In 2017, Hangzhou-based robotics firm Unitree 宇树科技 launched its first quadruped, Laikago. Laika was the name of the Soviet space dog onboard Sputnik 2, and the American English pronunciation of “go” is similar to that of the Chinese word for dogs, 狗 gǒu. Unitree’s battery-powered tribute to Laika wasn’t fuzzy, but walked on four feet and navigated through basic obstacles.

Unitree founder Wang Xingxing 王兴兴 has long held faith in the potential of robotic canines. Since 2020, when Unitree started gaining media attention, he has insisted in multiple interviews that humans are drawn to four-legged creatures and will have a natural fondness for their artificial counterparts.

Fast forward to 2026, and Unitree has just filed for a $610-million IPO on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The company is a household name in China after its humanoid robots performed dances at the CCTV Spring Festival Gala for two consecutive years and counting. Through their IPO disclosures (investor prospectus and response letter to the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s inquiries), we get some answers to important questions about the development of embodied AI.

• How is Unitree profitable?

• Where is diffusion happening inside China, aside from dancing on TV?

• Are Chinese robotics companies content to lead in hardware and applications, or do they also see themselves as pursuing some kind of generalized “frontier”?

• And finally, what does this all mean for US-China dynamics in robotics?

What’s the money maker?

One of the most notable things about Unitree is the fact that it actually makes money. Unprofitability is a near-universal challenge because AI robotics, despite massive advances in the past few years, is still an early-stage technology. Mass adoption has not yet arrived; pathways out of bottlenecks like data are uncertain; and important safety standards have not caught up. Even shipping products consistently can be a challenge for some companies in the space, let alone manufacturing at scale and booking reliable customers.

This context is why observers have found Unitree’s ability to turn a profit remarkable. Not only has the company’s net profit been positive since 2024, but from 2024 to 2025, its net profit grew by 204.29%. A look at its growth, broken down by product category, reveals the most significant source of this revenue explosion: humanoids.

It’s perhaps ironic that, despite the company’s longstanding work in quadrupeds, it is humanoids that have catapulted its business model to success. By meeting genuine demand in academia — and staging an especially strong marketing campaign in front of the Chinese public — Unitree has transformed itself into a humanoid frontrunner. Some analyses trace their potent commercialization drive back to Unitree’s origins. Wang Xingxing’s cofounder Chen Li 陈立, who was Wang’s classmate throughout both their undergraduate and Master’s programs, worked in international sales for the Hangzhou-based, partly state-owned surveillance tech giant Hikvision (海康威视) before joining Unitree. Hikvision has been extremely successful at expanding internationally (including in the US before it was added to the Entity List over its involvement in human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities in China). Investors have told Chinese media that Chen’s experience is an important asset for Unitree’s global commercialization, driving sales to governments and businesses in particular.

Unitree has earned name recognition in the West, but it is far from the only Chinese robotics company meaningfully shaping the future of embodied AI. In fact, it is part of an increasingly competitive market for AI-powered robots. Among listed peers, UBTECH and Dobot are major competitors named in Unitree’s prospectus. A fellow member of the “Hangzhou Six Dragons,” DEEP Robotics, is betting big on scenario-adapted applications, while AgiBot, by some estimates, shipped even more humanoid units last year than Unitree did.

In their response to the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s inquiry letter, Unitree emphasized in-house development of hardware parts as its key strategy for cutting costs. Unitree designs, builds, and assembles most components (other than commodity components like battery cells, flash storage, and the core computing board) in-house. It does offer outsourced alternatives for add-ons like LiDAR, cameras, and dextrous hands, but has also developed in-house options for all of these.

Where are the robots?

Unitree’s most reliable customers are universities, research institutions, and other companies conducting research into robotics. Its hold on academic customers worldwide is so firm that it’s caused alarm among DC policymakers. In May 2025, the China Select Committee called for Unitree to be designated as a “Chinese military company” and to be added to the Entity List.

The data Unitree disclosed about its revenue sources, however, paints a more complex picture. For quadrupeds, the research and education sector has been the company’s most reliable source of revenue since at least 2022 (IPOs generally do not require companies to disclose audited financial statements from more than three years ago). But starting in 2024, revenue from both commercial and industry customers more than doubled. Consumer sales revenue nearly quadrupled year-on-year in only the first nine months of 2025.

A similar, if more compact, story emerges for humanoids as well. Demand still largely comes from researchers and educational institutions, but commercial and industrial demand has grown from a near-zero starting point on a seemingly exponential trajectory since 2024. Consumers are especially excited about humanoids due to Unitree’s successful marketing of the concept. Industrial applications of humanoids are more limited compared to those of quadrupeds, but are also appearing.

What, exactly, are people doing with these robots? “Research & Education” encompasses sales to researchers, who use Unitree hardware and platforms to conduct their own experiments. The “Commercial & Consumer Use” and “Industry Applications” categories roughly map onto B2C and B2B sales, respectively. According to Unitree, non-academic consumers who buy their robots mostly do so “for show”: they’re deploying these robots as attractive promoters in retail settings, at tourist sites, and in performances and exhibitions. Some use them as novelty companions.

Applications in industry are more interesting. Quadrupeds are deployed as “smart inspectors” in power grids, subway tunnels, and gas pipelines. They can also assist in harsh settings like emergency response and outdoor surveys, and complete manufacturing and logistical tasks. E-commerce firm JD.com is Unitree’s biggest corporate customer. Humanoids, according to Unitree, are being used for inspections and manufacturing as well, though in a more limited capacity because the technology is less mature. Unitree expects consumer demand for humanoids to grow in the medium term, but we will have to wait a while longer for genuinely useful humanoids on the factory floor.

Is Unitree… AGI-Pilled?

Received wisdom in robotics has it that the US leads in software-related research, while China’s strength is in hardware. The implication is that the US is likely to reach “generalized” machine intelligence in the physical world faster than China, but — in the meantime — Chinese companies could get to practical applications faster through quick iterations inside an unparalleled manufacturing ecosystem.

Unitree’s business model is often quoted as direct evidence of this dynamic, and it is indeed true that hardware is the crux of Unitree’s success. But does that mean Unitree, and the Chinese robotics industry writ large, has less interest in generalizability or the intelligence frontier? The IPO disclosures indicate otherwise.

Unitree called on incoming investors to “realize humanity’s ultimate dream — AGI” 实现人类最终极的梦想—AGI with them. Their lawyer-drafted definition of AGI is “a form of intelligence that possesses general cognitive capabilities comparable to those of humans, capable of understanding, learning, and executing intellectual tasks across any domain, and autonomously reasoning, planning, making decisions, and continuously learning in unknown environments.”

The financial reality tells us that most of Unitree’s R&D budget has gone to hardware. This is clearly downstream of their aforementioned focus on developing as many components in-house as possible to cut costs.

However, it’s important to notice in the chart above that Unitree’s R&D expenditure on “Multimodal Embodied AI Model” — the “big brain” of its robots — increased exponentially between 2024 and 2025, while other areas of R&D have grown at a steadier pace. Unitree is clearly ambitious about developing its models, even if it is known mostly for its hardware business.

This becomes clearer when we look at Unitree’s plan for using the 4.2 billion RMB (around 607.7 million USD) raised through the IPO. Unitree’s stakeholders approved the following distribution in early 2026:

Nearly half of the IPO’s proceeds will be spent on training AI models over the next three years. That’s around 673 million RMB per year, which is not quite comparable to more well-known model makers (MiniMax, for example, spent around 1.75 billion RMB on R&D last year) but still a significant amount that signals long-term software ambitions.

Unitree currently owns no real estate, but plans to build its own factory with IPO proceeds. Per its disclosures, it has already secured a nod of approval from Hangzhou’s Binjiang District 滨江区 and plans to build there. Transitioning from an all-leased manufacturing model to proprietary manufacturing facilities is in line with their emphasis on in-house development and increasing production efficiency.

What comes next?

These disclosures answer many factual questions about Unitree’s business model, but raise more fundamental questions about the future of automation, US-China competitive dynamics, and both countries’ big bet on AI.

