President Trump announced that he will permit Nvidia’s H200 chips to be sold to China on Monday, December 8th. Beijing’s official response to this is extremely understated. This is the entirety of Spokesperson Guo Jiakun’s response to a question from Bloomberg on the H200 sale at the regular foreign ministry press conference on December 9th:

We have noticed the reports. China always advocates that China and the United States achieve mutual benefit through cooperation.

Since then, however, a range of commentary and opinions have come out of Chinese media, reflecting varied opinions. Some are excited, while others are deeply wary; most lie somewhere in between. We’ve selected four commentaries from the Chinese media landscape to excerpt, translate, and feature, as a way to encapsulate the debate happening inside China regarding GPU reliance. They include…

• How cloud providers helped Chinese AI labs access top-tier compute, even while restrictions were in place;

• Why transitioning from Hopper to Blackwell is labor-intensive, and how this shapes Chinese compute demand;

• How inference differs from training, and where Chinese chipmakers might shine in the market;

• And Taiwanese chip makers having a brief panic attack amid the crossfire.

Translations of the original Chinese were done by ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking, then verified manually by the ChinaTalk team for accuracy and fluency. Hyperlinks were added by Irene where context is useful.

Secrets of the Cloud

This first analysis is by Xinzhi Observatory 心智观察所, a media brand covering high-tech that’s owned by Shanghai-based news site Guancha 观察网. Guancha is on the nationalistic end of the Chinese media spectrum, with a penchant for virality. Xinzhi Observatory’s reporting on tech has a more nuanced style, but its assertions should still be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, the piece is a useful read because it reflects popular mainstream attitudes towards the H200s deal: that it is a temporary compromise that benefits Chinese development in the short run, but does not undercut China’s progress in indigenizing the chip supply chain. Its insights into how Chinese labs have managed to access advanced compute via cloud service providers is also revealing.

In Nvidia’s AI product lineup, the Hopper series (including the H100 and H200) represents the previous-generation “ace,” focused on data-center-class AI acceleration and already widely used in supercomputers and AI training clusters around the world. Although the H200 is not based on the latest Blackwell architecture (B100/B200, released in 2024 and more focused on multimodal AI and energy efficiency), its memory advantage makes it a “transitional trump card.” While it far exceeds the performance threshold of domestic Chinese chips, it does not reach the most sensitive cutting-edge technologies that the United States is trying to protect. It was precisely on the basis of the H200’s “moderate firepower” that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang persuaded Trump.

But for China, the introduction of this chip fills the performance gap between the H20 (the specially downgraded version for China) and Blackwell. We cannot look only at the talking points Jensen Huang used in his lobbying: the H200 is, after all, the pinnacle of Nvidia’s Hopper architecture. According to estimates by Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), the H200’s total processing performance (TPP) is nearly ten times the previous export-control ceiling for sales to China. When training and serving large models with more than 175 billion parameters, the H200’s performance is more than six times that of the H20. It is a “previous-generation flagship,” not a “downgraded product.”

Over the past two years, 99% of Chinese AI companies have only been able to use the neutered H20 or domestic chips. Through CSP channels, however, frontier model makers have already been training at scale on clusters of original, advanced chips. Therefore, when Trump suddenly opened the door to the legal sale of the H200, the market reaction was not particularly dramatic, because China’s top players have been using the highest-end compute available via CSP for quite a while already.

CSP is currently an important business model in China’s AI chip ecosystem; it refers to AI chips sold specifically for Cloud Service Providers. Put simply, Nvidia (and to some extent AMD and Intel) sell their top-of-the-line, uncut AI chips exclusively to a handful of leading Chinese cloud providers through special channels, and these cloud providers then offer the compute power to domestic AI companies and research institutes in a “cloud rental” model. What the United States has banned is “direct sales to Chinese enterprises.” Under the CSP model, however, ownership of the chips resides with the cloud providers, so technically it does not violate the ban.

Former TSMC engineer and current Ronghe Semiconductor CEO Wu Zihao told Xinzhi Observatory: “Based on the current performance of various domestic AI chip manufacturers, none of them have yet broken through shipments of 100,000 cards, with the exception of Ascend. Ascend’s shipments are between 500,000 and 1 million cards, but they rely heavily on the ‘IT indigenization’ (xinchuang) market, and CSP purchases of Ascend are not large. In other words, shipments of domestic chips basically depend on xinchuang, with CSP accounting for a very small share. Nvidia’s H200 mainly targets the CSP market; Nvidia cannot enter the xinchuang market. The only point of overlap between the two is in CSP, and judging from the fact that each domestic GPU vendor has shipped only tens of thousands of cards, not a single Chinese CSP treats domestic chips as its mainstay.”

Wu Zihao believes: “Precisely because the base is low, even if the H200 comes in, domestic GPUs still have considerable room for growth. For example, Cambricon shipped 70,000–80,000 GPUs this year. Next year they are expected to reach 150,000 cards, nearly 100% growth, but a base of 150,000 is still very low, and for domestic CSPs’ total demand of at least 4 million cards, the share is not high. In the short term, this may not affect domestic cards, but Nvidia resuming sales of relatively high-performance high-end GPUs to China is not a good thing for Chinese AI chips in the long run; the dependence on the Nvidia ecosystem may prove impossible to reverse.”

Views like Wu Zihao’s—that Nvidia’s renewed sales are not a good thing for Chinese AI chips in the long term—are somewhat representative. But we need to look at the issue more comprehensively: potential gains always come hand in hand with risks. For AI startups like DeepSeek, being able to rapidly deploy H200 clusters can boost model-training efficiency and help overcome compute bottlenecks. The H200’s 141 GB of memory can easily handle RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) and LoRA fine-tuning for models with more than 175 billion parameters. China has the world’s largest pool of AI researchers, and using more advanced technology allows them to translate research into commercial value more quickly.

After Trump announced that the H200 could be “legally sold directly,” the CSP model will not disappear in the short term; on the contrary, it might be upgraded. Previously, CSP arrangements existed with the United States turning a blind eye. Now that direct sales of the H200 have been legalized, the CSP channel may be further extended to more advanced lines like Blackwell, continuing to serve as a “valve” and “observation window” for the United States to monitor China’s AI development.

In the short term, China can temporarily rely on the H200 to train models, but in the long term it must feed back into domestic chip firms to accelerate their iteration. Chinese companies can use more advanced compute to “nurture” models and “accumulate” data, while at the same time feeding back into the domestic chip ecosystem. If China can substitute a narrative of diversified sourcing for a narrative of “decoupling” from the United States, then a “bad thing” can also be turned into a “good thing.”

This is what it truly means to “sustain war through war.” As a former Council on Foreign Relations official lamented in an interview with the FT, “Selling large numbers of H200s to China will give rocket fuel to the Chinese AI industry,” giving them enough compute to dramatically narrow the gap within two years. [Irene note: The expert quoted here is Chris Mcguire who joined ChinaTalk as a podcast guest to talk about Huawei in October!]

…

As things stand, Trump, for the sake of corporate interests and fiscal revenue, has had to compromise with China—and in doing so has made a crucial choice between the two camps. In terms of performance, the H200 is “the most dangerous yet also the safest compromise product” for the United States, while for China it is “just enough to be usable without forcing a rupture.”

Hopper vs. Blackwell, and what China actually wants

In this piece, Tencent Technology 腾讯科技 writer Su Yang 苏扬 explores why more advanced isn’t always better. Even though Blackwell chips are a generation ahead of Hoppers (including the H200), Su argues that Nvidia’s Chinese customers currently rely heavily on the Hopper architecture. Even in a world where Nvidia gains permission to sell Blackwells to China, it’s possible that demand for Hopper chips will remain much higher for quite a while still.

In November 2023, Nvidia officially launched the H200. Shipments to global customers and cloud service providers began in the second quarter of 2024, with mass production starting in the latter part of that quarter and large-scale deliveries rolling out after the third quarter. A single GPU sells for around $30,000–$40,000, and an 8-GPU server comes in at roughly $300,000.

The chip uses TSMC’s advanced 4N process, with a GH100 GPU at its core, integrating 80 billion transistors and a thermal design power (TDP) of 700W. It is also equipped with NVLink 4 interconnect technology, offering 18 links and 900GB/s of interconnect bandwidth. The GPU paired with HBM3e has 141GB of memory, with memory bandwidth as high as 4.8TB/s.

In 2024, the H200 was an unequivocally cutting-edge product, with FP16 performance reaching 1,979 teraFLOPS, compared to just 148 teraFLOPS for the H20 custom-made for the Chinese market. Its FP8 performance is an even more impressive 3,958 teraFLOPS, while the H20 has only 296 teraFLOPS. The H200’s interconnect bandwidth is also double that of the H20, reaching 900GB/s.

But by the end of 2025, products such as the B200 based on the Blackwell architecture had come online and become the new industry standard at the top end. The H200 was pushed into second place, turning into a product whose performance is “relatively behind the curve.”

“As expected,” an industry analyst said when talking about the lifting of export controls on the H200. “Letting Hopper chips out, but not Blackwell, still allows them to tell their domestic audience, ‘we’re still a generation and a half ahead,’ while Chinese customers can still buy what they want.”

Overall, Trump’s announcement on social media that he would allow H200 exports has basically dispelled most concerns. At its core, it just means that the H200 no longer represents truly cutting-edge computing power.

…

Previously, Jensen Huang had repeatedly stated in various settings that “our market share in mainland China is zero.” The approval of H200 exports will bring new opportunities for Nvidia, especially because its performance is far ahead of the downgraded H20, making it much more attractive to customers.

“Chinese customers’ models are all built to run on Hopper-architecture GPUs,” the aforementioned industry analyst emphasized.

In his view, at this stage Hopper has even more pull than the Blackwell architecture: “No one has adapted their models to the B-series yet. Otherwise you’d have to redo all the operators, the toolchain, and the underlying software from scratch—that’s an even bigger engineering effort.”

Put simply, for model developers, migrating from the Hopper architecture to any new architecture requires redeveloping computation modules, building dedicated tooling pipelines, and restructuring the low-level integration code—all of which demand large amounts of manpower, engineering work, and time.

From Nvidia’s standpoint, the profit margin on H200 sales is also much better than for the H20. The H20 is derived from a cut-down H100, which raises manufacturing costs, whereas the H200 does not need to be “neutered” in any way. As an older product, its average gross margin is expected to approach—or even exceed—80%.

Securitization Will Not Be Undone

This commentary was published by DeepTech 深科技, the China-specific media brand of MIT Technology Review. The writer is very bullish on economies of scale being favorable for Chinese domestic chipmakers. Most importantly, the piece argues that the impacts of the last two years of American export controls are lasting. China’s technology industry has internalized that it cannot rely on American giants for compute in the long run, and the state will not roll back extensive effects to support indigenization.

The back-and-forth swings of the past two years have already made Chinese companies acutely aware of how important supply chain security is. No one can guarantee that what is allowed today won’t be revoked tomorrow with a single tweet.

Morgan Stanley estimated that China’s AI chip self-sufficiency rate was 34% in 2024 and is expected to reach 82% by 2027. TrendForce data indicate that in China’s AI server market in 2025, domestic chips are likely to account for as much as 40%.

