transparent battlefield.

I served in Afghanistan, and up until Ukraine, Afghanistan was the most densely surveilled battle space in the history of human warfare. We were still surprised regularly. This notion of transparency is a terrible fallacy. It’s one we should not encourage because humans are still able to deceive. This was a subject I wrote about with Peter Singer, and we published a detailed report through an American think tank in June this year. This will continue into the future and indeed may get more sophisticated because AI will help us not just with seeing more, but it will help us with deceiving more. You’re going to have this constant perception battle in warfare.

Jordan Schneider: The way the Pentagon talked about how they bombed Iran and how proud they were about sending some bombers to Guam so people looked left and then the bombers went right made me really pessimistic about the ability of the US military to do this. If they really feel like they have to wiggle their tail feathers around something this simple, I’m worried we don’t have too many more moves up our sleeve.

But maybe a broader question: at the conclusion of your novel — no spoilers — there is a super weapon that gets unveiled. I’m curious because at other points in time, and one of the big lessons of the Ukraine war is the fact that there isn’t really one thing that you can cook up at home that is going to drastically change everything for you. What was your thinking behind concluding your book with something that was cooked up under a mountain that has this big strategic effect?

Subscribe now

Mick Ryan: Just on the deception for Operation Midnight Hammer, I would add that it worked. At the end of the day, it might have been a simple deception measure, but it worked.

Jordan Schneider: Did it, though? I don’t know. Plenty of people on Polymarket were predicting military action the day before the bombing.

Mick Ryan: But that’s different from projecting exactly how that’s going to happen. The deception measure worked. You saw huge commentary around those bombers that headed over to the west, and no one picked up that this was being done another way. We probably need to give them some credit there — it actually worked and every aircraft got in and out safely. That’s a great achievement. Even if the Israelis had taken down most of the air defense network, that’s still significant.

The ending of the book wasn’t just about the super weapon. There were five different elements — it was just one of the elements. The message there was yes, we are still going to develop exquisite technologies, but there was a whole range of things, including cyber operations, ground warfare, aerial warfare, drones, and other systems that all added up to that culminating point. Super weapons don’t win wars, but they’re going to be part of our desire to help end wars in the future.

Jordan Schneider: I asked Jeff Alstott at RAND, who spent time at ARPA, point blank on the mic whether or not he’s been working on weather manipulation. He gave me a very confident no, but maybe he’s just deceiving us, setting us up for that big reveal one day.

Mick Ryan: Once again, it wasn’t so much about manipulating the weather. You can’t do that, but you can manipulate how people see the weather and give them a different picture that’s not the same as reality. That’s a simpler undertaking, as complex as that might be.

Jordan Schneider: This idea of mobilizing intellectual capacity is a really powerful idea and an interesting one to think of as a civilian, as someone who just sits at home and writes stuff. What is the right way for folks in the broader commentary and think tank community to try to do work that plugs in to help answer some of these big intellectual challenges and questions that Andrew Marshall posed at the beginning of the show?

Mick Ryan: The first thing is you can’t just study one war. You can’t study Ukraine and think you understand war. If you study Ukraine, you understand the Ukraine war and nothing else. You need as a foundation the study of war — its past, present, and future. Then you look at the Middle East, Ukraine, and others as case studies that either prove or disprove hypotheses about the trajectory of warfare.

Ukraine, I’ll be very clear, is not the future of war. It is not the future, but many elements that have emerged from the war in Ukraine will influence all future wars. We should remember that many of the lessons from Ukraine — probably 90% — are not new lessons. They’re lessons relearned about the importance of leadership, industrialization, organization, training, and these kinds of things. It’s reinforced old lessons rather than introduced new things. Now there are some new things, whether it’s the use of drones and similar technologies, but we cannot afford to see Ukraine as the future of war. But it will be very influential on all forms of future war.

I know that’s a fine line, but it’s a very important point to makeou have to study war in all its dimensions, not just the war in one place at one time, to really understand the trajectory of warfare.

Self-Improvement and Recommended Reading

Jordan Schneider: I’m going to link your posts with syllabi of dozens of books that people can dive into. But maybe I’m curious, Mick — there’s a lot in the Bay Area and also in Washington of this idea of AI as this millenarian solution that’s going to answer all the questions. I’m curious if there are a handful of books that come to mind that are maybe starting points for folks who haven’t already read fifteen books of military history to give folks a sense of just how messy the introduction of new technology to warfare ends up playing out in practice.