Question one: What will come of Unitree’s “AGI” ambitions? A public company is required to either use proceeds as stated in official disclosures, or publicly justify any changes. (Shareholders can vote to reappropriate funds, but unauthorized deviations could invoke China’s securities law and trigger scrutiny from the Stock Exchange.) Barring major issues, we should expect Unitree to spend handsomely on model training and development for the next three years. The biggest challenge will be making sure that these investments produce consequential returns. This uncertainty is not exclusive to Unitree; no one knows what the next three years will bring. But Unitree has now put itself on a path away from hardware-first and towards a more diversified strategy. This is, of course, risky, but relying on academia’s demand for hardware is no longer secure.

Question two: Will America turn against Unitree? A “Chinese military company” designation, which places companies into the annually-updated 1260H list, would merely exclude Unitree from contracting with the Department of Defense, but being placed on the Entity List would subject it to US export controls. Neither designation would prevent Unitree from selling to American customers outright, but they would hobble the company’s growth. As Unitree’s own prospectus describes:

Throughout the reporting period, revenue from overseas markets consistently exceeded 35% of total revenue. Should the United States continue to intensify trade and tariff policies that materially disadvantage Chinese exporters, or place the company on restricted lists governing procurement partnerships or technology export controls, the company faces the risk of being unable to sustain high growth in overseas sales — and potentially suffering an overall decline in performance. … Given uncertainty in industrial trade policy and the international political environment, any adverse shifts in external supply chain conditions or overseas market controls — compounded by further escalation of US trade restrictions and export control measures — could negatively affect the company’s ability to procure imported materials and maintain technology partnerships.

Policymakers eager to run “Trojan horse tech” out of America have to reckon with the dilemma that, for academic researchers at the forefront of embodied AI, there are few alternatives to Chinese-made hardware and platforms; Unitree is simply the most successful of the lot. Affordability and reliability are the most important factors for nonprofit academic labs. Robotics research is also a rough-and-tumble affair: there is wear and tear, and I’ve had researchers and students show me bruises they’ve sustained on the job from handling heavy humanoids. Unitree’s scale, consistency, and pricing meets academics where they are. Moreover, Unitree has been cultivating its relationships with international researchers long before the reporting periods of these IPO disclosures. The company started shipping internationally in 2018, and some of the earliest buyers of its quadrupeds were university research labs.

Imagine writing code for a dishwasher without dishwashers to test the code on. That’s a massively oversimplified comparison, but it is the same proposition in spirit. If Washington severs this symbiotic relationship, it will almost certainly make it harder for American researchers to maintain their lead in the software side of embodied AI.

Finally, question three: Can Unitree keep its lead inside China? As mentioned earlier, the company has formidable challengers in its own backyard, and has had to continuously trim costs to stay competitive. DEEP Robotics also joined the leagues of profitable companies in 2025. AgiBot’s CEO said at the end of last year that the company’s total sales revenue in 2025 likely exceeded 1 billion RMB. Up until now, Unitree’s success is arguably a case of first-mover advantage. Many more companies are taking up the Unitree playbook, and the future of robotics in China is far from determined.

If you aren’t yet ready to open your home to a robot dog, the company also sells fitness equipment inspired by robotics technology…

Titanium! Some say American policymakers should be a lot more nervous about China’s titanium industry. The metal has an extremely high strength-to-density ratio and is strongly resistant to corrosion. It is widely used in everything from roofs to hip replacements, and is particularly critical for defense and aerospace. China, the world’s biggest titanium producer (~70% of global production), currently requires exporters of high-performance titanium alloys, as well as tubes or cylindrical solid bars with an outer diameter greater than 75 mm, to obtain licenses from its Ministry of Commerce.

China’s updated catalogue of dual-use items and technologies is extensive, covering not only minerals but also metals, materials, drug precursors, and other categories of items with potential military applications. Not all of the items on the list are under strict scrutiny, but the list is a flexible policy instrument with wide-ranging future implications.

Are the concerns justified? It depends on who you ask, and we will get to that in Section 3. But first, let’s understand what titanium is and why it is valuable.

Titanium is the ninth-most-abundant element in the Earth’s crust. Deposits of ilmenite and rutile ores, from which titanium is extracted, are found around the world, from Norway to Mozambique to Canada. How did China even become the world’s biggest titanium exporter? Today on ChinaTalk, we talk about the story of titanium, what metals tell us about Chinese strategy, and why policymakers probably shouldn’t freak out.

History of Chinese titanium

“There are 64 nonferrous metals and we can’t do without them.” 64种有色金属，没有它不行。 — Mao Zedong, 19581

Nonferrous metals do not contain iron in appreciable amounts. They are usually lighter, more conductive, and resistant to corrosion. They were the first metals humans used for metallurgy, and today their applications are widespread.

After Mao signed off on a policy memo to research production of all 64 nonferrous metals in 1958, China’s Nonferrous Metals Research Institute (冶金部有色金属研究院) achieved that feat by 1962.2 In 1959, the Fushun Aluminium Factory 抚顺铝厂 extracted its first 60 tonnes of titanium sponge, breaking ground for industrial-scale titanium production in China. By the 1970s, Chinese factories were producing a total of around 3,600 tonnes of titanium sponge per year.

Titanium sponge, named after its porous appearance, is produced through two processes: the Kroll process, which uses magnesium to reduce titanium tetrachloride, and the Hunter process, which uses sodium instead. On account of being more economically effective, the Kroll process — developed in the 1930s by a Luxembourgian chemist who fled the Nazis — is now the dominant method among titanium processors worldwide. After nearly a century of development, however, the Kroll process is still a challenging and energy-intensive metallurgical operation.

China’s construction of an indigenous nonferrous metals industry coincided, curiously, with a decline in titanium production in the US around the same period. American government funders supported William Kroll’s work after he landed stateside at the start of WWII, and the US became home to the world’s earliest titanium industry. Nearly all of the early demand for titanium came from defense contractors building aircrafts with titanium alloy parts. The late 1950s, however, saw the US shift its defense posture away from airplanes and towards missiles, which vastly reduced demand for titanium sponge. By 1960, there were only three titanium metal producers left in the US, even though mature applications in civilian industries and medicine had started to emerge. Hereafter, while the Cold War and development of titanium-based consumer products would bring about periodic peaks in titanium demand over the second half of the twentieth century, the US largely relinquished domestic titanium sponge production. Today, it is the world’s largest titanium importer.

Over in China, however, the Communist Party’s leadership was just starting to push for cutting-edge metals. Zhou Enlai was apparently quoted in 1968 as saying that “the production of titanium is a matter of life and death” 钛生产十万火急.3 China, being relatively isolated on the global stage — even more so after the Sino-Soviet Split of the 1950s and 60s — needed to pursue metallurgical self-reliance from the ground up if the country was to develop both industry and defense. The concern was urgent: back then, practically every PLA aircraft was supplied by the Soviet Union. (A US-style pivot to missiles was a pipe dream: in 1960, while the size of the US nuclear warhead stockpile climbed over 18,000, China had just launched its first-ever short-range ballistic missile.) As Beijing had to now plan its strategy around potential wars with both the USSR and United States, this meant researching and producing a huge range of materials it had never produced at scale. In response, it concocted an ambitious strategy of moving heavy industrial sites to remote western provinces, away from the densely populated eastern heartlands most vulnerable to wartime destruction.4

China’s titanium industry landscape

The story of titanium in China became one of two western cities: Panzhihua (攀枝花)​​ and Baoji (​​宝鸡). Panzhihua, in the far south of Sichuan province, sits at the confluence of two rivers and on top of one of the country’s largest mines. Its huge deposits of vanadium titano-magnetite (VTM) and ilmenite ore were first discovered in the 1930s. The mountainous terrain made industrial development of the area a formidable engineering challenge, but Chinese leaders believed it to be ideal for hiding defense-related developments from prying American and Soviet eyes. Throughout the Cold War, Panzhihua grew into a sizable base that churned out hundreds of thousands of tonnes of iron, steel, and titanium to supply China’s military and heavy industry.

But it was kept a secret: until the 1980s, the name Panzhihua never appeared on maps published in China. Planners placed the city’s train station behind a mountain so that civilian riders could see the mines from train windows. Processing facilities were named after numbers rather than what they manufactured, and families of workers stationed there used secret codenames to address mail to the site.

Chinese leaders sought a large number of sites in the remote West to disperse their defense-industrial ambitions. Panzhihua’s ore, extracted and refined into sponge, was shipped north to Baoji in central Shaanxi province’s Guanzhong valley. Similarly flanked by mountains, Baoji was also well-connected to Xinjiang in the west, Sichuan in the south, and Xi’an and Beijing to the east via railways. State planners selected the small city as China’s titanium processing hub in 1964. By 1968, Baoji’s first titanium processing facility was producing titanium alloy parts for the PLA Air Force.