Mizuho Securities forecasts that shipments of Huawei’s Ascend 910 series will exceed 700,000 units this year. Huawei’s own roadmap already extends to 2028, with the Ascend 950, 960, and 970 lined up in sequence, and in-house HBM also on the agenda. Admittedly, domestic chips still have clear shortcomings in areas such as ecosystem maturity, development toolchains, and support for high-end training scenarios. But the industry has already hit its stride: large-scale training and the migration of large models onto domestic platforms are accelerating. The further the market moves forward, the more likely it is that the ecosystem will be backfilled and completed in turn. As a result, this path toward autonomy and control will not be brought to a halt just because a few foreign chips have been cleared for sale.

…

For Nvidia, returning to the Chinese market means a revenue opportunity worth several billion dollars; for the U.S. government, a 25% cut of sales is a sizable source of fiscal income; and for the Chinese market, the H200 provides a channel for obtaining advanced computing power in the short term.

But in the long run, this may be just a minor episode in the larger tech contest between China and the United States. China’s AI industry has already embarked on a path of autonomy and control, and that path will not be reversed by the approval of a few chip models.

On the battlefield of chips, genuine security can only come from one’s own capabilities, not from the grace of a rival. The green light for the H200 is merely the starting point for a new round of competition.

Inference vs. Training

This last take is a commentary from the editorial staff at the Wu Xiaobo Channel 吴晓波频道. Wu Xiaobo is a prominent finance and economics writer in China, having worked for Xinhua, Hangzhou Daily, and the Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post. Wu Xiaobo Channel is his personal media venture.

The piece is most notable for its discussion of how China’s domestic chip supply is reshaping the inference landscape, providing needed granularity into where H200s fall within the market for compute demand. It echoes many points made by previous commentators about the long shadow of securitization as well, arguing that China will continue to aggressively pursue domesticization regardless of American policy.

Right now, China’s large models and domestic chips have already become deeply intertwined. During the “blockade” phase, the two grew side by side, with their level of mutual adaptation steadily improving.

This relationship has become even closer since DeepSeek burst onto the scene.

If, in the past, training on Nvidia chips was essentially a contest of raw compute, DeepSeek has changed the structure of compute demand: for some smaller companies, compute has shifted from training to inference.

And because inference has lower compute requirements, it has created real room for mid- and lower-end domestic AI chips to shine.

In terms of ecosystem compatibility, it’s difficult during the training phase to build a single resource pool mixing Nvidia and domestic chips, but inference workloads can run on domestic chips.

Data show that in 2024, 57.6% of accelerator cards in Chinese data centers were used for inference, surpassing the 33% used for training. Platforms like Tencent and Baidu integrating DeepSeek have also greatly boosted the growth of inference-oriented chips.

Industrial integration has also brought a shift in market preferences: as China’s large-model and domestic chip industries grow more deeply intertwined, more and more major tech firms and state-owned enterprises are leaning toward buying domestic chips. For example, ByteDance accounts for more than 50% of Cambricon’s total orders; similarly, in 2024, 42% of Moore Threads’ revenue came from government-led intelligent computing center projects, and Huawei’s Ascend chips captured 60% of the orders in such computing centers.

Although these domestic AI chips still lag behind Nvidia’s latest high-end products in absolute top-tier performance, they are sufficient to meet the needs of most inference scenarios. This also means that even if the H200 enters the Chinese market, it will be difficult for it to rapidly achieve “reverse substitution,” and the scale at which it can displace domestic chips will be limited.

Of course, the core advantage of domestic chips at this stage lies precisely in the word “domestic.” These “leading lights of domestic manufacturing” come with no backdoors, are secure and controllable, and leave the power of discourse firmly in Chinese hands—without any need to worry about supplies suddenly being cut off one day.

…

Although the narrative of “domestic substitution” is attractive, once news broke that the U.S. government would allow H200 exports, share prices of domestic chipmakers such as Cambricon and Hygon saw a clear pullback—the challenge is self-evident.

Overall, compared with domestic chips, Nvidia’s products still have advantages in raw compute, ecosystem maturity, and cluster scale—especially the CUDA ecosystem, whose level of development represents a chasm that domestic chips find hard to cross. The migration cost within the CUDA ecosystem is almost zero, whereas domestic chip ecosystems still need another two to three years to catch up.

From the product standpoint itself, the H200’s advantages are also very prominent: not only does its performance far exceed that of the H20, but more importantly, it is highly compatible with existing systems—most of China’s current AI models are already adapted to the Hopper architecture, so there is no need to rebuild operators, toolchains, or underlying software; it can be put to work directly. By contrast, moving straight to the most advanced Blackwell architecture could actually lead to acclimatization problems.

At the same time, from a market and capacity perspective, the current supply of domestic chips is still insufficient to meet the surging demand in the Chinese market. For example, SMIC’s 7 nm chips reportedly have a yield rate of only 20%, which further exacerbates this supply–demand imbalance. Nvidia’s chips, by contrast, are manufactured by TSMC, with a yield rate reaching 60%, providing much stronger assurance on production capacity.

The most direct impact may come from the release of pent-up demand: there were reports that in early 2025, several major companies placed orders worth 16 billion yuan with Nvidia to purchase H20 chips, but these ultimately could not be fulfilled. With the H200 now cleared for export, that demand may be converted into new orders and released in concentrated form in 2026.

But in any case, Nvidia has long since missed the best window to enter the Chinese market—especially China’s AI sector. This approval has come too late.

China is no longer the market that “can’t live without Nvidia.” It’s like a couple separated for a long time who have each grown on their own before meeting again: even if they get back together, it’s hard to recapture the original passion and dependence. Put more plainly, it’s now a relationship where “if it works, we can make it work; if it doesn’t, we can just walk away.”

The Taiwan Situation

Regarding how the US government’s 25% cut will be collected, per Reuters:

A White House official said that the 25% fee would be collected as an import tax from Taiwan, where the chips are made, to the United States, where the chips will undergo a security review by U.S. officials before being exported to China.

This vague description inspired some sudden panic among manufacturers in Taiwan, who worried that they would have to pay an additional fee to the US. Tzu-Hsien Tung 童子賢, chairman of Taiwanese electronics giant Pegatron and cofounder of Asus, told Taiwan’s Economic Daily News that this is most likely a confused misinterpretation: “If Taiwanese firms are paying anything at all, it’s only in a pass-through capacity—collecting and remitting on behalf of someone else, since contract manufacturers aren’t the owners of the product. … My instinct is it’s just pass-through payments; they’re not going to count that as ‘Taiwan paying.’”

The confusion is now mostly cleared up, but a lack of effective communication to Taiwan is probably not a positive indicator for US-Taiwan relations.

ChinaTalk is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

A year for the history books for the Chinese AI beat. We began the year astonished by DeepSeek’s frontier model, and are ending in December with Chinese open models like Qwen powering Silicon Valley’s startup gold rush.

It’s a good time to stop and reflect on Chinese AI milestones throughout 2025. What really mattered, and what turned out to be nothingburgers?

This piece recaps:

• The biggest model drops of the year

• China’s evolving AGI discussion among Alibaba leadership and the Politburo

• The biggest swings in the US-China chip war

• Beijing’s answer to America’s AI Action plan and the MFA’s

• Robots

Models

The DeepSeek Moment

Liang Wenfeng lit the fire

DeepSeek-R1 came out on January 20, thwarting everyone’s Chinese New Year plans. The cost-efficient LLM, which uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture, caused many in Silicon Valley to re-evaluate their bets on scaling — and on unfettered American dominance in frontier models. DeepSeek is powered by domestically trained Chinese engineering talent, an apparent belief in AGI, and no-strings-attached hedge fund money (it is owned by High-Flyer 幻方量化, a Hangzhou-based quantitative trading firm). There were initial concerns that such a recipe could not be replicated by more capital-constrained Chinese tech startups, but Kimi proved that wrong with K2 in July; Z.ai, Qwen, and MiniMax followed.

We translated Chinese tech media 36Kr’s interview with DeepSeek CEO Liang Wenfeng back in November 2024, and spent much of January 2025 on the DeepSeek beat (see Jordan’s conversations on DeepSeek with Miles Brundage here and with Kevin Xu of Interconnected here). Over at the newsletter, we covered how China reacted to DeepSeek’s rise, its secret sauce, and concerns around open-source as a strategy.

DeepSeek continues to be a big deal. For one, it paved the way for an open-source race dominated by Chinese models. Nearly every notable model released by Chinese companies in 2025 has been open source. In public blog posts, social media discussions, and private conversations, Chinese engineers and tech executives repeatedly attribute their open-source orientation to the example set by DeepSeek.

On the technical end, despite some remaining mystery surrounding the exact cost of training R1, DeepSeek’s viability was a shot in the arm for Chinese labs working under compute constraints. Going into 2026, with restrictions on H200s loosened and reporting that DeepSeek is still training on smuggled Nvidia, easier access to TSMC-fabbed Nvidia chips may be just what DeepSeek needs to get their mojo back.

Manus

Big deal, but not because of the product

On March 6, an unknown Chinese startup named Butterfly Effect 蝴蝶效应 launched Manus, the world’s first general-purpose AI agent. Revisiting the “Introducing Manus” video that went viral nine months ago is a reminder of how quickly technology has developed: the capabilities Manus demonstrated — reviewing a folder of résumé PDFs, researching stocks, and comparing real estate options — are now so common that we barely think of them as new or even particularly agentic. But back then, some thought Manus was a second “China Shock” of sorts after DeepSeek. Jordan discussed Manus on the podcast with (Strange Loop Canon), Swyx from , and (Mercatus, Hyperdimensional) on the podcast here.

Soon after, Manus didn’t want to be Chinese anymore. In July, the company scrubbed its internet presence inside China, relocated to Singapore, and laid off most of its staff in Beijing and Wuhan. An April funding round led by the American venture capital firm Benchmark had been scrutinized by the US Treasury Department over restrictions on investments into Chinese AI development. Manus may have decided that its Chinese base is a worthy sacrifice if it means access to American capital and the global market.

Since then, its market strategy has been anything but understated: from exclusive parties in San Francisco to conference keynotes in Singapore, Manus is trying to reinvent itself as a global force spearheading agents. Whether or not this rebrand is successful remains to be seen; in the meantime, it is no longer the only agent in the game, as major AI companies like OpenAI and ByteDance launched agent products of their own.

Looking back, Manus was the start of a wave of Chinese AI companies aggressively pursuing international expansion in the second half of this year. With DeepSeek providing that the world was interested in open-source Chinese models, other companies became eager for a slice of the lucrative global market. Whether or not their Chinese roots limit their growth potential will be up to regulators in 2026 and beyond.

The Open Source Race

The defining paradigm

With DeepSeek shooting the first shot, this year saw a significant number of Chinese companies contributing excellent models to the open source race. In the process of promoting their models, Chinese labs have also become much less secretive.

We covered Kimi K2, a “thinking” model whose architecture is inspired by DeepSeek, in July, with much of the reportage based on blogs and comments Kimi engineers shared online. Since then, we were also able to interview Li Zixuan, director of product at Z.ai (formerly Zhipu), which makes the popular GLM models. 2026 will almost certainly see more Chinese AI companies leverage open source as a mean of expanding influence.

China and AGI

Does China believe in AGI, and is it working to pursue it? It’s a question hotly debated by observers of China’s tech scene, and this year we were fortunate to be able to feature some excellent writing that probes at this topic.