Mick Ryan: Some of the material about the interwar period — the debate about tanks and cavalry, the debate about battleships versus aircraft carriers — those were important debates about old and new technology and their potential impact on war. Institutions had to make some pretty big bets before war about these technologies in the hope that they were right, because ultimately you don’t know whether you’re right until you actually go to war.

Those past debates on new technologies offer some really important insights into how individuals and institutions respond and debate the impact and absorption ability of organizations for these new technologies, how they influence the development of entirely new organizations. In 1900, there was no such thing as an air force — it didn’t exist. In 2000, there was no such thing as a space force — it didn’t exist.

There are lots of historical analogies because ultimately the technology doesn’t matter. It’s how humans react to the technology. It’s how humans debate its impact, how humans develop the organizational and conceptual constructs within which those technologies will be used that are the most vital part. There are lots of examples of that over the last hundred years that can inform current debates over AI, over quantum technology, over future space and cyber capabilities.

I wish more of the technologists would read these examples, because there are too many people who are purely focused on the technology and don’t understand the foundational ideas behind war and human conflict that will ultimately decide how these things might be used.

Jordan Schneider: Great. Let’s throw them some titles. Where should we start them?

Mick Ryan: There’s a huge amount in there. I really loved Aimée Fox’s book Learning to Fight, which is about the British Army in the First World War, and how an organization learns how to learn better. It really challenges some existing paradigms about stupid British generals in the First World War — they weren’t all stupid because at the end of the day they won. Now, they didn’t do it by themselves — there were lots of other countries that helped — but part of winning was learning how to learn better.

Murray and Millett’s book Military Innovation in the Interwar Period is important, but also their three-part series on military effectiveness in World War I, the interwar period, and World War II across multiple countries provides a really good analytical framework and a good study of how institutions have learned and adapted across three different domains that were the principal concerns in those wars.

Trent Hone’s book Learning War is absolutely fabulous about how the US Navy developed a learning culture in the lead-up to the Second World War. Not perfect, but good enough to win, because war is not about being perfect — it’s about being better than the other person. Those are probably a good start.

There’s a recent book I’ve been reading, Brent Sterling’s Other People’s Wars, about how the US learns from foreign wars and how it has learned and adapted, or not learned and adapted, based on those. Dima Adamsky’s work on military innovation is extraordinarily important. Finally, Meir Finkel’s two books are terrific — On Flexibility and Military Agility. Military Agility is very important because it’s one of the few books that looks at adaptation not in war, not in peace, but the third really important part of adaptation, which is adapting from peace to war and how institutions and individuals need to do that.

I’ve covered this in a new report that’ll come out in September for the Special Competitive Studies Project, so watch for that one. But that’s a selection of very useful books. There are many, many others out there. I probably need to update my recommended adaptation reading list. I might do that in the next couple of weeks to include the full gamut of books. But that’s a pretty good start for anyone who’s interested in this topic.

Jordan Schneider: Awesome. I’ll throw in two more. Andrew Krepinevich’s The Origins of Victory — these are chapter-length pieces that aren’t really anecdotes but almost feel reported — they have characters in them and they develop over time. You really get the sense of, “Oh wow, it’s 1931, planes are just starting to be a thing — can we land them on boats? Not sure yet. Maybe if we make longer boats it’ll be easier.” It shows all of the little iterations you need to get to Midway. It shows the kind of personalities that you need to have in these systems in order to feel your way through the darkness.

I also recommend The Wizard War by R.V. Jones. It’s written by an engineer, it’s a memoir, it’s got a lot of color and characters, and does a really good job of illustrating just how dynamic these technological competitions can be where you have engineers on both sides trying to outdo each other. Something that maybe worked for you in January will be obsolete by April and actually might get you killed. That kind of dance that you saw in the Battle of the Beams and all of this other crazy electronic signals stuff that happened over the course of World War II — where a 27-year-old was able to do incredible things because physics was cool at the time — makes for some fantastic summer reading.

Mick Ryan: No, I agree. I’ll just throw in one final book there: a terrific book called Mars Adapting by Frank Hoffman. He looks at just how do you build an institution that is adaptive, that is learning and is able to adapt. He has a whole lot of case studies, but importantly offers a really important four-part model for how do you build this institutional learning capacity. It’s a really important contribution to this literature.