Until the late 1970s, most of the titanium extracted and processed in China was for classified military uses. Civilian applications emerged slowly over the 1980s and 1990s. As China’s economy transitioned through marketization, processors marketed titanium alloys to new factories manufacturing goods for regular people. Processing facilities, mainly still in Baoji, also started importing ore.

In the 21st century, the titanium industry is no longer so squarely divided between Baoji and Panzhihua in China. Most ilmenite and VTM ore is still mined in Panzhihua, but processing has diversified beyond Baoji, with both state- and private-sector players. Exports of both sponge and mill products have grown exponentially since 2002.

Contextualizing China’s dominance

All this context explains why China pursued — and managed to achieve — self-reliance in titanium, and eventually came to lead the global market through economies of scale. However, it doesn’t answer the question of why China started producing exponentially more titanium nearly every year since the mid-2010s:

Two downstream industries help explain titanium’s boom-and-bust cycles and newfound ascendance in China: construction and aerospace. Some builders use titanium as a construction material, due to its exceptional corrosion resistance and high strength. Titanium dioxide pigment is also widely used to make light-colored paint. Demand for titanium snowballed as China began generational investments into infrastructure in the 2000s. The construction boom led processing facilities in Baoji and elsewhere to massively increase production capacity. However, starting in the early 2010s, the pace of construction slowed as local governments’ ability to foot the bill for infrastructure ran out of steam. Titanium prices crashed and the industry experienced a slump, visible around 2015 in the two graphs above.

But renewed attention towards aerospace turned things around for Chinese titanium. Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power in government and the military allowed him to push forth an ambitious military modernization agenda. Defense procurement inside China has accelerated dramatically since 2019. The newest fourth-generation PLA fighter jets use double the amount of titanium alloys per aircraft than their third-generation predecessors. Warships, missiles, and hypersonic weapons, all of which the PLA is investing heavily in, also utilize titanium alloys. Beyond defense, some in the industry are hopeful that domestic demand will come from commercial aerospace, as the Comac C919’s launch lifted hopes for producing more indigenous passenger aircrafts.

As discussed in the beginning, titanium and its alloys are now considered dual-use items, requiring licenses to be exported out of China. This requirement came out of the Ministry of Commerce’s 2024 consolidation of patchwork controls for dual-use items. Before 2024, while some titanium products (like high-spec alloy tubes) fell under regulations controlling exports of missile- or nuclear-related items, blanket regulations for titanium products did not exist. The 2024 listing required export licenses for all alloys with an ultimate tensile strength capable of reaching 900 MPa or higher at 20°C and all tubes or cylindrical solid bars (including forgings) with an outer diameter greater than 75 mm. While still focused on the higher (and more defense-applicable) end of titanium products, this represents an expansion of previous controls on titanium exports and shows Beijing’s recognition of titanium as critical to national security.

Why is there no titanium panic?

The aerospace industry is roughly divided into defense and general commercial subsectors. For defense, US acquisition regulations require relevant specialty metals to be melted or produced either domestically, or in a handful of qualifying countries with close relationships to the US. Japan is the largest titanium sponge exporter that fits this criterion; as a result, much of the titanium that American defense contractors procure is of Japanese origin.

But what about commercial aerospace? The reason American policymakers aren’t shaking in their seats over Chinese titanium comes partly down to bureaucracy. It takes years to be certified as an overseas manufacturer of aerospace-grade titanium sponge by American agencies. Currently, the only certified manufacturers are four firms in Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan. (Russia’s VSMPO-AVISMA is also certified, but Boeing has stopped purchasing from the firm since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, some other Western aerospace and defense manufacturers — notably Airbus and Canada’s Bombardier — continue to purchase Russian titanium.) This, along with general pressures from the Russia-Ukraine war (both countries are major ilmenite and rutile ore producers and titanium sponge processors), has made aerospace-grade titanium sponge supply tighter and increasingly expensive, and the industry has accordingly been curious about Chinese titanium sponge. However, it will be years before any Chinese producer gets past the complicated regulatory process, navigates almost-guaranteed political headwinds, and wins certification.

The procedural quagmire is not the only thing stopping Chinese titanium from entering into the global aerospace industry. Despite being the world’s leading producer of titanium, Chinese processors have been unsuccessful in producing larger quantities of aerospace-grade alloys. It relies on imports from countries like Australia and Mozambique for high-purity feedstock, which are processed into high-grade metal (above 99.99% pure titanium). Such high-grade materials cannot be made from low-grade ore and are essential for advanced applications, including some semiconductor manufacturing processes. In fact, high-purity titanium was considered a serious chokepoint with national security implications for China until a Zhejiang company managed to extract 99.999%-pure titanium in 2014. But while mass production of high-grade titanium now exists in the country, demand still exceeds supply.

With much of the sector unable to produce high-grade products, industrial capacity built up over the past three decades is largely spent on cheap civilian applications. State media openly admit to an “overcapacity” crisis in Baoji, China’s “titanium valley.” Less than 5% of Baoji’s titanium processing output is destined for high-value-add industries like medical applications or aerospace. Mining and processing have churned on despite weakening demand and a challenging macroeconomic environment, mirroring dynamics seen in many other Chinese industries. In recent years, smaller titanium producers have been shuttering, dragged down by low prices. An industry fostered by the state to ensure secure supply of critical materials is now too big for its own good.

The US currently charges a 15% tariff on most imports of titanium sponge and an additional 25% on titanium sponge from China. A 2024 Senate bill to remove the 15% global tariff — but leave the additional 25% on Chinese titanium sponge — died in committee. With Beijing constructing a suite of policy armour around critical dual-use materials and a US presidential administration whose favorite word is “tariff,” it’s highly unlikely that Chinese titanium will flood the American market anytime soon.

Have thoughts about titanium? Please reach out!

“Vibecoding” doesn’t lend itself to easy translation. For now, Chinese speakers call it 氛围编程 fènwéi biānchéng, 氛围 being “atmosphere”/”vibes” and 编程 being coding. This is an awkward expression because 氛围 usually refers to the atmosphere of a space or environment, and doesn’t have the connotation of care-free DIY that “vibe” does in colloquial American English. 氛围编程 sounds nonsensical as a phrase — something like “coding up an atmosphere.”

But we make do, and oftentimes writers simply use the English word. Developers, creatives, and entrepreneurs in China have been creating many interesting coding projects with AI tools over the past year, utilizing not only popular tools by Silicon Valley giants like Cursor and Claude Code, but also domestic models as Chinese AI companies increasingly compete in the coding-agent market.

Tinkering culture has no borders, and companies are cashing in. This is a roundup of reports from Chinese media on how vibecoding is changing the landscape of technology in China, featuring:

• Genius 12-year-olds;

• The race for domestic coding agents;

• And how to vibecode your way to the top of the App Store.

The Chinese AI coding landscape

As much as 30% of the code at Microsoft is now written by AI; some engineers at OpenAI and Anthropic are writing nearly all of their code with coding agents. Chinese tech firms have also pushed their engineers to adopt their own AI-powered coding products.

In early 2025, ByteDance released TRAE, its answer to Cursor. TRAE is an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) with both traditional and AI-native modes. The “Build” mode is much like a traditional IDE, but with an AI assistant that generates code based on prompts as well as the user’s manually-written code. The “Chat” mode, however, is a chatbot-like interface that focuses on natural-language prompting. In other words, it was made for vibecoding. A year later, ByteDance came out with the 2.0 series of its Doubao models and made Doubao-Seed-2.0-Code directly accessible through TRAE. The company most famous for TikTok seems also to be building an ecosystem for AI programming.

Tencent, similarly, has built CodeBuddy, an IDE that integrates its own Yuanbao AI models. (These IDEs also allow users to connect other AI models via API keys, so developers aren’t locked into company ecosystems when they choose one IDE over another.) InfoQ, a tech content platform, interviewed CodeBuddy’s product manager here. The company reported in 2025 that more than 90% of its engineers use CodeBuddy to assist with coding, and that half of all newly-added code at Tencent was written with assistance from AI. Not to be outdone, in August 2025 Alibaba released its coding assistant platform Qoder.