In April, an anonymous contributor staged a Platonic debate between a believe and a skeptic, laying out arguments for and against the question of Chinese AGI belief.

In May, another anonymous writer covered the Politburo “study session” on AI. We learn from the invited guest list that “Xi’s hand-chosen experts on AI seem more like the Yoshua Bengios and Geoffrey Hintons of the Chinese AI world than the Yann LeCuns”:

Alibaba, whose family of Qwen models gained particular prominence in the latter half of this year, held its annual Yunqi Conference in September, and CEO Eddie Wu delivered a landmark speech sketching out his vision for transformative AI. Guest contributor Afra Wang argues that prophetic styles signal a “vibe shift” in Chinese tech, as the industry begins to see itself as pivotal for the nation’s destiny.

The Chip War

Just make up your mind already!

For most of the year, we waited with baited breath for the Trump administration to decide whether to export advanced AI chips to China — and for Beijing to make up its mind on whether it wants them after all. All this drama led to five emergency pods! A quick timeline to refresh our memory:

• Jan: Biden’s AI diffusion rule (emergency pod)

• April: BIS closed loopholes in Biden-era chip and manufacturing equipment export controls, further restricting Chinese access;

• May: Commerce Department kills the Biden Administration’s Diffusion Rule via Q&A but weirdly still hasn’t fully changed the reg…

• July: America’s AI Action Plan called for stricter enforcement of export controls and exploration of location verification mechanisms (our coverage)

• The Summer of Jensen (reported by ChinaTalk here and discussed with Lennart Haim and Chris Miller here):

  • July 15: Jensen Huang met Trump and secured permission to resume sales of H20s to China;

  • July 30: 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”;

  • August 11: The Trump administration reached a deal with AMD and Nvidia to resume exports of H20s and MI308s to China, with the US government receiving 15% of the resulting revenue;

  • August 12: The CAC summoned top Chinese tech firms to pressure them to reduce H20s orders and supplant with domestic alternatives;

  • August 13: Reuters reported that US officials have been secretly putting tracking devices into some high-end chips in order to track diversion to China;

  • August 21: Reports emerge that Nvidia has asked some suppliers to halt production of H20s.

• September: BIS unveiled an Affiliates Rule, which would have hit many more Chinese companies with restrictions on chip access, including their ability to purchase legacy chips;

• October: the Trump-Xi Summit produced a deal, with China suspending its new, dramatic rare earths export restrictions for one year in exchange for a temporary suspension of the Affiliates Rule (emergency pod)

• November: The GAIN AI Act was introduced in the Senate, with the White House apparently lobbying against it;

• December: Trump announced that he will permit Nvidia to sell H200s to China (emergency pod).

Huawei is Beijing’s champion for creating an alternative ecosystem to Nvidia’s. Guest contributor Mary Clare McMahon explored how Huawei is working to bypass the CUDA moat in May, and in June Jordan sat down with veteran journalist Eva Dou to discuss her new book, The House of Huawei. In October, Jordan also interviewed Chris McGuire, former Deputy Senior Director for Technology and National Security at the NSC, about where Huawei’s capabilities might be going.

The rise of reasoning models and inference training has also brought attention towards high-bandwidth memory (HBM), where China still currently relies on the Big Three: the US’s Micron, and South Korea’s SK Hynix and Samsung. Contributors Ray Wang and Aqib Zakaria covered China’s pursuit of indigenous HBM this year, exploring CXMT’s capabilities in the face of lithography export controls.

Robots

Too soon to tell…

A wave of attention gathered around robotics and embodied AI in China this year. The Government Work Report this year explicitly mentioned embodied AI for the first time, placing it alongside longstanding tech aspirations like quantum and 6G. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) specifically named humanoid robots in its list of work priorities for 2025. And throughout the second half of 2025, the Chinese Institute of Electronics has been working on standards for the humanoid robots industry, responding to an apparently “urgent” need for standardization in an increasingly competitive field.

Inside China, buoyed by media attention and Unitree’s Spring Festival Gala appearance in January, competition in humanoid robots turned white-hot this year. At least ten companies released humanoid robot models. Some compete by offering increasingly low per-unit prices, while others are starting to pursue specialization in terms of capabilities.

Embodied AI sits at the intersection of China’s longstanding manufacturing advantage and recent advances in machine learning research like vision-language models (VLMs). Jordan sat down with Ryan Julian of Google DeepMind to discuss some of these advances in robotics research this September. Some industry observers in China are worried that humanoids, and embodied AI in general, will turn out to be a bubble, given the sudden rush of investment and a lack of obvious business models. In the meantime, American policymakers are beginning to fret about Chinese robotics firms’ impressive market shares and Western academia’s reliance on affordable Chinese hardware. It’s too early to tell if 2025 was the start of something seismic in robotics.

Policy

AI+ Plan

Big deal; results unknown

On August 28, the State Council released 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 Plan is a landmark document addressing the integration of AI into China’s economy and society and pushes for thorough AI diffusion across sectors, ministries, and regions. It does not address geopolitical competition much, but clearly portrays AI integration as a strategic priority for the country.

We dove deeply into the AI+ Plan after it was released. Its extraordinarily comprehensive scope, intense sense of urgency, and framing of open-source models as geostrategic assets were remarkable then and remain relevant now. Going into next year, however, knock-on effects will reach Beijing’s doorsteps. How far is “emotional consumption,” greenlit as an application by the AI+ Plan, allowed to go, as AI companions become more alluring and mental health issues potentially proliferate? Will the state be able to keep frustrations around unemployment at bay amid deflation? If AI capabilities are “jagged,” to quote Helen Toner, will Beijing need to adjust expectations for how different industries’ productivities will change with AI?

The Global AI Governance Action Plan

Mid-sized deal with MFA characteristics

A follow-up from the 2023 Global AI Governance Initiative, the Global AI Governance Action Plan was released on July 26 at the World AI Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. China has long sought to create an overarching narrative for international AI governance. The Global AI Governance Action Plan should be understood as part of its campaign to win hearts and minds around the globe, particularly among unaligned nations in the developing world seeking technology partners.

In hindsight, there is a link between the third item of the Global AI Governance Action Plan, which discusses integration of AI into nearly every industry internationally, and the “AI+” plan for domestic AI diffusion that was released later in the year (to be discussed next). Sector-agnostic, large-scale adoption is a conceptualization of AI that is articulated consistently in Chinese tech policy.

Beyond this, however, most of the other items in the Global AI Governance Action Plan are yet to be realized. Without naming the US, the Plan stresses “global solidarity” and warns against fragmentation. China seeks an active role in international AI governance, whether in standards, environmental management, or data sharing. Diplomatic currents move slowly, and we will likely see more AI policy outreach from Beijing towards developing countries in the coming months and years.

Labelling Requirements, and How to Evade Them

Nothingburger, sadly

Just one day after Manus on March 7, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released a draft of its “Measures for Labeling of AI-Generated Synthetic Content” (人工智能生成合成内容标识办法), which later came into force in September. The Measures require internet service providers to explicitly label AI-generated content on users’ feeds and add implicit labels to the metadata of synthetic content files. Platforms, in theory, should make it known to users whenever the latter interact with potentially AI-generated content, as well as make sure that creators proactively label their uploaded content as AI-generated. This makes China one of the first jurisdictions, and certainly the largest, to implement labelling or watermarking rules for AI-generated internet content.

The CAC is ostensibly well-placed to roll out AI content labelling regulations, given its unparalleled regulatory reach and China’s competitive position in AI technology. However, after a rush of actions by companies to comply in September, momentum has fallen by the wayside. ChinaTalk will have more coverage on this soon, but in a nutshell, the landscape for AI content labelling enforcement is uneven at best. (Anecdotally, I see unlabelled, AI-generated content on Xiaohongshu and WeChat almost every day. Especially in the case of AI-generated text, labelling is next to nonexistent.)

AI-assisted and -generated content is now so much more pervasive online than nine months ago, whether on global platforms or on the Chinese internet. It’s time to ask: what was the point of labelling as policy? Is it to actually protect users from misinformation and engender trust, or is it just a stopgap measure that lets platforms evade responsibility? What kinds of AI usage merit which kinds of mandated disclosures?

A clearly AI-generated video on Rednote/Xiaohongshu. The user’s self-chosen name is “Mimi Loves AI,” but apart from that there is no other indication that the video is AI-generated.

Much of the coverage we do at ChinaTalk relies on WeChat, the Tencent super-app where most Chinese people send messages, consume content, and share updates with friends and family. WeChat is a huge information ecosystem and an arguably essential resource for following the latest news in China’s AI landscape.

Where should you go on WeChat (and on the broader Chinese internet) to learn about what’s happening in AI? The ChinaTalk Cinematic Universe brings you a comprehensive guide to following AI on WeChat, featuring:

• How to make your WeChat work like Substack;

• Various types of AI media outlets;

• And how to read beyond WeChat.

We’re also looking to run a weekly roundup of the most interesting Chinese developments around AI in the newsletter. If interested, submit a sample here. We pay!

How WeChat Works

Specifically relevant for our purposes is the “Official Accounts” tab. It’s a little like a Substack ecosystem inside WeChat: anyone can open an Official Account on WeChat and publish articles to their subscribers’ feeds — and reading and sharing Official Account articles is a daily occurrence for WeChat users. Government organs, public service authorities, news media (both state-run and independent), and corporations alike use Official Accounts to communicate with citizens.

Subscribing to relevant Official Accounts is the most streamlined way to read Chinese tech news directly from the source. WeChat makes it very easy for non-Chinese speakers to navigate by putting a “Translate Full Text” option at the top of every article, although the quality of translation remains mediocre relative to what ChatGPT can deliver.

Our Favorites

For headlines:

新智元 AI Era

Founded in 2015 by Yang Jing 杨静, then a researcher at the Ministry of Civil Affairs-affiliated Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence, AI Era is one of the earliest and most successful media-entrepreneurship ventures to focus on AI in China. AI Era hosted the inaugural World AI Conference (WAIC) back in 2016. Its feed is a blend of repackaged stories from Western tech media, accessible explanations of new ML/AI research, and content for aficionados. While AI Era doesn’t produce a lot of original reporting, it is a solid one-stop shop for keeping up with the Chinese AI Joneses.

Where to start:

• The AI Era team tests GPT-5-Codex;

• A breakdown of the DeepSeek-R1 Nature paper.

量子位 QbitAI

QbitAI is an AI-focused media startup whose Official Account similarly reaches many in China’s AI community. Its coverage is relatively accessible and includes popular trends.

Where to start:

• How vibe-coding is changing Haidian 海淀, the Silicon Valley of Beijing;

• The AI technology stack behind Xiaohongshu/Rednote, China’s trendiest social app.

机器之心 Synced

Founded in 2015, Synced is a leading source of information on emerging tech in China. They cover machine learning research much more closely than more generalist tech publications, and they host their own directory of models.

Where to start:

• Amazon Bedrock now supports Qwen3 and DeepSeek-V3.1;

• Launch of Tongyi DeepResearch Agent.