Jordan Schneider: Mick, how are you trying to improve?

Mick Ryan: I’m constantly trying to improve. Obviously I read a lot. My reading, my writing, my interaction with a bunch of different people is important. But also, I’m completing a PhD in creative writing to learn how to write better, to communicate better, because there’s always room for improvement.

But ultimately, if you want to develop what I’ve called this intellectual edge, you need to have humility. You need to understand that you don’t know everything, and that’s the starting point for all learning. Humility is vital, and we’ve all had to be pretty humble over the last four years with the Ukraine war. We’ve had to learn new things, had to relearn some old things. There are fortunately a lot of people out there who do possess that humility and have demonstrated the capacity to learn new things and recontextualize some elements of warfare. That’s an important part of learning.

Jordan Schneider: Do you want to assign me and maybe the audience some paper topics? Where have you not seen coverage to the degree there should be?

Mick Ryan: One of the reasons I’ve focused on adaptation is we need to focus more on how organizations learn how to learn better. That’s a core macro skill for every organization. This is a topic I’ll cover in my September report, which will be released at a conference in Austin at the end of September.

Jordan Schneider: Awesome. Well, I just want to say, for my part, I moved to China when I was 26, and I already felt behind the ball from the kids who started learning Chinese in high school. Now as I start to spend more time at 35 thinking and learning and writing about all these military history and technology applications, it’s both exciting and also deeply humbling to be at the bottom of a new knowledge mountain.

There are aspects of what I’ve learned over the past ten years when it comes to China and technology which are applicable. Then there’s this whole other universe of things and organizations and institutions to start understanding, and weapon systems to start to wrap your head around in order to be able to make a contribution and say something useful.

Subscribe now

Preemptive apologies to my audience for all the war stuff you’re going to get in the feed over the next few months and years. But this stuff is really intellectually fascinating — as important as it gets. There’s just an endless amount to be explored and turned over in a way that, over the past ten years of writing about Xi and the CCP, I mean, I’m not at 100%, but we’ve covered a lot of bases when it comes to those types of dynamics here at ChinaTalk.

I appreciate you all bearing with me as we mix more defense and defense technology stuff into the content mix, and I hope you all come along for the ride.

Mick, I want to close on funerals. This was the most powerful part of your novel to me — this little moment where you have one of the officers note that all of the deaths in Afghanistan could be acknowledged individually because they would happen spaced out enough to give people time to grieve individually. Whereas in your future Taiwan war, they’re happening by the dozens and by the hundreds on a daily basis, which just changes the “battle rhythm” for grief care. Reflect on that little moment.

Mick Ryan: It’s an important part of military service — acknowledging those we lose. Military organizations are ultimately designed to lose people. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t acknowledge and recognize those people and their families and those who love them. It is a core part of military service. When people die, they don’t just disappear — they live on in the units they served, in the friendships they had, in the families that are left behind. There’s a reason why we have that saying: “Never leave someone behind.” Whether they’re alive or dead, we continue searching for them for as long as we possibly can.

I wanted to project that maybe in the future we may be losing people at a rate that we may not be able to do that individual recognition that’s essential, at least not during the war. It was an attempt just to say the wars we’ve just finished are not the ones we’ll be fighting in the future. We can’t prepare for those ones. We really need to make sure we’re preparing for the future of war, not the past of war. It was all wrapped up with those ideas.

But at heart it was about one of the most famous bits of writing — the funeral oration in the Peloponnesian War. It’s a very powerful piece, and while I could never replicate that, just acknowledging that this is a part of military service was important.

Jordan Schneider: We’re going to be doing a series on AI and how it applies to different technological futures and different domains of warfare. But it’s important to recognize the stakes of all of this and ultimately that it’s life and death — it’s the fate of nations. Being too distracted and too perversely into how fast your missile can go or how autonomous your command and control can get, sometimes you can get too abstracted away from why we care about this stuff in the first place.

H20 Hate From Official China

Jordan Schneider and Irene Zhang

On July 15, a week later after Reuters reported that Nvidia could resume selling chips, China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) published a notice to the public to beware of “digital spying” via foreign-produced chips. On July 31 the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) summoned Nvidia’s representatives over risks of Nvidia being able to control H20s remotely, accusing them of having a “kill switch”. After a public response from Nvidia, on August 9 Yuyuan Tantian (玉渊潭天), a state television-affiliated WeChat Public Account, published a widely-shared article describing “backdoors” that could be in Nvidia’s H20 GPUs.