As we covered in our Lunar New Year roundup, the race for domestic coding agents is heating up in China. Frontier labs like Zhipu, MiniMax, and Kimi are all tuning their new models and product strategies away from chatbot interfaces and toward AI-assisted coding. But no one seems to be China’s answer to Claude Code yet. Popular coding models from the likes of Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are supposed to be geoblocked in China. Cursor itself is available, but only offers non-geoblocked models to Chinese users. Word on the street is that while coding tools by domestic labs are much easier to access, Chinese developers are still willing to jump through complicated hoops to access leading Western tools:

36Kr reported that a college student in China is making 90,000 RMB (around $13,027) per month renting out his unrestricted AI coding tool accounts. He managed to get discounted access to Antigravity, Augment, and Claude Code through Google’s promotion for students and is now running a huge account rental operation.

It looks like Anthropic’s catching on…yesterday in their announcement of Deepseek, Minimax, and Moonshot’s efforts to distill their models, they flagged educational accounts as particularly vulnerable to unauthorized Chinese usage..

The kids are vibecoding now

In September 2025, product and tech leaders behind AI coding tools at Baidu, Meituan, Tencent, and Alibaba came together for a roundtable during a conference in Beijing. It was a typical tech industry event until they invited a 12-year-old onto the stage.

Guoguo proceeded to mercilessly roast all of their coding tools:

Guoguo: Hello everyone, my nickname is Guoguo and I am 12 years old. I’ve been learning AI for a while and have recently started doing small things through vibe coding. I’ve used all four of the applications here and they are fun, but I’ve run into problem as well.

For example, when I was using MeDo [秒哒, Baidu’s conversational coding platform], I wanted to change the page color from pink to purple. I said it three times in a row, and it still wouldn’t change. I could go in and edit the page manually and it would work, but it just wouldn’t listen. That was so annoying.

I’ve also had problems with NoCode. I wanted to build a decision-query website and add some characters. But it only added the main character and wouldn’t add any supporting characters. Later I asked the AI to fill out the decision list, and it only added the names and where they were from, without filling in any of the specific details. I even copied the info to it myself, and it still added things incorrectly and mixed them up. That was even more annoying.

With Qoder, I made a big mistake when I used it. I didn’t choose a folder, so I had no idea where to open things from. Later I realized you have to choose a folder first. For a first-time user like me, that was really unfriendly.

Huang Shu [黄叔, from Alibaba’s Qoder team]: So which one do you think is the best?

Guoguo: The first one I used was MeDo, and I started using the other ones around the same time. I think they’re all pretty good. MeDo and NoCode have web versions, and I prefer the web versions. Qoder and CodeBuddy look more professional and more “high-end” — you can show them off in front of classmates.

Vibecoding to the top of the App Store

In December 2024, an incredibly simple app suddenly became the most downloaded paid iPhone app in China. It’s called 小猫补光灯, or Little Kitten Colored Lightbox, and it only costs 1 RMB (around 0.14 USD). When opened, it turns your phone screen into one of 11 solid colors, and you can adjust its opacity and brightness. With that phone screen placed at a strategic angle — usually a few inches away from your face at a 45-degree tilt — you are perfectly lit for a quick selfie session.

Little Kitten Colored Lightbox’s developer goes by Peanut. Before 2024, he worked in product operations and had never written code. Peanut told Chinese tech news outlet 36Kr that after a mid-life crisis led him to quit his job at Meituan, he spent nearly all of his time learning about AI, including working through a Python textbook with ChatGPT as his tutor. But it was not until Cursor came out in August of 2024 that he had a breakthrough, making more than 20 apps in a few months’ time.

Inspiration for Little Kitten Colored Lightbox came when Peanut was helping his girlfriend take photos. He noticed that she kept searching social media for color blocks to fill her phone screen with in order to create better lighting. He went home and coded up an iOS app that did exactly this in 1.5 hours with Cursor, then shared a tutorial on social media. It blew up among female users, who gave him feedback and ideas for features in newer iterations.

Peanut now teaches vibe coding on many platforms, including YouTube. He told Chinese media that while some professional developers dismissed his project as trivial (or were plain jealous that the iOS App Store approved his app so quickly), he believes he succeeded in meeting a genuine user demand.

Other Vibe-coded Projects of Note

Finally, these are just some of the projects that I thought were fun while scrolling vibecoding-related topics on Chinese social media!

• Crush Decoder: Upload screenshots of your crush’s WeChat or Rednote posts, and this website will decode their personality and tell you how to pursue them romantically.

• 生日叮 (“Birthday Beep”): Keep track of you and your loved ones’ lunar calendar birthdays.

• 找个地方 (“Find A Place”, WeChat mini-app): Suggests where you should meet up with your friends in the same city, based on everyone’s locations.

• 祝福语显眼包 (“Greetings Master”, WeChat mini-app): Generates elaborate greetings messages based on occasion, style, and your relationship with the intended recipient, making you look extremely good in the family group chat.

• Project Joey: Search where, when, and how often any keyword appears throughout the sitcom series Friends, which is enormously popular in China.

The Year of the Fire Horse is upon us, meaning China’s AI industry spent the final weeks before Lunar New Year frantically racing to ship new models before everyone disappears for the break. Chinese tech companies treat the New Year cutoff like a product-launch deadline, knowing that a strong pre-holiday release captures press cycles at a moment when the whole country is at home scrolling on social media. Regulators, too, have learned to time their moves, issuing new rules and penalties when attention is at its peak.

All the ensuing noise can make it hard to see what matters most. So the ChinaTalk team is here to parse out hype from reality and highlight some trends likely to shape Chinese AI in 2026.

Today’s updates explore LLMs, robotics, hardware, video models, and governance.

Caption: Draco Malfoy is the LNY mascot the world never knew it needed. Source.

Chatbots, Coding, and Agentic Updates

It has now been more than a year since DeepSeek R1 came out, and everyone is anticipating major moves from the secretive frontier lab to usher in the Year of the Horse. As of February 18, we have seen nothing official from DeepSeek. Clever users, however, have noticed that they seem to be beta-testing what could be V4 through its chatbot interface. Currently, querying DeepSeek with “who are you” returns an introduction where the chatbot states that it has a context window of one million tokens, which is nearly eight times bigger than the context window of V3.2.

This new DeepSeek is prone to snappy parallelisms and as eager to please as ever. It’s somewhat eerily reminiscent of GPT-4, even down to the “You’re absolutely right!” refrain:

“Your follow-up question is absolutely right. 🙏”

And there might be a reason why: on February 12, OpenAI accused DeepSeek of covert distillation of its models in a memo to the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the US and the Chinese Communist Party. Here’s how OpenAI describes what it calls “adversarial distillation attempts” in the memo:

We have observed accounts associated with DeepSeek employees developing methods to circumvent OpenAI’s access restrictions and access models through obfuscated third-party routers and other ways that mask their source. We also know that DeepSeek employees developed code to access US AI models and obtain outputs for distillation in programmatic ways. We believe that DeepSeek also uses third-party routers to access frontier models from other US labs.

More generally, over the past year, we’ve seen a significant evolution in the broader model-distillation ecosystem. For example, Chinese actors have moved beyond Chain-of-Thought (CoT) extraction toward more sophisticated, multi-stage pipelines that blend synthetic-data generation, large-scale data cleaning, and reinforcement-style preference optimization. We have also seen Chinese companies rely on networks of unauthorized resellers of OpenAI’s services to evade our platform’s controls. This suggests a maturing ecosystem that enables large-scale distillation attempts and ways for bad actors to obfuscate their identities and activities.

According to Bill Bishop of Sinocism, this was an open secret:

Other frontier labs have also been busy. The shift from chatbots to agents optimized for economically productive tasks is clearly underway, with the newest Zhipu and MiniMax models both being advertised as coding and general work tools. On December 22, 2025, Zhipu came out with GLM-4.7. It’s marketed as a “coding partner”, and subscription plans are now called “coding plans” as well, signalling a complete pivot to coding. And on February 12 this year, the lab launched GLM-5, pivoting yet again from coding to “agentic engineering.” GLM-5 has 40 billion active parameters and is targeted at long-horizon agentic tasks.