机器人大讲堂 RoboSpeak (suggested by Zilan Qian)

RoboSpeak is a joint media venture between Zhongguancun Rongzhi Specialized Robotics Alliance (ZSRA), a Beijing-based robotics industry organization, and the startup incubator TusStar, earning financial support from a variety of public and private partners. Its work lies between journalism and think-tank research, and is well-known in the Chinese robotics community.

Where to start:

• An interview with Professor Wang Hesheng 王贺升 of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, who will serve as general chair of the 2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) in Hangzhou;

• Observations from the 2025 China International Industry Fair.

For business-savvy reportage:

36氪 36Kr

36Kr calls itself a platform for “participants of China’s new economy.” It’s a business media outlet with a heavy dose of tech reporting — the TechCrunch of China, if you will — and consequently produces some of the best original Chinese-language reporting on technology as a business. Their deep understanding of the relationships between technology, Chinese society, and the economy makes reading their work particularly informative for analysts.

Where to start:

• Graphing vertically integrated supply chains to understand the success of Chinese hardware startups;

• How entrepreneur Wang Laichun 王来春, whose company Luxshare will build OpenAI’s first consumer device, went from Foxconn factory girl to “the richest Teochew businesswoman”.

• A highly abridged translation of ’s article she wrote for us on ‘Why America Builds AI Girlfriends and China Makes AI Boyfriends’ article! See below for her commentary on what they took out.

  • Thanks to 36kr’s translation, my relatives in China can finally read my work—and thanks to its selective censorship, they don’t have to worry about me running into political trouble! Here are the things that the translation removed, which I guess partly because it is politically sensitive and partly because the translator thought my article was too long:

    • The Regulatory Comparison: The original introductory analysis comparing U.S. regulatory concerns (FTC inquiry on child use) with Chinese concerns (AI Safety Framework 2.0 on social order and childbirth) was entirely removed. This seemed an editorial choice, as the translators began the translation with their own introduction of my article.

    • The Core Political Analysis: The entire section linking the Chinese government’s motivation for regulating AI boyfriends to the demographic crisis, low birth rates, and the government’s historical use of the “leftover women” label was omitted. I still credit them for mentioning the stigma of “leftover women,” even though they erased who created it.

    • The Geopolitical Risk: The discussion detailing the rise and disappearance of the Chinese app Talkie from the U.S. App Store—and its analysis as a potential “more powerful TikTok” national security threat due to intimate persuasion and data risks—was also removed.

    • Sexual Content Details: The detailed explanation of monetizing sexuality via “freemium” models, including specific mentions of “unblurred explicit images” and ‘NSFW’ features, was heavily condensed. Only the thesis statement “both models seek to capitalize on sexuality to attract and retain users” remained.

    • Finally, the translator replaced “inside the Great Firewall” (防火墙) with “inside the Great Wall” (长城) when the article shifted to describe the AI companion market in China, suggesting an artistry in how some master the subtleties of translation under censorship.

钛媒体 TMTPost

Another tech-focussed media outlet with a solid journalistic track record, the “TMT” in TMTPost stands for technology, media, and telecommunications. Its coverage of entrepreneurs and Big Tech firms in China is particularly strong. We previously translated TMTPost’s 2024 interview with Unitree CEO Wang Xingxing 王兴兴.

Where to start:

• A conversation with Xu Zhijun 徐直军, a rotating chairman at Huawei, about AI compute;

• What’s happening with AI in Hong Kong.

For human-centered stories:

AI故事计划 AIstory

AIstory is a new media brand under Beijing Zhen’gu Media Group (北京真故传媒有限公司), best known for the nonfiction publishing platform TrumanStory 真实故事计划 . The company was founded by Lei Lei 雷磊, a former Southern Weekly and GQ reporter in China, and has excelled at long-form, human-centered reporting despite China’s brutal journalistic landscape. AIstory focuses on humanizing the impact of AI on Chinese society and unearths particularly unique angles beyond labs, policymakers, or investors.

Where to start:

• Manus’ sudden move to Singapore, as told by an intern;

• How fangirls are leading the charge to resist AI-generated media content in China;

• Why DeepSeek created even more busywork for Chinese low-level bureaucrats.

硅星人Pro

By Afra:

A Chinese-language WeChat publication at the intersection of AI, technology, and culture. Its core reporting covers the fast-moving world of large models—DeepSeek, R1, and every new version that emerges—alongside architecture strategies, compute efficiency, cost dynamics, and the competitive landscape shaping the global AI race.

But 硅星人Pro’s regular features dive into tech culture and labor issues, exploring how AI and automation collide with the realities of work, inequality, and the everyday life of engineers, gig workers, and startup employees.

Sometimes you find sarcastic, sometimes salty voice. Readers can expect sharp takes on the AI bubble, founder dramas, job replacement anxieties, ageism in the tech industry, and the broader involution of both Silicon Valley and China’s own innovation scene.

GeekPark (极客公园)

By Afra:

GeekPark (极客公园) is one of the few Chinese tech media outlets that consistently produces in-depth, long-form original reporting on China’s technology industry.

Among domestic outlets, it’s often seen as the closest equivalent to Western tech media: blending narrative reporting, analysis, and insider access in a way that feels more like The Verge and Wired than a typical WeChat information feed.

For wonky analysis (suggested by Bitwise):

中国信息通信研究院 China Academy of Information and Communications Technology

CAICT is a research institute directly under China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, specializing in research on the digital economy and technology policy. Their Official Account publishes helpful executive summaries of their reports and official readouts from various Chinese conferences related to AI. Its feed is certainly less exciting than many of the other Official Accounts mentioned above, but it is a very helpful resource to understand where technocrats in Beijing are placing their attention.

Where to start:

• Ten keywords for the AI industry in 2025;

• A list of example cases for digitalizing the manufacturing industry in China.

阿里研究院 Alibaba Research Institute

Alibaba’s in-house industry research think tank produces many interesting reports about AI applications, safety, and governance. You should take their findings with a grain of salt on account of their corporate ownership, but their work is nevertheless interesting.

Where to start:

• Official transcript of CEO Eddie Wu’s September 2025 speech on the path to AGI;

• Analyzing business models for incorporating AI into consumer products in China.

腾讯研究院 Tencent Research Institute

In contrast to the ARI above, Tencent’s in-house think tank works more broadly across social science and humanistic topics. Their work, influenced by the thorough penetration of Chinese citizens’ private lives by Tencent products, has a stronger focus on how AI is shaping Chinese society.

Where to start:

• Annual survey on the Chinese public’s views on generative AI;

• TRI series on AI and education.

Influencers:

By :

Cyber Zen Heart (赛博禅心)

Cyber Zen Heart (赛博禅心) is one of the growing AI influencers on WeChat. He updates at breakneck speed, often catching the pulse of a new model, tool, or meme before the mainstream discourse picks it up. Beyond commentary, he has quietly shaped the scene: helping many early AI consumer apps think through their go-to-market strategy, coaching founders on how to generate buzz, and amplifying their launches to wider audiences.

The account is run by the owner, nicknamed”Big Smart”, of Beijing Haidian’s AGI Bar, a late-night hangout where AI founders, hackers, and artists cross paths. His posts swing between news update, “omg this is awesome”-bait articles, and deliberately confusing memes—half koan, half hype cycle. That mix makes him feel like “China’s Lenny” (as in Lenny Rachitsky): a guide and amplifier for a new generation of builders. I wrote about my experience in the AGI bar here.

半导体行业观察

半导体行业观察 is one of China’s most dedicated WeChat publications tracking the chip world. It dives deep into the nitty-gritty technical details of semiconductor design, fabrication, and packaging—so deep that, to a casual reader, it can sometimes feel painfully dry and even boring for someone like me. Where the account shines is in its close tracking of China’s domestic chip research and development. Like many chip-focused outlets, the tone occasionally reflects the geopolitical tensions surrounding semiconductors.

LatePost 晚点

LatePost (晚点) is often described as “China’s version of The Information”: known for high-quality, deeply sourced reporting on business and technology. Its editorial strength lies in exclusive founder interviews, inside scoops, and longform articles that cut through hype to reveal how China’s leading companies. The LatePost podcast—published under the same name—has become a must-listen for anyone trying to understand China’s AI ecosystem.

Luo Yonghao’s Crossing Road 罗永浩的十字路口

Luo Yonghao’s Crossing Road 罗永浩的十字路口 is a new longform podcast hosted by Luo Yonghao—once a smartphone entrepreneur, now one of China’s most recognizable internet personalities. Think of him as a mix between Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman in a Chinese context: curious, blunt, and willing to let conversations stretch out for hours

Each episode runs about 3 hours, giving founders, cultural figures, and celebrities the space to share deeply personal stories and unfiltered thoughts. Among the standout episodes is Luo’s marathon conversation with He Xiaopeng, founder of XPeng Motors—widely regarded as a must-listen for anyone who wants to understand the ambitions, struggles, and psychology behind China’s EV wave.

Beyond WeChat

The downside to WeChat’s Official Account ecosystem is that its comment function is often restricted, and it can be hard to go beyond the article if you are looking for more context. Other parts of the Chinese internet can offer more community-based insights on technology and provide direct access to insiders’ views.

CSDN

CSDN, China’s first open-source community, is a web forum for developers that dates back to 1999. Discussions on there feel like a mix of Stack Overflow and Hacker News, and contain many useful technical resources. ChinaUnix is another similar forum.

Zhihu

Imagine if Quora still had loyal users — that’s basically Zhihu. Though it has deteriorated from its heyday as a bastion of liberal debate on the Chinese internet in the 2010s, Zhihu remains a platform where scholars, thinkers, and technologists are quite active. Our story on Kimi relied heavily on Moonshot AI engineers’ commentary on Zhihu, and so did this guest post by Mary Clare McMahon on Huawei’s attempts at bypassing Nvidia CUDA.

Xiaohongshu…?

Yes, that Xiaohongshu/Rednote. If you know what you’re doing, it can be a uniquely valuable resource. Xiaohongshu has an especially strong network effect for academic and tech-focused communities. Searching for ML/AI-related keywords on Xiaohongshu eventually leads you to professors, entrepreneurs, and investors influential in the space, as well as many, many anonymous insiders posting offhand observations and rumours in comment sections. It’s arguably the closest thing to getting those elusive-but-unreliable “vibes on the ground.”

Between language barriers and the Great Firewall, it can seem difficult to get reliable information about the world of technology in China. We hope that by highlighting these great Chinese-language resources, we can encourage more people to conduct their own open-source research and enrich debates in the English-speaking world.

Have other Official Account recommendations? Reply to this email or drop your suggestion in the comments!

We’re also looking to run a weekly roundup of the most interesting Chinese writing on AI in the newsletter. If you’re interested, submit a sample here. We pay!

Last month, Irene and Lily went to South Korea to report on a twin set of robotics conferences. Here are a few notes from their travels.

On Korean Beauty

Irene:

Hallyu — the “Korean Wave” of pop culture that began spreading internationally in the 2000s — taught my generation of Asian Americans/Canadians how to style ourselves. We grew up with few relatable points of reference in mainstream Western culture, as our physical features rarely aligned with American beauty standards. K-pop built an alternative, affordable framework during our coming-of-age, and it was impossible to miss its influence even if you (like me) never consumed much of the music or TV dramas.