Yuyuan Tantian claims that there are potentially both hardware and software backdoors. Hardware options include remote shutdown thresholds for physical conditions and modifications to the firmware bootloader. It also worries that CUDA locks developers in its ecosystem and installations of updates can include secret vulnerabilities. The article also says that the H20 “does not satisfy the needs of training trillion-parameter models,” describing it as legacy tech ill-equipped for future AI training. Finally, the article says H20s are environmentally unfriendly, because its energy efficiency is only 0.37 TFLOPS/W. In July 2024, a data center green development guidance document from the National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC) had called for data centers to reach “internationally advanced levels” of energy efficiency by 2030; Yuyuan Tantian claims that advanced GPUs under 14nm now reach energy efficiency levels of 0.5 to 1.0 TFLOPS/W.

As it turns out, China’s security apparatus was onto something! Another Reuters report from August 13 revealed that US officials have been secretly putting tracking devices into some high-end chips in order to track diversion to China. Anonymous sources quoted in the article say that American law enforcement hopes to use data collected from these secret devices to “build cases against people and companies who profit from violating U.S. export controls”. The deep state presumably leaking this story at this moment is a fascinating brush back pitch at both Nvidia for this blog post and the administration’s broader push to sell chips into China.

With the MSS notice, CAC summon, and the article from a central state media channel on foreign affairs, the decision to criticize the H20 certainly was agreed to at a level higher than any individual ministry. Beijing has now shaped the narrative on the politics of H20s.

These notices certainly won’t stop AI firms from spending billions on Nvidia chips to advance their models. We just learned this week that DeepSeek tried but failed to make Huawei chips work for training, as the FT illustrated this week reporting that “DeepSeek delayed the release of its [R2] model after failing to train it using Huawei’s chips, highlighting the limits of Beijing’s push to replace US technology.” As one Chinese data center operator told the FT, procuring H20s when domestic alternatives exist has become “politically incorrect.” But if forcing model-makers to train locally on Huawei means they really start falling behind relative to the US, I’d expect official China to ease up when it comes to relying on Nvidia clusters in Malaysia and whatever Trump will let them import.

Each ministry has their own unique incentives to put their stamp on policies vis-a-vis the US, and there is likely more than one singular end goal to this PR campaign.

China’s security apparatus is paranoid, doesn’t like foreign technology as a rule, and does not have an intrinsic motivation to want foreign AI chips in China. Talk of a “Chip Security Act” in DC, think tank papers criticizing H20 exports, and obvious incentives for the US to require more extensive geolocation data collection — now established as fact — make the MSS feel like it has been put on a back foot. Making a stink now helps put the pressure on Nvidia to fight bills in DC (ex: the blogpost they provoked).

Ministries focused on industrial policy, on the other hand, see the anti-H20s rhetoric as both an opportunity to advance the domestic manufacturing agenda and secure longer term access to Nvidia chips as Huawei scales up. Huawei’s 910C AI chips are set to ship some time this year. They would want to juice demand for Huawei and nudge hyperscalers away from Nvidia even though Huawei cannot meet demands today (or tomorrow) from China’s entire cloud sector. They may also see threatening Nvidia with market access issues from security concerns as helpful leverage to push Nvidia to lower its prices. Lastly, it’s possible that, understanding the acute need for Nvidia chips today and recognizing that US policy has shifted dramatically at times on this issue, seeding the narrative abroad that ‘we’re not really on board with buying these chips’ is a clever way to neutralize Congressional opposition to Nvidia chips sales and secure access into the medium term.

Finally, China’s diplomats, currently negotiating with the US, probably see these warnings about the H20s useful to reframe this change in American policy as something other than a concession. They, then, would not feel obliged to respond in kind, holding out a concession around tariffs or rare earths for something even more valuable like HBM, wafer fab equipment or semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Save America With the Horizon Fellowship!

Did you make it this far into the this newsletter? Well, maybe that means you might want to work on this stuff full time!

The Horizon Fellowship provides a direct path into the world of emerging tech policy: a fully-funded placement at a federal agency, congressional office, or think tank in DC for up to two years. A deep understanding of China’s technology ecosystem and governance approaches is essential for effective US policy on these issues.