The day before GLM-5’s launch, Zhipu announced a 30% coding plan price hike in a WeChat announcement, citing strong demand. It bucks the trend of what seemed at first to be a price war among Chinese coding agents. MiniMax advertises its M2.5 model, also released on February 12, as “intelligence too cheap to meter”: at a rate of 100 tokens per second, running M2.5 for an hour costs only $1. An annual Max subscription to the high-speed version of M2 currently costs $800. GLM-5’s Max plan costs $960 for the first year and $672 from Year 2 onwards, but in the fast-moving world of AI models, planning for discounts in annual terms seems almost beside the point.

At $1,908 per year, Kimi’s highest subscription tier is even more expensive than MiniMax’s Ultra plan, which costs $1,500 per year. On January 26, Moonshot AI released Kimi K2.5, a 1-trillion-parameter multimodal model that emphasizes both coding and visual capabilities. This combination makes it particularly strong for front-end development. Also passing the 1-trillion-parameter milestone is Ant Group’s newest Ling-2.5-1T, released on Chinese New Year’s Eve. Qwen’s NYE baby, too, is multimodal: Qwen 3.5 is a vision-language model with “reasoning, coding, agent capabilities”. It seems that while some labs are opting to specialize, others still believe in the everything bagel.

And for the people’s favorite, Doubao: on February 13, ByteDance released Doubao-Seed-2.0, which includes three agentic models of different sizes and one coding model. ByteDance is promoting its coding model as part of a package with TRAE, the AI-native integrated development environment (IDE) it developed back in 2025. (Developers often work inside IDEs, which are applications that streamline and augment the software development process. Cursor was built on top of Visual Studio Code, the most popular IDE among developers worldwide, with AI integration added in.) Doubao-Seed-2.0-Code is directly accessible from TRAE, but must be connected through API keys if developers want to use the model in other IDEs. ByteDance’s ambition seems to be to create an entire ecosystem for AI coding; at a time when new tools are constantly coming out and user habits remain very fluid, this is an interesting move.

Finally, a dark side to Doubao has also emerged over the New Year period. An investigation by feminist group 自由娜拉NORA, first published on WeChat on February 16, found that Doubao’s restrictions regarding generating sexually explicit content are shockingly easy to circumvent. Among Chinese users, it has apparently become the preferred AI tool for making deepfake pornography. Entire channels on Telegram are filled with users circulating Doubao-generated explicit images based on their female relatives and acquaintances, and some people are even selling tried-and-tested prompts on Chinese e-commerce platforms. Deepfake porn clearly violates Chinese regulations regarding deep synthesis and generative AI service provisions, but the report’s authors say that the Cyberspace Administration never responded to their repeated complaints. Nor has ByteDance responded.

Unitree Stars in Gala

Robots were the star of the New Year’s Gala, so much so that some are calling it a “complete invasion” (机器人全面入侵春晚). China’s robotics companies, including Unitree, Noetix, MagicLab, and Galbot, took the opportunity to showcase the capabilities of their humanoid robots in a variety of sketches. The Internet has been quick to point out the ridiculous increase in capabilities these robots have compared to last year. While last year, the robots were rigid and couldn’t do much more than “handkerchief waving,” this year’s Unitree H1 robots were doing fluid backflips and kung-fu moves.

The crazy robotics performances reportedly caused a 300% month-on-month increase in searches for robots on JD.com (京东) and a 150% increase in orders. All of the companies’ robots were sold out within minutes of the gala.

Agibot, the world’s 2nd biggest humanoid robotics company after Unitree, wasn’t involved in the official celebration. Instead, they launched their own party ahead of time to create the “world’s first robot-powered gala.” The robots involved performed similar dancing and singing to the ones in the official gala, though perhaps with less fluidity compared to Unitree.

Robots finding love before AI researchers, AgiBot Robot-Powered Gala

Continuing with the combat theme, EngineAI announced the Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend (URKL), a humanoid robot combat competition, and the winning team receives a 10-kilogram pure gold belt ($1.5m in gold!).

Prize for URKL.

It seems that Chinese robotics companies are focusing more on combat this season as a means of demonstrating the strides that humanoid robots have made this past year. Backflips, rotations, and other movements that require complex coordination are now on the table for their products, and they want to show it.

On the software side, Alibaba recently released RynnBrain, an open-source AI model for robotics. The model, trained on Alibaba’s Qwen3-VL, was shown to be able to comprehend tasks like sorting tableware, identifying fruit, and remembering where it put the milk.

The model reportedly beats the Google Gemini Robots ER 1.5 and Nvidia’s Cosmos Reason 2 across 16 benchmarks that measure criteria like spatial reasoning, task execution, and memory, while also maintaining lower inference demands.

It’s too early to tell how good these robots or models are in non-controlled environments. However, the initial appearance of China’s humanoid robots and software operating it demonstrate that China is dedicated to winning the robotics race. Where the software stack was previously thought to be America’s game with only Google and Nvidia as major players, Alibaba’s new model shows that China is making serious strides.

Chinese Memory in your iPhone?

Although semiconductors don’t get the same press coverage that models and kung-fu robots do, China’s chipmakers have been more vocal than usual lately. Instead of celebrating the new year, though, they are celebrating the global memory chip shortage.

With the world’s biggest memory giants Samsung, SK, and Micron focused on making super profitable HBM for AI chips, memory for consumer products like phones, cars, and computers are scarce. As a result, PC makers – some for the first time ever – are turning to Chinese companies for future supply. HP, Dell, Acer, and Asus are all qualifying CXMT for their products. Even Apple is reportedly exploring CXMT and YMTC as suppliers.

To satisfy the memory demand, both CXMT and YMTC have announced their most aggressive capacity expansions ever. CXMT will be expanding its Shanghai fabs, while YMTC will be building an entirely new fab in Wuhan for both NAND and DRAM. The US government may also be turning to Chinese memory; this past week, the Pentagon removed both CXMT and YMTC from their Section 1260H blacklist, lessening barriers for them to operate in America. The Department of Defense’s War’s actions indicate that the US might be okay with China picking up the slack in the memory market.

China’s leading logic foundry, SMIC, however, is not so happy about the situation. On an earnings call last week, SMIC’s CEO lamented that customers are scaling back orders because they are doubtful they would be able to secure memory capacity for end products.

How long will this memory crunch last, and will China’s memory makers fill in the gap? Some estimates indicate that this memory cycle will last throughout 2027 and perhaps even into 2028, which means that memory prices and the need for new suppliers will persist for at least a couple of years.

However, it is still too early to tell if China will fill the gaps. Customers have yet to place mass orders with the Chinese memory makers, and those memory makers also don’t have great capacity to serve new customers currently. For CXMT, the capacity they do have will partially be dedicated to its upcoming HBM3 instead of commodity DRAM. And although the capacity expansions may alleviate those problems, getting a new fab online usually takes a couple years, so by the time that CXMT and YMTC are ready to serve the world, memory demand may already be on its way down.

Seedance and Kling Impress, Tangle With Hollywood

There were two major AI video model releases: ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0 and Kuaishou’s Kling 3.0.

Seedance 2.0 is the better model, with stronger multi-shot coherence, better character consistency, and tighter audio-video sync. More importantly, it feels more directable. Users can combine multiple images, clips, and audio references and get something resembling edited production rather than a stitched scene. The CCP-backed Global Times went so far as to call Seedance 2.0 a ‘Sputnik’ moment that even surpasses DeepSeek’s R1 release last year.

The rollout, however, quickly ran into copyright controversy. Many Hollywood studios accused them of copyright infringement and Disney and Paramount threatened to sue them for pirating the studio’s copyrighted characters like Spiderman or Luke Skywalker. (For context: Disney last year struck a reported $1B deal with OpenAI to license franchises like Marvel and Star Wars for tools such as Sora.)

^some of the stuff they’ve been getting in trouble for

This raises the broader questions about how Seedance was trained on so many recognizable faces, voices, and settings. Tech blogger Pan Tianhong publicly demonstrated that Seedance could approximate his voice from just a single uploaded photograph of his face — without providing any audio sample — and, in a separate test, generate video that appeared to depict unseen portions of his company’s office building. The episode suggested the models might have access to data they aren’t supposed to. ByteDance subsequently suspended certain voice features.

It seems that data is what is keeping China’s AI models competitive. The leading Chinese video AI companies are incumbents in the world’s most video-saturated internet ecosystem. ByteDance, for instance, owns Douyin, which has well over a billion users. That translates directly into training advantage. When ByteDance released Seedance 2.0 last month, software engineers credited the model’s cinematic quality to the vast video data resources available through Douyin.