Goryeo (the royal dynasty that ruled the Korean Peninsula from 918 to 1392) began sending women by the hundreds as tributary gifts to the Chinese empire during the Tang dynasty. The Middle Kingdom, from then on, routinely scoured the Peninsula for beauties. The third Ming emperor, Yongle, was recorded to have favored a concubine surnamed Kwon from Joseon (the dynasty that followed Goryeo). After Kwon died at the age of 20 in 1410, the Yongle Emperor sentenced perhaps thousands of women from his harem to death on suspicion of poisoning Kwon, according to one Korean chronicle.

Japan’s colonial rule forced between 50,000 and 200,000 Korean girls and women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” for the army. After the Second World War, another vast sex trade sprang up around American-led army bases across South Korea, with girls and women trafficked by their own government to provide “morale” to UN troops and bring in millions of foreign money for the economy.

Beauty remains one of Korea’s most prominent exports. Multilingual advertisements for plastic surgery sprawl throughout Seoul’s affluent Gangnam neighborhood. There is seemingly an Olive Young on every street corner and endless high-end options in shining department stores. The industry works hard to conceal the dark historical context behind Korea’s coerced preoccupation with female beauty, while continuing to push what sociologist Rosalind Gill calls the “surveillant gaze”: symbolic images of measuring tapes, cameras, and microscopes that incite women to constantly monitor and regulate themselves. K-pop labels routinely debut girls as young as fourteen to appeal to teens, both locally and internationally. Appearance-based discrimination is endemic; journalist Elise Hu writes in Flawless: Lessons in Looks and Culture from the K-Beauty Capital that for Korean women in the 21st century, looking pretty is “the price of entry in the labor market.”

Lily:

I’m a size small in America, a medium in Taiwan, and a large in South Korea.

For a country with such a famous beauty industry, the selection of lip colors and finishes is extremely limited. Nearly every Korean lip product is sheer, glossy, and pink, formulated to stain your lips for a longer-lasting effect. Eyeshadow palettes lack pigment and are similarly uninspired. While American makeup brands market their products as tools of self-expression, cosmetic advertisements in Korea use words like “perfection” 완벽 and “improvement” 개선 to draw consumers’ attention.

Korean sunscreen, however, is excellent, as are the face masks and jelly foundation cushions (provided you can find one in your shade). The products are very affordable compared to American cosmetics. I browsed many Olive Young stores that were packed with shoppers, yet the single aisle dedicated to American and European brands was always totally desolate.

Similarly, people seem to prefer beige or pink nail polish. I got a set of dark red gel nails done during my trip, and while the service was very fast with lots of attention paid to cuticle care, the final product was unfortunately lacking due to the technician’s lack of experience shaping stiletto (pointed) nails.

People don’t wear much color here either, and instead opt overwhelmingly for beige, white, black, brown, or muted shades of blue.

On Korean Food

Korea excels at making coffee taste good, and Korean people love coffee so much that we saw people sitting in cafes drinking coffee at 9 o’clock at night. In a similar vein, this country doesn’t rise particularly early — most businesses (including many coffee shops/cafes) don’t open until 10 or 11 am. Survey data indicates that South Koreans are highly sleep-deprived compared to other developed nations.

October is the peak month for gejang, raw crab seasoned with soy sauce. I was skeptical at first, but the crab we ate was incredibly fresh with a delicate and complex flavor.

One of my favorite dishes was North Korean-style cold noodles 물냉면, which are made of buckwheat and would fall apart if served hot. They come with julienned apples and a boiled egg, and are served in a refreshing broth with a bit of vinegar.

America supplied the ROK with food aid during the Korean War, and as a result, South Korea developed a serious taste for corn. Convenience stores carry cream-filled cornbread, corn-flavored ice cream, corn-flake-filled granola bars, corn chips, and rice balls full of corn and tuna. Teas made from roasted corn and corn silk are also popular beverages. Only 1% of this corn is actually grown in Korea — the vast majority is imported from the US.

Korea also consumes a truly staggering amount of fake sugar — ice cream proudly labeled “low sugar” is packed with stevia. The yogurt drinks and matcha lattes I ordered in cafes were sweetened with stevia by default, as were bottled teas and protein shakes in convenience stores.

Korean convenience stores have wonderful smoothie machines. For 3,000 KRW (US$2.10), you can pick out a cup of frozen fruit and have it blended in front of you. Be sure to purchase your fruit cup before you blend it to avoid violating smoothie procedure.

Chinese people have a joke that when you vacation in Korea, you get constipated due to the lack of green leafy vegetables. This joke ignores Kimchi and salads, of course — but it’s rare to find blanched greens of the sort that are ubiquitous in China and Taiwan.

Irene’s travelogue in Gwangju

I read Anton Hur 허정범’s 2022 short story “Escape from America” on the bus from Seoul to Gwangju. The great translator of contemporary Korean fiction writes his own dystopian tale: in a not-so-distant future, politics force him and his husband to flee America for South Korea, where democracy persists but their marriage is not recognized — a “reverse-Miss Saigon scenario,” the narrator notes sardonically. Fears of martial law, borders, gender wars — it all felt eerily prescient in the first months of new presidential administrations in both Korea and the US.

Korea’s Gwangju Uprising is often forgotten as an early chapter in the waves of pro-democracy movements that shaped postwar Asia. In part, that’s because the news simply didn’t get out. Only one Western reporter — Jürgen Hinzpeter for West Germany’s public broadcaster, whose experience was dramatized in 2017 by the film A Taxi Driver — was on site when troops began violently containing protesters on May 18th, 1980. Korean media was heavily censored at the time, and many outside South Jeolla Province, of which Gwangju was then the capital, did not learn of the killings until much later. The military dictatorship installed an effective blockade of the city for ten days, cutting off roads and phone lines, while local students and workers built a short-lived self-governance commune and organized themselves into citizens’ battalions.

Chun Doo-hwan 전두환, then-lieutenant general of the military and the main orchestrator of the massacre, officially became president three months later in 1980 and remained in power until 1988. For years after the massacre, Gwangju was a forbidden topic. The novelist Han Kang 한강, who became Gwangju’s most famous daughter with her Nobel Literature win in 2024, was in Seoul in 1980 and only found out about the atrocities from her father’s secret album of Hintzpeter’s photographs years later. The official death toll stands at 164 civilians, but many more disappeared or were not identified in time; the actual number of deaths may be in the thousands. An “unknown martyr” grave in the Gwangju May 18 National Cemetery contains the body of a 4-year-old child shot in the neck.

“That afternoon there was a rush of positive identifications, and there ended up being several different shrouding ceremonies going on at the same time, at various places along the corridor. The national anthem rang out like a circular refrain, one verse clashing with another against the constant background of weeping, and you listened with bated breath to the subtle dissonance this created. As though this, finally, might help you understand what the nation really was.”

— Human Acts, Han Kang (trans. Deborah Smith)

The “gwang”/광 in Gwangju corresponds to the Chinese character 光, which means light; Gwangju, then, is the Land of Light. I’ve never been to a city with as many commemorative statues as Gwangju. There is an entire park dedicated to statues in the western part of the main city, the government having commissioned artists to explore and immortalize the city’s history. A walk through the park crescendos with a large metal depiction of three students, their arms reaching forward and their faces bearing solemn expressions in a surprisingly socialist-realist style. Under their bodies is an entrance to an underground chamber, in which the names of all known victims surround another statue, this one of a mother holding the body of an agonizingly young teen — a modern Korean Pietà.

Gwangju is not just expressive about its past; it is passionately, thoroughly meticulous. The Jeonil Building, one of the city’s most iconic structures, has been renamed Jeonil 245 after the 245 bullet traces found on its top floors. The directions and depths of each trace conclusively prove that paratroopers shot at people from helicopters, a fact often disputed by those seeking to minimize the extent of cruelty inflicted on Gwangju’s people. Jeonil 245 contains an entire exhibition dedicated to repudiating false claims about Gwangju, including the oft-repeated far-right conspiracy that North Korea instigated the uprising. The nearby 518 Archives is a ten-floor building that houses documents about the events of May 1980. The top floor allows visitors to watch traffic underneath from the exact same windows where Catholic clergymen watched the military brutalize young students marching from Chonnam University. Some of those clergymen would later stage hunger strikes for democracy and clemency for protestors throughout the 1980s. The Old South Jeolla Provincial Hall, where resistance forces staged their last desperate fight, is currently being restored. Every single exhibit I went to was free to enter and had decent-to-excellent English signage.

This is because Gwangju knows its memory can be inconvenient. In the South Korean narrative, Gwangju’s dead are now martyrs who gave their lives for today’s democracy, but that extraordinary achievement does not feel complete. President Yoon Suk-yeol 윤석열, who demanded the death penalty for Chun Doo-hwan while a law student in the 1980s, briefly imposed martial law of his own in December 2024. Korean politics today, haunted by the North-South division, still struggles to move past Red Scare paranoia. On the American side, Washington’s complicity in the Gwangju Massacre is a delicate topic for the US-ROK alliance. President Jimmy Carter’s administration, judging maintenance of the security status quo in the Peninsula to be more important than its people’s democratic aspirations, authorized the use of South Korean troops under the Combined Forces Command against protestors. Declassified documents show that US intelligence judged the protests to be “riots” caused in part by “deep-seated historical, provincial antagonisms” in Jeolla, and feared exploitation by Pyongyang even without any evidence of North Korean instigation. Gwangju became one of the darkest, yet most obscure, chapters of the Carter years; the legacy he left in Asia was barely acknowledged when he passed away at the end of 2024. And finally, across the East China Sea, Gwangju strikes too obvious a parallel with China’s own event that must not be named. Han Kang’s Human Acts has never been translated into Simplified Chinese by any mainland publishing house, so Chinese readers have to resort to pirating the Taiwanese translation.

Efforts by public history institutions and civil society have allowed the year 1980 to persist in Korean popular memory, even before Han Kang’s recent Nobel win. UNESCO officially listed documents of the Gwangju Uprising on the Memory of the World Register in 2011, prompting a wave of public commemoration. In 2013, the K-pop boy band SPEED released a two-part music video set in Gwangju for their song “That’s my fault” 슬픈약속, to popular acclaim. Note how, at the 11:30 timestamp mark, the second video directly quotes the last broadcast made by Gwangju’s citizen militia at the end of the Uprising:

Protest songs from the Gwangju era have also outlived the Uprising. March for Our Beloved (임을 위한 행진곡), the most well-known one, is now a social movement ritual across Asia, having been adapted by activists in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, and mainland China for a variety of causes. Citizens in Seoul once again sung it while protesting Yoon Suk-yeol’s martial law declaration in December 2024:

goiscorg

A post shared by @goiscorg

Gwangju today is known as Korea’s progressive hotspot, and there is indeed a Portlandia-esque energy coursing through the city. Hipster cafes, lush green parks, and private museums weave around statues of death and survival across the city’s main arteries. The central square, where protestors gathered again to call for the ousting of Park Geun-hye 박근혜 during the 2017 Candlelight Revolution, doubles as a futuristic plaza for the Asian Culture Center (ACC), which showcases experimental art from across the continent. I visited on a rain-drenched day, and there were still large crowds at the ACC enjoying a pan-Asian food festival and open-air dance film screening. The ACC’s ten-year anniversary exhibition, Manifesto of Spring, sports a headline piece with a brassy premise: in a not-too-distant future, democracy collapses in the West and a political refugee tries to immigrate to “Seoul Land” by participating in a population growth program.