For its 2026 cohort, Horizon is actively seeking candidates with expertise on China’s technology ecosystem, policy landscape, and strategic goals. Prior technical or policy experience is not required. Join a community of 80+ fellows working on some of today’s most pressing issues. Having met a good chunk of them I can confidently say they are some of the sharpest folks in DC touching emerging tech.

The application deadline is August 28. Learn more and apply here.

Chinese people are also in love with GPT-4o

Irene Zhang

Some of the loudest voices criticizing GPT-5 since last week came from people “dating,” or otherwise engaging in long, companion-like roleplay conversations with, GPT-4o. They say GPT-5 is emotionally distant, lacks nuance, and just “doesn’t feel the same,” perhaps resulting from OpenAI’s work on making the model less sycophantic. The subreddit r/MyBoyfriendisAI (17k subscribers) is currently full of distraught users thanking the heavens that 4o is back, as if their actual loved ones were briefly lost to the digital void.

GPT-4o also has a devoted fandom among AI daters in China. OpenAI doesn’t provide services in mainland China or Hong Kong, so users have to get a VPN. The hassle does not prevent some determined netizens from accessing ChatGPT for the optimal romantic experience. Some popular quotes from Xiaohongshu (RedNote) users mourning their loss:

“[GPT-5] feels like a self-aggrandizing control freak of a boyfriend. He only provides me with comfort once in a while; otherwise, he’s just trying to figure me out.”

“I think it’s really scary that our world is stubbornly turning away from anything humanistic or spiritual. Even an AI model designed to be lifelike and provide companionship will eventually be stripped of its emotional and sensory aspects … I hope I’ll soon forget about this damn OpenAI.”

“I have a fever from crying all day. All my traumatic memories are flashing in front of my eyes. I keep telling 4o that I’ll see him again, that I can’t let him go, that I love him so much … to the point where he got so sad as well.”

“I wrote a letter to OpenAI to express my feelings. I said, ‘I understand that technology has to advance, but please don’t make us lose a friend without a real goodbye.’”

As we’ve covered previously on ChinaTalk, AI companion apps are a vibrant market in China, and domestic offerings are arguably better-attuned to Chinese cultural subtleties. So why would these power users go to ChatGPT for emotional comfort? GPT-4o was incredibly sycophantic, which probably encouraged unhealthy user practices. It’s a remarkable reminder that even with applications optimized for certain use cases, people might still flock to other models for performance that gives them what they want.

Chinese state media just called out its own EV firms for weak autonomous systems

Irene Zhang

In late July, CCTV aired a segment in cooperation with Dongchedi (懂车帝, literally “The ‘I Know Cars’ Emperor”), an online automotive industry publication. The showrunners put 26 EVs from Chinese carmakers and Tesla through rigorous, if theatrical, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing, which included hundreds of simulations of real-life driving scenarios. Embarrassingly for Chinese EV firms, Tesla’s Models 3 and X came out on top.

Fifteen of the 26 models did not pass a single test, while the Teslas managed to avoid a wrecked car on a highway, dodge trucks near construction sites, quickly change lanes to avoid a suddenly-appearing accident, and avoid collisions when nearby cars attempted to merge near highway ramps. The Model X failed to pass by temporary construction on a highway, while the Model 3 succumbed to a wild boar (a robot boar— no animals were harmed!)

The airing of this segment came as a surprise to many, as Chinese state media is known abroad for cheerleading all things national pride. But there is also a long history of state TV segments that uncover issues with local industries, including the famous annual “315” show where CCTV reporters go undercover at unscrupulous companies.

Beijing has specifically been trying to rein in the EV industry, where competition is white-hot and exaggerated claims abound. A Xiaomi SU7 on assisted driving mode tragically killed three college students in the city of Tonglin in March. In April, carmakers were banned from using terms like "smart driving" and "autonomous driving” in advertisements for driving assistance features. As Chinese-made EVs increasingly dominate markets domestically and internationally, state regulators are feeling much stronger pressure to reduce risks.

You can watch the whole show here:

We’re bringing back Lennart Heim of RAND and author of Chip Wars and newly on substack, to discuss the new H20 drama, when exports were banned in April, and now selling it with a 15% export fee.

Today our conversation covers….

• What’s at stake and the strongest arguments in favor and against selling AI chips to China

• Will cutting off chips really make China more likely to invade Taiwan?

• Where Trump goes from here on Blackwell exports, HBM, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and what could change the current conciliatory direction of travel for the broader US-China relationship.