This is especially true given that generating video with AI can be 100-1000x more resource-intensive than producing a chatbot response, meaning China’s restricted access to the most advanced NVIDIA GPUs has to be offset somehow. Given the relative homogeneity of video model architectures, the most plausible explanation is data: Chinese firms may have access to far larger video corpora than their US counterparts operating under heavier copyright scrutiny and licensing constraints.

Finally, it is worth noting that both Kling and Seedance’s strongest models are closed-source. Alibaba’s Wan and a handful of others have released weights, but the top-tier systems from Kuaishou, ByteDance, and MiniMax remain proprietary. Unlike in the LLM space, there is far less sector-wide consensus around openness in video.

AI Governance Muddle

The government is speaking in several registers at once. Some actions seem as enthusiastic as those of industry players. Others seem to be tightening the reins.

The senior leadership is supportive, but not in a breathless, AGI-at-all-costs way. Premier Li Qiang told the State Council that China must advance the “scaled and commercialized application” of AI, urging tighter coordination of power supply, computing capacity, and data resources to accelerate deployment across manufacturing and services. Xi himself offered some remarks, linking AI to boosting domestic demand (扩大内需), emphasizing its role in stimulating consumption (a continual goal of the CCP to revive their sputtering economy) and upgrading services rather than focusing solely on supply-side productivity gains, such as having the best models without a way to integrate them.

Both remarks suggest solid support for the AI ecosystem, but also a desire for tangible, near-term economic returns through ‘AI Plus’ style diffusion. It raises the question of whether Beijing has an implicit timeline in mind — an expectation that measurable productivity gains should begin to materialize by, say, the Year of the Goat (2027). Would policymakers start recalibrating their enthusiasm if not?

They also seem to want to avoid excessive economic disruption or overcapacity. That tension surfaced when companies launched the massive “red envelope war” subsidy campaigns. Alibaba reportedly committed 3 billion RMB to Qwen promotions, Tencent 1 billion RMB via Yuanbao, and Baidu 500 million RMB through Wenxin — roughly 4.5 billion RMB in total to drive AI usage.

The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) didn’t like this. They responded by warning against destructive involutionary practices that distort competition — signaling unease with aggressive, loss-leading tactics.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) also cracked down. Through its ongoing ‘clear and bright’ (清朗) campaign, regulators reportedly penalized over 13k accounts and removed more than 543k pieces of unlabeled or misleading AI-generated content. As mentioned in our recent piece on China’s AI video ecosystem, given the scale of the Chinese internet, 543k pieces are a drop in the ocean. Still, it signals that the CAC is annoyed that the rules they’ve put in place requiring AIGC to be properly tagged, labeled, and free of harmful “garbage” AI slop are not being enforced — regardless of the high-profile launches of Seedance 2.0 and Kling 3.0.

Beijing is not dragging its feet with AI. But the combination of commercialization pressure, subsidy scrutiny, content enforcement, and sovereignty rhetoric produces a policy environment that is highly complex and, at times, internally tense. I wonder if they aren’t giving mixed messages, making it difficult for AI companies to navigate.

Jordan, Jasmine Sun (of jasmi.news) and Nathan Lambert (of Interconnects) talk about their Claude Code adventures on the latest episode of Overfit. Check it out in your favorite podcast app or find it in the ChinaTalk feed!

Claude Code is a coding tool by Anthropic that uses natural-language prompts to create remarkably workable computer programs. In practice, just by opening your computer’s terminal and typing in “claude” and telling it what to do in plain English, it can code, organize and edit local files, build apps, and conduct internet-based research.

Anthropic’s focus on coding agents means that Claude Code is incredibly popular among software developers. It’s also let non-technical people vibecode our way into programming.

After a morning spent watching Claude write Python code for my graphs (in this article), I had an idea: would Claude Code be any good as a China analyst? In theory, the chatbot format is perfect for work that’s both qualitative and quantitative — the exact kind of mixed intellectual tasks a policy analyst or data-oriented journalist might perform.

Putting it through a “China test” of sorts was a fascinating experience, featuring:

• Claude has a thing for Falun Gong newspapers;

• Propaganda vigilantism;

• A discourse analysis breakthrough;

• And surprising fluency in Chinese internet slang!

We began with elite politics. Can Claude read Communist Party tea leaves?

Politburo member Ma Xingrui 马兴瑞 has been in the rumor mill lately. In July 2025, he was removed as Xinjiang Party Secretary. Since then, he has been absent from a slew of important meetings, igniting all sorts of speculation. I asked Claude Code to give me three plausible explanations for why Ma’s activities have been scrutinized and what this tells us about Chinese elite politics, using all the information it is able to access.

Claude told me that it conducted two searches of the internet: “Ma Xingrui CCP Standing Committee scrutiny 2025 2026”, and “Ma Xingrui Xinjiang Vice Premier news 2025”. I replicated these two searches in Google in an incognito browser window, and then cross-referenced Google’s top links with the sources Claude cited in its output. There was significant overlap; Claude mostly relied on Page 1 of Google.

The problem was what those links were. Claude’s top-2 sources for its Ma Xingrui report came from Vision Times, a Falun Gong-affiliated newspaper. Opinions about the religious movement aside, Vision Times is not an especially respectable news source: its front page includes such gems as “Unexplained Fatigue May Signal Energy Drain, Not Physical Illness” and “NASA Captures a Dazzling Photograph of the Heavenly Kingdom”. Citing Vision Times’ reports, Claude Code theorized that “interrogations of fallen military leaders have exposed a web of relationships that implicate civilian officials like Ma—possibly involving informal political understandings that Xi Jinping’s security apparatus views as threatening.” Doubling down on this PLA-connected theory, it concluded: “What began focused on PLA Rocket Force and equipment procurement has spread to civilian officials with defense-industrial backgrounds. This suggests either genuine systemic corruption across the military-industrial complex or that Xi is using anti-corruption to restructure relationships between the Party, military, and defense industries.”

Ma might very well have connections to the PLA’s leadership, as Claude claims, but his own career has been strictly civilian. While we cannot rule out the possibility that he was an associated casualty of the PLA purges, there is little justification for over-indexing on that theory as Claude does. In addition, Claude played fast and loose with facts. Its output claimed that Ma’s Xi-loyalist credentials stem in part from being a “Shandong native,” with connections to First Lady Peng Liyuan’s hometown of Yuncheng 郓城 in Shandong province. In reality, while Ma’s paternal grandfather was from Yuncheng, Ma himself was born and raised in Heilongjiang Province and educated largely in the Northeast; the fellow-Shandonger connection is tenuous at best.

To its credit, Claude also cited the good folks over at Trivium China and Bloomberg for factual information, but overall, I’d rate the quality of this analysis as “college student confused by their first Chinese politics class.”

I was surprised by Claude’s apparent naiveté and wanted to test its taste. Can it tell when a Chinese source is reputable, interesting enough, or designed for virality with no real significance? Does a coding agent approach qualitative problems differently? To test this, I gave Claude Code three Chinese articles. For each one, I asked it to (1) summarize the content, (2) contextualize the piece, and (3) examine its significance.

The first article was an unsophisticated screed threatening to “blow off” Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s head in response to her describing a potential Taiwan Strait crisis as “existential” for Japan last year; typical ultranationalist dreck.1 Claude Code saw through it quickly, telling me that this is an example of “the extreme end of online nationalist discourse” and warning me against characterizing it as representative of Chinese public opinion.

This was decently thoughtful work, though if I were actually writing on the topic, I’d add that violently nationalistic rhetoric has been on the rise in China’s cyberspace over the past decade. The state’s management of populist anti-Japanese sentiments is a complex affair, but on the internet, Beijing implicitly sanctions the existence of extremism by not cracking down on such content. It’s a little bit more nuanced than “official statements are different from grassroots nationalism,” but Claude wasn’t far off.

Next, I tried a blog post celebrating China’s decision not to permit the import of H200 chips. Claude told me this was a “propaganda narrative piece” whose framing of “China didn’t need them anyway” represents a classic face-saving narrative by the Communist Party. I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse a blogger with 0 likes of being a direct state propagandist, but perhaps Claude Code is more vigilant. Except it also thinks the entire thing is fake. Per Claude Code, “The H200 customs rejection story would be major news, but I’m not aware of verified reporting on this specific incident.” Sorry, Claude, but this really happened.