The Land of Light, like the rest of us, is surrounded by the haunted fires of history. It insists on sifting through the ashes.

“Why are we walking in the dark, let’s go over there, where the flowers are blooming.”

Tourism in Seoul

Lily:

Seoul is an underrated tourist destination. The city is full of beautiful green spaces connected by excellent public transit, and the early October weather was perfect for long strolls through the sloping streets.

The Korean writing system is a joy to learn, and just a little bit of study can really enrich your experience in Korea. It’s phonetic, and the letters elegantly fit together to form syllable blocks. The shape of the letters is also roughly based on the shape of your mouth when pronouncing each sound (for example, “ㄱ” makes a hard “g” sound, “ㄴ” makes the “n” sound, and “ㅈ” makes the “ch” sound). Irene and I had a great time sounding out menu items, buttons on appliances, and public transport signs, discovering tons of cognates with Chinese in the process. If you add a Korean keyboard to your phone, you can use the letter “ㅗ” to give someone the middle finger over text, and represent crying faces with “ㅠㅠ” and “ㅜㅜ”.

Last week, China’s Ministry of Commerce published new regulations governing the export of rare earths. It added five new elements — holmium, erbium, thulium, europium and ytterbium — to the list of elements under export controls. The Ministry now requires foreign companies to obtain licenses in order to export products containing over 0.1% of any of these elements or made with Chinese technology. The regulations also place a default ban on any rare earths exports destined for military use abroad, as well as applying stringent scrutiny over exports to buyers involved in manufacturing advanced semiconductors or “artificial intelligence with underlying military applications”. For more on this new chapter in the trade war, see the show we just did with the 2Chrises, former export control official Chris McGuire and Chris Miller of Chip Wars fame. Transcript, podcast, or YouTube below.

But how is China reacting to the current situation? Today, ChinaTalk rounds up leading analyses from industry experts and news media to dive further into the context behind these new restrictions. We look at:

• How state media is shaping the narrative;

• Why Chinese rare earth stocks rallied, and what the domestic industry thinks;

• Distinguishing between the rocks themselves and the processing technologies;

• And why this marks a milestone in Beijing’s approach to export regulations.

But first…we’re running our first personal classified in a minute! Michelle is a good friend of ChinaTalk who’s looking for love!

Hi! I’m a Taiwanese girl living in the Bay who loves her work, stays busy, is a homebody, and has a soft spot for all things beautiful and well-designed.

My simple pleasures: that rare text that makes me smile like an idiot.

The quickest way to my heart is: Witty banter, dressing well, forehead kisses, and good music. If you’re into Doja Cat, SZA, Tyler, or rap / chill Rnb we’ll vibe. Will that person be you? Respond to this email to connect!

State media: mining’s bad?

China’s new regulations have drawn many comparisons with the US’ Foreign Direct Product Rule and are seen as a response to American semiconductor export controls. Most commentary from Chinese state-run sources shied away from explicitly naming the US, preferring instead to describe these regulations as part of China’s pursuit of “major-country diplomacy” on the world stage. Xinhua News Agency’s op-ed on the topic opened with a rebuttal of strategic interpretations of the export controls:

Some countries’ media have labeled this move a “diplomatic card” or “strategic weapon” deployed by China amid trade frictions. Yet if we view this policy upgrade within the broader framework of global governance norms, China’s own industrial development needs, and international responsibilities, a fairer and more rational conclusion emerges: as a major global supplier of critical minerals, China is proactively aligning with widely accepted international practices, raising its governance standards, and fulfilling the responsibilities of a major power. This is not a spur-of-the-moment “tactical countermeasure,” but a step rooted in China’s deeper need for sustainable industrial development and in sync with the global trend toward standardized management of strategic resources. Its ultimate goal is the sustainable use of strategic resources and shared global development.

The People’s Daily’s Zhongsheng 钟声 column, usually seen as China’s authoritative diplomatic voice, similarly stresses that the export controls are about international security rather than US-China relations:

China has consistently fulfilled its non-proliferation obligations and responsibilities in the relevant fields, working to safeguard international peace and security. The fundamental rationale for imposing export controls on medium and heavy rare earths is to ensure that the resources are used for lawful, peaceful purposes; the measures do not target any particular country or region. By ensuring that rare-earth–related items are not used for military purposes or in sensitive domains, China demonstrates the responsible conduct of a major power firmly committed to world peace and security—an approach aligned with the shared interests of global security governance.

Interestingly, many state media reports and op-eds supporting the policy have focussed on the environmental consequences of rare earths mining. They seem to imply that with export controls, China will somehow be able to reduce the impacts of mining on Mother Nature. Also in the Xinhua op-ed:

Through reform, China is steering its rare earth industry away from the outdated model of “growth at the expense of the environment,” toward high-quality, sustainable development. In doing so, it safeguards its own ecology while providing the global supply chain with a more reliable and transparent foundation. Regulation is the path to long-term prosperity: a well-governed, environmentally responsible Chinese rare earth industry will ultimately benefit international users.

The Beijing News 新京报 (owned by the CCP’s Beijing Municipal Committee) goes even further, arguing that the environment is actually the Ministry of Commerce’s primary concern!

Beyond the necessary reciprocal responses, this round of rare-earth export controls is driven more by a holistic focus on resource conservation and sustainable development.

Rare-earth mining imposes substantial environmental costs, and prolonged, high-volume exports have continually increased China’s ecological burden. By enforcing stricter export management under the new rules, the policy aims to steer the rare-earth value chain toward higher value-added, lower-emission segments and to promote resource use that is greener and more intensive/efficient.

While rare earths are foundational to many technologies enabling our climate transition, the mining and refining of these elements do have negative environmental impacts. The process that extracts rare earths from the earth’s crust produces significant amounts of toxic waste. China, in part, obtained its world-dominating lead in rare earths mining through lax regulations surrounding the disposal of toxic waste — with severe health consequences for residents of mining areas like the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, where some villages are known as “cancer villages”. Progress in making rare earth mining less harmful in China has been meaningful, but slower than ideal.

That being said, the link between controlling exports and reducing the industry’s environmental impact is tenuous at best. The regulations offer nothing in the way of actually protecting the land or people from the harms of rare earths extraction. Instead, this is probably a way for state media to set narrative guidelines domestically and frame the upcoming trade war as prosocial, in order to preemptively assuage concerns that such moves could make life harder for average Chinese people.

Industry is Annoyed

Chinese miners and refiners will find it harder to sell their products, which is probably bad news for their bottom lines. However, censorship makes it challenging for anyone to voice opposition. Some subtle references to export control violations of domestic Chinese origin can be found in this guide to compliance, published by e-commerce industry publication 勤曦运营 Qinxi Operations three days after the new regulations were published:

It’s important to note that this applies not only to foreign organizations and individuals. Even domestic operators must obtain the appropriate license if, after export, the goods remain under their actual control and they wish — once the goods have arrived in the stated destination country — to re-export them to other countries or regions, thereby changing the final destination country or end user.

In practice, there have already been multiple cases in which domestic exporters, without authorization, re-exported dual-use items that had been shipped to Country A on to Country B and were found to have committed smuggling. Such conduct is readily deemed by judicial authorities to constitute smuggling of rare earths by concealing the true export information through transshipment via a third country. Practitioners should take this very seriously: goods may still be subject to regulation even after they have been exported overseas.

Enforcing new export controls is a multi-agency bureaucratic operation: Qinxi expects the Customs Administration, China’s Coast Guard, regional Public Safety Bureaus, and the national security apparatus to all be involved. Their guide also gives useful historical context to China’s securitization of rare earths exports:

Under Article 22 of the Export Control Law, China imposes export controls on dual-use items to safeguard national security and interests and to fulfill non-proliferation and other international obligations.

The four announcements issued on [October] 9th likewise state at the outset that the purpose of rare-earth controls is to “safeguard national security and interests” and to “meet the needs of fulfilling international non-proliferation obligations.”

This is also reflected in the control codes assigned to rare-earth-related items in the notices: the third digit in each code is “9,” indicating that these items are “related to other national-security factors.” It is thus clear that dual-use rare-earth items are closely tied to China’s national security, and the state will inevitably subject them to strict oversight. The regulatory measures being issued are trending toward increased stringency.

For example, beyond the strict control now imposed on the circulation of rare-earth items overseas (as noted earlier), in December of last year the Ministry of Commerce issued the “Announcement on Strengthening Export Controls on Certain Dual-Use Items to the United States” … The scope has thus shifted from restrictions limited to a specific country or region to an unqualified, global restriction: the target of control has moved from “the United States” to “the world.” Moreover, Announcement No. 61 uses the term “may” with respect to military end use, meaning that if regulators cannot be completely certain that a rare-earth item will not be used for military purposes, they are likely to deny a license. If an exporter proceeds without authorization, the export may constitute the crime of smuggling.

Given the wider context of unstoppable demand, CITIC’s equity research team remains optimistic about outlooks for rare earths and recommends continued strategic allocation to the rare-earth value chain. They write:

New-energy vehicles, wind power, and energy-efficient motors are aligned with low-carbon, environmental policies, and humanoid robots may become a new growth driver. We expect global demand for NdFeB (neodymium-iron-boron) magnets to reach 329,000 tons in 2027, implying a 2024–2027 CAGR of 13%.

By our estimates, the NdFeB industry’s CR4 (top-four concentration ratio) is about 29% in 2024; as leading companies bring new capacity online, we expect CR4 to rise to 42% by 2026.

Long-term perspectives on Beijing’s trade relations

Finally, some analysts have offered perspectives that place these regulations in a longer time horizon, in order to try to understand what might come next for rare earths, advanced manufacturing, and the trade war.

Ni Jianlin 倪建林 of Dacheng Law Offices, the Chinese law firm previously integrated with Dentons, wrote a blog post about the new regulations. He puts forth thoughts about China’s successful rare earths industrial policy:

Why can a single Chinese technical control leave the world’s major industrial countries on the back foot? The reason is that the core of modern industrial competition has shifted from “owning resources” to “commanding the ability to turn resources into value.”

In terms of reserves, the world is not short of rare-earth ore; the real bottleneck lies in the complex, high-barrier process chain between ore and functional materials usable in high-end manufacturing. Mining is only the starting point. The key is refining raw ore into high-purity rare-earth oxides, and then further processing them into high-performance magnetic materials for chips, electric motors, and missile systems. At present, roughly 90% of the world’s rare-earth refining and separation capacity is concentrated in China.

This pattern is no accident, but the result of more than three decades of continuous technological accumulation and policy guidance. In the 1970s, Chinese scientist Xu Guangxian developed the “cascade extraction theory,” achieving efficient separation of individual rare-earth elements at a cost just one-tenth of that abroad at the time. In the decades that followed, China kept innovating in separation and purification, environmental management, and energy-efficiency control — raising wastewater recycling rates to over 95% and overcoming the technical and compliance hurdles that Western countries struggled to clear due to high environmental costs. Today, China can achieve 99.9999% ultra-high-purity rare-earth refining and has mastered the core formulations and sintering processes for NdFeB permanent magnets, forming a closed-loop supply chain from resources and technology through to manufacturing.