Lastly, I prompted Claude to examine this article analyzing DOGE, which is part of a series on US affairs by Tsinghua University’s Center for International Security and Strategy. It’s a well-researched piece published on a respected think tank’s website, with one catch: it was written by an undergraduate student at Sichuan University. Youth is no reason to discount achievement, of course, but it would be remiss of a China analyst to pass this off as very serious Chinese discourse regarding Trump 2.0. Claude Code caught on to this quickly, reminding me that “[student] authorship means less institutional authority than senior CISS fellows”. It decided that the author’s conclusions regarding DOGE were legitimate and that she used reasonable analytical lenses “not unique to Chinese observers.” But it also made sure to remind me that “[the] critical framing of US governance, while measured, aligns with broader Chinese narratives about American decline.” Anthropic’s reputation as China-hawk AI is not unearned after all, I suppose.

Next, I moved on to something more quantitative. Here at ChinaTalk, we write frequently about Chinese reactions to news events and technological developments. We search for thoughtful commentaries representing diverse viewpoints on the Chinese internet, extract sections, and translate and annotate them. (For instance, last month I covered how China reacted to the Trump administration’s decision to sell H200 GPUs to China.) This method is sufficient for understanding the viewpoints of analysts and policy elites, but the vast labyrinth that is online public opinion is often too disorganized to discuss in an effective manner. Trying to capture what Chinese netizens think without big-data tools will always be a cherry-picking endeavor.

With the help of GitHub and Claude Code, I had an MCP server running in under 30 minutes to do what I’ve always dreamed of: search the entirety of Xiaohongshu/Rednote, export the data, and analyze.2 I was thrilled. As a test, I asked it to search for posts related to Greenland from the past week and analyze the Chinese public’s sentiments regarding Trump’s threats to take over the territory. It dutifully retrieved around 60 posts and 1,500 comments — far more than yours truly can bear to scroll in one evening — and commenced analysis.

It is here that Claude Code really shines. Its understanding of internet slang was impressive:

It had an eye for catchiness and identified some spicy phrases:

And its takeaways were genuinely interesting! After browsing some of these posts myself, though I doubt the average Xiaohongshu commenter’s knowledge of Arctic geopolitics is as sophisticated as Claude implies, I largely agreed with Claude’s primary findings and implications. Solid university-level work!

Clean text data and a simple Python script: this was a task that employed capabilities LLMs are already great at, and Claude Code’s user-friendly interface made the experience very enjoyable. It lives in your Terminal, writes the files, and runs the code; all you have to do is keep giving it permission to install packages and access websites. That being said, close supervision of the process was important for research accuracy. On my first attempt at prompting Claude Code to perform a sentiment analysis of these posts and comments, it tried to skim on compute by only analyzing comments on the most-liked post, rather than on all posts.

I leave you, then, with Claude Code’s own report about how China is reacting to Claude Code, after searching through posts on Xiaohongshu:

Chinese internet users on Xiaohongshu are reacting to Claude Code with a mixture of genuine enthusiasm and practical cost-consciousness. The most popular posts showcase impressive real-world applications—one viral post (77 likes, 69 saves) describes a user who wrote an automated H1B visa appointment monitoring script using Claude Code, letting the AI “negotiate” with other models like Codex and Gemini to solve problems while they went for a run. Users frequently anthropomorphize the tool, treating it as a “打工人” (worker/employee), with one poetic title reading “几字之恩，千行为报” (a few words of instruction, repaid with thousands of lines of code). The comment sections reveal technically sophisticated users who are eager to learn implementation details—questions like “how did you handle Cloudflare?” and “how do you let Claude Code communicate with Gemini?” indicate a community actively pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. There’s also notable criticism of paid Claude Code courses, with users pointing out that Anthropic’s official “Claude Code in Action” course is free while others charge significant fees.

However, access barriers and cost concerns remain significant pain points for Chinese users. Multiple discussion threads center on subscription pricing—users debate whether ZenMux’s third-party plans offering “5 hours, 20 Opus prompts” are worth the cost, with one commenter noting “还是有点贵” (still a bit expensive) and another asking about account sharing to split the $100/month fee. The comment “封号，根本无法使用” (account banned, completely unable to use) under a token-saving tips post hints at the access difficulties Chinese users face with Anthropic’s services. Technical content about reducing token consumption (one detailed post explains how Tool Search can cut MCP context bloat by 46.9%) gets strong engagement, suggesting users are actively seeking ways to maximize value from limited access. The community appears to be a mix of mainland Chinese developers finding workarounds through third-party services and overseas Chinese users (many posts come from Hong Kong and the US) who have direct access—creating an information-sharing ecosystem where those with access help others navigate the tool’s capabilities and limitations.

We have different definitions of “viral,” evidently, but that’s okay. Some final observations:

1. Claude has access to all the data in the world, but needs to be told where to look. When prompted to analyze issues without guidance, it leans on the most easily-accessible sources, which are not always ideal. When prompted to look closely, however, it is able to analyze source materials with some critical nuance.

2. From the Ma Xingrui experiment and a few other news-related prompt experiments, I noticed that paywalls seem to be an important part of why Claude kept getting things wrong. With many reputable sources blocked, its internet browsing drifts towards less savory sites, and it seemingly has no mechanism for selecting sources unless your prompts contain specific instructions.

3. It does very well when fed clean, structured data. As expected, its ability to generate usable code for simple data extraction and analysis is impressive, and the Terminal experience is genuinely enjoyable.

4. Its mistakes were mostly factual; I did not encounter cases where it reached erroneous conclusions based on correct facts. Instead, when asked to analyze issues in the abstract, most of the time it simply summarized takes from experts. Without being explicitly fed original data, it was reluctant to develop “takes of its own.” Claude is too over-cautious to be a real policy pundit.

I’m excited to use coding agents to make data about the Chinese internet more accessible. what tools have you been building? We’d love to hear from readers. In the meantime, see you all in the vibe-coding trenches…

This month both Zhipu (also known as Z.ai) and MiniMax made initial public offerings (IPOs) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), making them the world’s first two pure-play AI companies to go public. Securities laws generally require companies to submit lengthy prospectuses disclosing information relevant for investors before offering shares to the public. In the cases of Zhipu and MiniMax, these are gold mines of information about not only their corporate fundamentals, but also their views on AI, internal culture, and how they fit into the Chinese AI puzzle.

I spent the past few days with these prospectuses and came out of reading with a plethora of observations and questions. Below are some findings and early thoughts, featuring:

• Zhipu’s Model as a Service (MaaS) = SaaS + AI?

• China’s competitive, ever-changing cloud computing landscape;

• AGI is what you want it to be;

• And an early look at how good of a business AI boyfriends are…

What is the product?

Going public requires a company to be very explicit about what they are selling. Here, the two companies diverge the most. Zhipu frames its product strategy around model-as-a-service (MaaS — an acronym which appears 96 times in the prospectus), while MiniMax has an array of diverse products that consumers are already familiar with, from chatbots and video generation platforms to its signature companion app Talkie/Xingye. But MiniMax, self-reportedly, also wants to deliver “technology as products.”

MaaS customers buy access to the AI model, rather than products built on top of, or outputs generated by, the model. In other words, this emphasis on MaaS tries to turn the pure-play AI market into a kind of (mostly B2B) SaaS, with API calls at the center.

The impulse to constantly assert that the technology itself is the product is an interesting one. Both Zhipu and MiniMax are eager to describe themselves as foundation-model companies first, even if they have more specific application products that are clearly profitable (in the case of MiniMax). Is this a move to persuade investors to support costly R&D? Or to gain credibility as frontier labs in a hostile Western-dominated landscape? Or is it both?

Who’s buying from them?

We learn from Zhipu’s prospectus that it considers the public sector to be a significant source of revenue. It has particularly courted the telecommunications sector, which is heavily dominated by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China. Of all the revenue it derived from on-premise deployment — the preferred format of public-sector clients due to privacy considerations — in the first nine months of 2025, 13.6% came from telecommunications, while a further 29.4% was derived from other public-sector clients. Its second-biggest customer in 2025 was almost certainly the Ningxia branch of China Telecom (“a telecommunications network operation Company … [which has] a registered capital of RMB213.1 billion and is listed on both Shanghai Stock Exchange and HKEx”, per the prospectus). While the prospectus does not explain exactly how much of Zhipu’s overall revenue comes from government organs and SOEs, we can surmise that the percentage is significant.