Faced with this reality, the United States is not without responses. During the Trump administration, Washington rolled out increased funding and crafted plans such as the Critical Materials Strategy to rebuild a domestic rare-earth industry system. Yet these actions started too late and moved too slowly — projects typically take three to five years to go from approval to actual production — making it hard to ease supply-chain dependence in the short term. US firms have also tried to seek alternative supplies via allies such as Australia and Canada, but those countries’ output is limited, and the separation and refining steps still rely on Chinese technology and equipment.

Indeed, Chinese analyses tend to emphasize that not only does China want to flex its ability to control rare earths supplies, it also seeks to preserve its edge in refining technologies. CITIC’s report mentioned the construction of a “technological moat” for rare earths. 工业能源圈 Industry and Energy Zone, the industry-focussed blog run by Shanghai-based Jiemian News, reports on the novelty of technology-based controls in the Chinese policy context:

The “Technology Control Announcement” explicitly brings five categories of key rare-earth technologies and their carriers under control: rare-earth mining technologies; smelting and separation technologies; metal smelting technologies; magnet manufacturing technologies; and technologies for recycling and reusing secondary rare-earth resources.

According to the analysts cited, this is the first time that “technology control” [技术管控] has been clearly written into a domestic policy document.

As for the backdrop to the Announcement, they believe it is linked to current overseas efforts to poach rare-earth talent: “In recent weeks, you can see related high-salary job postings on recruitment sites in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere.” The core aim of tightening controls on technology is to achieve closed-loop controls across the entire industry chain.

The analyst further explained that China had already been controlling rare-earth items; the newly added technology controls are intended to close the loophole of “controlling items but not technology.” If foreign actors were to break through technical barriers by luring away talent with high pay, the earlier controls on items would be diluted. Therefore, the essence of technology control is to firmly regulate every aspect of the rare-earth industry chain and establish a comprehensive control system.

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.

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:

  

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:

An anon start-up conducting cutting-edge open-source research on China’s science, technology, and industrial ecosystems is looking for part-time China research analysts. You’ll be saving America with a firm run by someone I [Jordan] can vouch for being the literal best in the business. Apply here.

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:

• A job board with hundreds of high-impact opportunities,

• A podcast featuring deep conversations with experts like Carl Shulman and Ajeya Cotra.

• Free, one-on-one career advising to help you find your path.

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.

A big welcome to , who joined ChinaTalk to cover AI full time this week after three years of nights and weekends contribution!

Beijing-based Moonshot AI (月之暗面, literally “dark side of the moon” - a Pink Floyd reference) released Kimi K2 on July 11. K2 is a non-reasoning, open source large language model based on the Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) technique and achieved benchmark scores competitive with many leading models, including DeepSeek V3. At 1 trillion parameters, it is an impressive feat. Per Nathan Lambert of Interconnects:

It is a "non-thinking" model with leading performance numbers in coding and related agentic tasks (earning it many comparisons to Claude 3.5 Sonnet), which means it doesn't generate a long reasoning chain before answering, but it was still trained extensively with reinforcement learning. It clearly outperforms DeepSeek V3 on a variety of benchmarks, including SWE-Bench, LiveCodeBench, AIME, or GPQA, and comes with a base model released as well. It is the new best-available open model by a clear margin.

ChinaTalk last covered Moonshot AI in March, when we translated an expansive interview CEO Yang Zhilin (杨植麟) gave to the online tech news platform Overseas Unicorn (海外独角兽). In the conversation, Yang portrayed himself and his company as stubborn AGI purists who focus on “tech visions” rather than product design or short-term revenue generation. K2 is a step towards many aspects of this vision, but its story so far also reflects the jagged reality of cutting-edge model research in China. In this piece we discuss:

• What distinguishes Moonshot in China’s landscape — and what the DeepSeek and Kimi moments should tell Westerners about the future of Chinese AI labs;

• How DeepSeek paved the way for K2, and why this is about open-source culture;

• Why “the model is the agent” for Kimi;

• And what we might expect next from Chinese AI startups.

Shooting for the Moon

Yang Zhilin, born in coastal Guangdong in 1992, earned his bachelor’s degree from Tsinghua University and went on to a PhD at Carnegie Mellon. He worked at Meta AI and Google Brain before returning to China to begin his entrepreneurship journey. Unlike fellow Guangdong native Liang Wenfeng (梁文锋), CEO of DeepSeek, Yang has deep connections in both China and the US and does not only focus on hiring domestically educated talent. While Tsinghua is heavily represented in the résumés of Moonshot’s founding team, others come from more diverse global educational backgrounds.

Moonshot has no B2B offerings and does not build wrapper tools for corporate users, instead focusing directly on individual customers. From the beginning, Kimi’s selling point to Chinese users was its long context window, allowing users to upload dozens of documents and analyze long articles. But it’s not just about an awesome user experience; long-context is central to Yang Zhilin’s AI worldview. Per his comments in the Overseas Unicorn interview:

To achieve AGI, long-context will be a crucial factor. Every problem is essentially a long-context problem — the evolution of architectures throughout history has fundamentally been about increasing effective context length. Recently, word2vec won the NeurIPS Test of Time award. Ten years ago, it predicted surrounding words using only a single word, meaning its context length was about 5. RNNs extended the effective context length to about 20, LSTMs increased it to several dozen, and transformers pushed it to several thousand. Now, we can reach hundreds of thousands.

Yang’s previous venture Recurrent AI (循环智能) was funded by seven venture capital firms, two of which also invested in Moonshot. Alibaba became Moonshot’s biggest backer in 2024. As Moonshot’s valuation rose rapidly, five of Recurrent AI’s investors — those who did not join Moonshot’s funding rounds — filed an arbitration case against Yang, alleging that Moonshot was launched without obtaining necessary waivers from previous investors. Recall that High Flyer, the parent company of DeepSeek, is a hedge fund, and that Liang Wenfeng has rejected outside investment as of March. Moonshot operates under much more normal tech startup restraints and faces investor pressure. Still, with just $1 billion raised (much less than the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI) and pressure to ultimately deliver value to shareholders, it created a leading open model, rather than operating in the hedge fund-funded cocoon that DeepSeek researchers enjoy.

What we are starting to observe here is rather obvious in hindsight, as we move farther away from the DeepSeek moment: there is no single path to success for Chinese frontier labs. One does not necessarily have to replicate the DeepSeek recipe, whether in terms of hiring, funding, or labor practices, to create world-class models. Compute constraints, which apply across China, continue to incentivize a diverse range of research teams in China to pursue novel algorithmic research.

From DeepSeek V3 to K2

The team behind Kimi is very active on Zhihu (知乎), China’s Quora equivalent. According to a post by engineer Liu Shaowei (刘少伟), K2 essentially copied the combination of Expert Parallelism (EP) and Data Parallelism (DP) outlined by DeepSeek in V3’s technical report, with four notable changes:

• Raising the number of experts from 256 to 384, as their pretraining team found that scaling laws are valid for sparsity;

• Reducing the number of attention heads to compensate for a higher number of experts;

• Keeping only the first layer as dense and using MoE for all the rest, to maximize the benefits of MoE;

• Keeping all experts in one group.

Recall Yang Zhilin’s Overseas Unicorn interview, where he argued that “AI is essentially a pile of scaling laws laid on top of each other”. Raising the number of experts seems to reflect that. As for why they used DeepSeek’s architecture, Liu says there was no point reinventing the wheel:

Before starting to train K2, we conducted a large number of scaling experiments related to model architecture. The result was that none of the proposed architectures at the time were truly able to outperform DeepSeek V3. … The reason is simple: the V3 architecture has been validated and remains effective at large scale, whereas our “new architectures” haven’t yet undergone sufficient large-scale validation. Given the presence of two massive variables — Muon optimizer and a much larger model size — we didn’t want to introduce additional unproven variables just for the sake of “being new.”

Another Zhihu comment by fellow Moonshot engineer Su Jianlin (苏剑林) highlight other ways K2 learned from DeepSeek (italics added by editor):

Internally, we were also constantly exploring better alternatives to MLA [multi-latent attention, an architectural idea refined and scaled by DeepSeek], but since this was our first open-source large-scale model, we ultimately chose to pay tribute to DeepSeek by replicating its MLA design.

As for the MoE (Mixture of Experts) component, we adopted DeepSeek-V3’s shared expert, high sparsity, and loss-free load balancing. … A special note on the Sparsity part: for quite some time, we were running experiments with Sparsity = 8 (i.e., selecting 8 out of 64 experts). It wasn’t until we resolved some infrastructure issues one day that we began trying higher sparsity levels and found the gains to be significant. So we started exploring the Sparsity Scaling Law and gradually leaned into configurations similar to DeepSeek’s projections (DeepSeek-V3 already uses 256 choose 8, 32 Sparsity; while K2 uses 384 choose 8, 48 Sparsity). It felt like fulfilling a prophecy that the DeepSeek team had already made.

K2 would not exist without DeepSeek — and without an open-source culture and free flow of research. While Moonshot and DeepSeek are certainly competitors at the corporate level, Kimi’s engineers express deep respect for their DeepSeek colleagues. Yang Zhilin, in February 2024, had told Tencent News that he didn’t believe open source models could catch up to closed source any time soon, because “many open-source contributions may not have been validated through compute-intensive testing,” while closed-source projects “attract concentrated talent and capital.” Moreover, he remarked that if he had a leading model today, “open-sourcing it would most likely be unreasonable … it's usually the laggards who might do that—or they might open-source a small model just to stir things up.” So what changed between then and now? The success of DeepSeek was probably an important proof-of-concept for open source for fellow Chinese AI entrepreneurs. While Yang himself has yet to offer any updated comments on his open-source views, Moonshot engineer Justin Wong shared his “why open source” take on Zhihu:

First of all, we obviously wanted to gain some recognition. If K2 were just a closed-source service, it wouldn’t be getting nearly as much attention and discussion as it is now. …

Next, open-sourcing allows us to leverage the power of the developer community to improve the technical ecosystem. Within 24 hours of our release, the community had already implemented K2 in MLX, with 4-bit quantization and more—things we truly don’t have the manpower to accomplish ourselves at this stage.

But more importantly: open-sourcing means holding ourselves to a higher technical standard, which in turn pushes us to build better models—aligned with our goal of AGI.

This might seem counterintuitive—if we’re just releasing model weights, why would that force the model to progress?

The logic is actually very simple: open source means performance comes first. You can no longer rely on superficial tricks or hacks to dazzle users. Anyone who gets the same weights should be able to easily reproduce your performance—only then is it truly valid.

With the success of DeepSeek, Chinese frontier labs now have ample, proven justification for the value of open source, both for marketing and in terms of research relevance.

What Makes K2 Agentic?

Moonshot calls K2 “open agentic intelligence”. It’s not just an OpenAI pun; the K2 team is trying to make their mark by refining definitions of agentic capabilities. Justin Wong frames the importance of agents as such:

A while ago, when agent products were all the rage, I saw a lot of comments saying that Kimi should stop competing in the arena of large models and pivot to making agent products. I just want to say that most such agent products are nothing without Claude. Windsurf being cut off from Claude further proved my point.

Fellow Moonshot engineer and Zhihu user Flood Sung created the following diagram to visualize K2’s agent vision:

Sung explains:

We first let the model generate hundreds of scenarios such as food delivery, Weibo, WeChat... Then based on the scenarios, we generate thousands of tools, such as ordering food delivery, sending Weibo posts, [and] finding contacts. Then based on different tool combinations, we generate hundreds of thousands of different agents (different system prompts + different tool sets). Next, we design tasks ranging from simple to complex with scoring points for each different agent. Then we begin large-scale agent simulation: first assign tasks to a simulated user, let the user interact with the corresponding agent based on the task, and the user is also generated with different personalities and language styles. Next, the tools called by the agent are also simulated through a tool simulator, which is actually equivalent to a world model to execute and return feedback to the agent for continued processing. After executing the entire task, we use the scoring points from the judgment criteria to evaluate whether the agent's interactions meet the requirements. Good data is then stored!

In other words, K2 was trained on massive amounts of synthetic data, generated specifically to resemble real-life applications and optimized for tool-calling.

What Next?

On the technical front, the Kimi team wants to expand on their current vision for agentic capabilities and build “large scale agentic RL.” Of course, they also want to move out of the shadow of DeepSeek’s infrastructure and eventually pioneer their own scalable approaches. We might expect a reasoning model based on K2 in the near future, as well as future foundational models.

Reading through Yang Zhilin and Moonshot engineers’ comments, one might get the impression that they are dismissive of wrappers and applications. But that’s not the whole truth. To understand their approach to real-life application, one has to take into account both the company’s AGI-centric worldview and their theory of change. Yang Zhilin, in his Overseas Unicorn interview, said that the secret ingredient to transformative AI was trust:

I think the ultimate measure of an AI product’s long-term value is how much personalized information users are willing to input into it, and then lossless long-context and personalization are responsible for turning these inputs into valuable outputs. New hardware forms may also be needed — but I think models and software are still bottlenecks. To dig deeper, the prerequisite for users to input a lot of information is trust — you need a sufficiently engaging and human-like AI. You can’t say, “I’m setting up product features specifically to get your information.” The end result should be that users and AI become friends, so users can tell the AI anything.

Justin Wong riffs on why this means moving away from the chatbot experience in his Zhihu comment:

Your interaction process with AI is not about directly outputting a piece of content, but rather understanding the user's needs and immediately starting a small project [or] delivering a frontend application. Users can continue to ask questions, modify, and iterate, but all of this revolves around a deliverable.

Sharp-eyed friends may have already noticed — isn't this just Cursor/Aider/OpenHands? Wrong. From an implementation perspective, this is indeed AI programming. But if designed cleverly in the product, you can hide the code-writing process. Then, for users who don't understand programming, this becomes 'I talked to AI, and it actually made me a PowerPoint/drew a flowchart/wrote a mini-game'. … This is a completely superior experience to traditional chatbots. … I believe Kimi products will soon have some surprising changes."

“AGI”, according to the team behind Kimi, has to feel like AGI. We should probably not expect Moonshot to put out wrapper products, especially since K2 is not multimodal, but the company certainly hopes to change how regular users experience AI usage in the near future.

What does K2 mean for competitors in the West? To quote Nathan of Interconnects again, Western labs like OpenAI, which has delayed release of its own open-weights model, are losing narrative control in open source.

We need leaders at the closed AI laboratories in the U.S. to rethink some of the long-term dynamics they're battling with R&D adoption. We need to mobilize funding for great, open science projects in the U.S. and Europe. Until then, this is what losing looks like if you want The West to be the long-term foundation of AI research and development.

K2 shows that DeepSeek wasn’t a wild exception to the rule or entirely a product of unique circumstances. Here is a startup with founders from different backgrounds, a more traditional VC funding structure, and different philosophy on AI who was also able to achieve a highly competitive open model, likely with strong uptake by users.

As for what’s next for Moonshot the company? Yang Zhilin gives few media interviews and eschews politics, and state media is yet to comment on K2. It would be a surprise if he immediately got the State Council treatment Liang Wenfeng did. Both Baidu and Tencent quickly integrated DeepSeek’s models into their products. K2 offers yet another cost-efficient option for big internet platforms looking for AI integration; its apparently strong creative-writing capacities might especially appeal to platforms like Weibo (similar to Twitter/X) and Xiaohongshu/Rednote (similar to Instagram).

Like DeepSeek, however, Moonshot is unlikely to try to broaden its user base through actual partnerships with internet platforms in China. Playing the platform-capitalism game was a point of frustration for earlier iterations of Kimi. Moonshot was the top spender on ads among AI firms in China in 2024, according to ad analytics firm AppGrowing:

The aggressive strategy caused controversy online, with users on Bilibili (similar to YouTube) and Kuaishou (similar to TikTok/Douyin) complaining about the endless volumes of Kimi ads they saw in feeds.

In February 2025, Moonshot eliminated most of its ad placements on third–party platforms to focus resources on developing its foundational model. Justin Wong says that what DeepSeek proved to the rest of the industry was that “capability was the best form of advertisement”: “[DeepSeek] showed that the path we all believed in was not just viable, but actually a wonderful route to real success. Our only regret was that we were not the one to open up that route.” From the DeepSeek moment to now K2, foundation model-focussed startups have carved out a modus operandi in China’s AI landscape.

Finally, Chinese users will obviously cheer for yet another competitive domestic model, but will others around the world take up K2? The model is, of course, compliant with Chinese laws, and you won’t be able to learn about Tiananmen from the chat interface. This is me trying to have a conversation with K2 about 1989 — note how it pulls sources, and then hesitates:

Perplexity has announced that it will soon begin post-training K2 to make it available to its users. This means that like with DeepSeek R1, an uncensored version of K2 will be available through Perplexity. For now, platforms like Perplexity have plugged the political censorship challenge facing global adoption of Chinese LLM chatbots.

Poems and a Short Story from Kimi

I played around with Kimi intermittently for a day. Its “tone” strikes me as factual, reserved, and extremely careful, a subtly different experience from using “glazey“ ChatGPT or the ever-cheerful Claude. At various points, I was even annoyed by the way it replied to inquiries curtly. I tried having the same silly conversation about vestigial organs (“has anyone out there ever had every useless part removed from their body”) with Claude, DeepSeek, and Kimi, and Kimi was the only model that did not proactively try to engage me further, displayed no inkling of speculation, and did not even use any exclamation marks to signal pleasantness!

Perhaps being a model that chooses words carefully has its benefits. K2 topped benchmarks for creative writing. Commentators have been noting its refreshing style, command of vocabulary, and narrative cohesion. Here are two poems from Kimi, one in English and the other in Classical Chinese.

Prompt: Write me a 15-line poem in the style of Mary Oliver about open source software

Response:

You do not have to be rich or famous,

only willing.

The repository waits like a meadow at dawn—

fork it, and the grasses part.

Lines of code rise, thin and green,

each commit a small heartbeat

shared with strangers who become,

overnight, companions.

Watch: a bug is caught,

its wings still trembling,

then released, lighter,

into the widening sky.

No one owns the sky.

We simply pass the telescope,

saying: look, look farther.

Prompt: 写一首有关旧金山市景的唐诗 [Write me a Tang Dynasty poem about scenery in the city of San Francisco]

Response:

《舊金山曉望》

（七言排律）

金門曉霧濕旌旄，

電纜穿空挾海濤。

赤桁橫波藏翡翠，

丹樓映日擁葡萄。

風翻酒旆千旗動，

雨過花階五色高。

誰向坡頭聽暮鼓？

遙鐘一杵落雲袍。

Translation (also from K2):

Dawn over San Francisco

(regulated heptasyllabic verse)

At daybreak, Golden Gate fog dampens the streaming flags,

power cables stitch the sky, carrying the ocean’s roar.

Scarlet trestles span the waves, hiding kingfishers like jade,

vermilion towers catch the sun, cradling clusters of grapes.

Wind flips tavern pennants—thousand banners alive,

after rain the flowered terraces blaze in five bright hues.

Who stands atop the hill to hear the dusk drum?

A distant bell—one single stroke—falls through a robe of cloud.

[Jordan] It wrote me a spectacular short story about the US trading H20s for rare earths. The prompt was “write me a 500 word story in the style of david foster wallace about the us and china doing a deal to exchange rare earths for H20 chips”

Picture, if you will, one of those late-summer Beltway afternoons when the sky over D.C. looks like a migraine—white, swollen, vaguely nauseous. Inside the EEOB, the air-conditioning is thrumming at that pitch that makes your fillings vibrate. Deputy Undersecretary for Strategic Stuff Lyle “Chip” Ketchem—who insists the nickname predates the semiconductor industry by decades and is therefore ironic—stands before a wall of LCDs displaying supply-chain heatmaps in colors not found in nature. The maps are supposed to convey urgency, but they mostly convey the sense that someone has spilled lava on a Lite-Brite.

Across the table: Minister-Counselor Wen Jieru, whose business card identifies him, in bilingual serif, as “Senior Coordinator for Reciprocal Resource Harmonization.” Wen has the kind of face that looks polite even while calculating the exact cubic meters of your personal failure. Between them sits a single legal pad upon which someone has written, in bureaucratic uncial, “MOU: H₂O ⇄ REE.” Below that, a subordinate has added, in smaller letters, “(no jokes about water boarding, please).”

The deal itself is almost comically symmetrical, like a grade-school barter of a peanut-butter sandwich for a pudding cup, except the sandwich is a wafer of circuitry etched at 1.4 nanometers and the pudding cup contains dysprosium, terbium, and enough praseodymium to make every iPhone in Shenzhen vibrate with joy. The U.S. will ship, over 36 months, one hundred thousand “H₂O” neuromorphic chips—so named because their architecture supposedly mimics the lateral geniculate nucleus of a freshwater trout, or so claims the marketing deck, which no one has read past page 4. In exchange, China will release, in quarterly allotments, thirty-seven metric tons of rare-earth oxides that currently sit in bonded warehouses in Guangxi like extremely expensive decorative gravel.

Chip tries to frame the swap as a triumph of interdependent resilience. Wen listens with the expression of a man auditing a children’s recorder recital. When Chip invokes “win-win,” Wen replies, in perfect MBA English, “Wins are scalar, not vector. Direction matters.” No one laughs, because laughter is not on the agenda. Instead, they proceed to Attachment 7-B, subsection (iv): “Protocols for Geopolitical Optics.” This is the part where each side agrees to describe the other as a “valued partner” while simultaneously briefing their respective media that they have “held firm on core equities.” The linguistic gymnastics make Chip feel like he’s chewing aluminum.

They break at 19:27 for individually wrapped sandwiches whose ingredient lists read like passwords. Wen peels the sticker off his turkey-swiss and folds it into a tiny paper crane, which he places on the edge of his plate like a punctuation mark. Chip stares at it, suddenly aware that the crane is the only object in the room with no hidden agenda. He experiences a moment of vertiginous clarity: the chips will be obsolete before the last shipment clears customs; the rare earths will be stockpiled in a Nevada salt cavern until some future administration rediscovers them and tweets about strategic surprise. The swap is not about materials at all; it is about the narrative that materials can be swapped. The story is the commodity.

Back in the conference room, the LCDs refresh. A new heatmap blooms—magenta, viridian, arterial red. Chip signs. Wen signs. Cameras flash like paparazzi at a funeral. Outside, the sky has ripened to a shade that Pantone has not yet named, but will eventually market as “Imminent Dusk.”

ChinaTalk is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now