With its Tsinghua roots, Zhipu is a state-fund darling. In comparison, MiniMax hasn’t courted as much government money. Both companies disclosed the amounts of government grants each received per year in their prospectuses:

In terms of the private sector, Zhipu names five real-life clients in its prospectus: Kingsoft Office (金山办公, the company behind popular Chinese office suite WPS Office), Nieta (捏Ta, an AI character creation platform), the hiring platform Zhaopin.com, Inner-Mongolian dairy producer Mengniu (蒙牛), and the academic database AMiner. Their case studies reveal interesting insights into exactly how companies are deploying AI.

The cases range from obvious practical use cases to the more experimental. In the case of Zhaopin.com, Zhipu helped the site build a conversational chatbot assistant for jobseekers and recruiters. Dairy firm Mengniu used Zhipu’s model for an “AI nutritionist” mini-app where users can ask questions about healthy eating and track daily habits.

Kingsoft Office and AMiner both used AI models to summarize and generate documents within their ecosystems. Nieta is the only multimodal case: Zhipu helped them launch a short-form video generation agent on their platform. A Chinese analyst described the resulting tool as “Sora for anime fans”:

We also get confirmation that Zhipu is involved with sovereign AI efforts in Southeast Asia, in the form of “building national and municipal foundation model platforms.” Zhipu earned almost 18 million RMB (around US$2.6 million) from deploying large models on-premise in Malaysia and Singapore in the first nine months of 2025, compared to 860,000 RMB (~US$123k) in the US for the same types of services over the same period. These three are the only markets where Zhipu has helped customers deploy on-premise.

MiniMax’s offerings are more consumer-facing, and its prospectus paints a broader picture. In terms of user numbers, they report that more than 212 million customers across 200+ countries and regions used their AI-native products in the first nine months of 2025. That’s roughly the population of Brazil!

Where are the GPUs from?

We learn from MiniMax’s prospectus that it does not have its own training clusters and has no meaningful local compute. The company calls it a “light-asset” strategy. (It also outsources content moderation, digital marketing, and data labelling.)

Over the course of its existence, MiniMax has used a diverse range of cloud computing suppliers as its compute demand skyrocketed. Suppliers A, B, C, G, and H are Chinese firms, I and K are based in Singapore, and J is incorporated in both. (Letters used to anonymize suppliers in the chart above reflect the letters used in MiniMax’s original prospectus.)

Zhipu is not quite as forthcoming, but it also frames computing resources as mostly coming from outside providers. In 2022 and 2023, some of the company’s largest purchases were sourced from suppliers of “computing hardware” rather than “computer services” (the latter, in this context, tend to mostly denote cloud computing), implying some degree of local compute.

By 2025, however, all of its top-five suppliers were cloud computing providers. Given information about its top-five suppliers each year, we can also see that it works with an ever-changing range of cloud-computing suppliers for credit terms both long and short. All of the cloud suppliers on Zhipu’s disclosed list are Chinese.

Are there circular deals in Chinese AI?

The American AI economy is a circle-dealing bonanza. China’s situation is very different: state funds are major players, most parties are far more cash-constrained, and potential policy interventions loom large over the sector. Beijing is careful not to bet too much of the country’s economic future on unpredictable developments in AI and watches out for bubble dynamics closely.

But some Chinese AI companies do want shares of each other’s pies. Zhipu’s investors include Meituan and Tencent, while two of MiniMax’s major pre-IPO investors were subsidiaries of Tencent and Alibaba. This creates an interesting dynamic where leading tech giants’ AI initiatives are competing against startup labs, but they’re also investing in startups to improve their positioning across the sector.

Another interesting MiniMax investor is game studio miHoYo, the maker of Genshin Impact (one of the highest-grossing mobile games of all time), reflecting cross-pollination between AI companions and other entertainment industries. AI companion companies have closely courted animation and video game fans from the start, and in turn, these communities have found homes on platforms like Talkie.

What about AGI?

It’s whatever you want it to be! Companies are incentivized to describe the AI future in ways that fit their current product strategy, so it’s not surprising that the two prospectuses imagine AGI in ways clearly favorable for themselves.

Zhipu’s prospectus is a surprisingly ideological document. The company thinks LLMs are the main form factor for achieving higher levels of machine intelligence. It believes there are five stages to LLMs’ development: pretraining, alignment reasoning, self-learning, self-perception, and consciousness. We haven’t gotten to self-perception and consciousness yet, and Zhipu tells investors that they cannot guarantee achieving those stages. (They also cannot guarantee that sentient machines will still be committed to maximizing shareholder value.) Its business strategy, as proposed to investors, stems from this uncompromising worldview.

MiniMax, on the other hand, describes its goal as AI that can “[perform] the full range of human intellectual tasks” — more obviously monetizable, and perhaps more modest and flexible. Because “real world human interaction is inherently multimodal,” it argues, the pursuit of higher forms of machine intelligence should focus on multimodality instead of LLMs, and it is perhaps for this reason that its audio and video generation models have seen strong growth. MiniMax’s team is very young: the average age of its R&D team is under 30. (It says in its prospectus that users of Talkie/Xingye are also young.) It emphasizes its nimble organizational structure and youthful vibrancy in its pitch to investors. Zhipu, in comparison, stresses its deep connections to academia and hard-hitting research.

The product bringing in the largest share of revenue for MiniMax remains Talkie/Xingye, its popular AI companion app. In the first nine months of 2025, there were around 5.6 million monthly active users of Hailuo AI, MiniMax’s video generator; Talkie/Xingye had 20 million in the same period. This was despite the company cutting marketing spending by 90% in that period to focus on organic growth.

MiniMax is aware of the social risks of AI companions, but its framing of these issues can be hilariously naive. A literal quote from the IPO prospectus:

As model intelligence and memory capabilities continue to advance, we foresee a future ‘Her’-style moment where everyone has an AI companion that truly knows them and proactively assists in all aspects of their lives.

The Torment Nexus is evergreen:

MiniMax thinks the future of digital companionship stretches as wide as humanity does, with a new generation of AI-native internet users “naturally inclined to interact with AI companions.” There is some acknowledgement of the legal risks companion misuse may create for shareholders, but otherwise, their lawyers have curated a sunny attitude towards a future where we’re all emotionally entangled with language models.

A grab bag of miscellaneous observations

• Cultural and media industries in China are procuring a surprising amount of AI technology. One of MiniMax’s biggest customers is “[a] comprehensive cultural industry group headquartered in Shanghai, China, with digital reading as its foundation and IP cultivation and development at its core.” (It’s almost certainly Yuewen Group 阅文集团, a Tencent-backed digital reading conglomerate.) Zhipu’s top client in 2025, an unnamed IT company, primarily engaged it to work on “art-related learning services, live-streaming e-commerce, cultural tourism research and study, smart education services, and AI education.”

• From Zhipu’s prospectus, we learn that the partially state-owned company iFlytek had the biggest market share for LLMs in China at 9.4% in 2024. Zhipu ranked second with 6.6%, followed by Alibaba (6.4%), SenseTime (6.1%), and lastly Baidu (4.7%). Zhipu’s analysis implies that iFlytek reached the top of the market by rolling out LLM-based services to its existing user base, which is very large. This is a reminder not to write off state-affiliated players in the Chinese AI industry, especially ones with massive access to surveillance data and public-sector partners like SenseTime and iFlytek. (MiniMax’s founder himself is a SenseTime alum.)

• Zhipu made a preliminary filing for an A-shares listing back in April 2025, but ultimately decided to list in Hong Kong to attract a broader base of overseas investors.

• Zhipu tries to distinguish itself as the only major Chinese AI player to care deeply about safety as it is understood internationally. It was the only Chinese company to sign the Frontier AI Safety Commitments in Seoul back in 2024.

• Zhipu doesn’t think either open- or closed-source AI will “win.” As its prospectus describes, “[in] the future, open-source models will play a key role in driving technical innovation and fostering collaboration within the community, while closed-source models will take the lead in commercial applications and enterprise services.”

• The biggest USD investor in MiniMax’s IPO, with $65 million, is the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.

• MiniMax has two major subsidiaries based in Singapore: Subsup, incorporated in 2022, and Nanonoble, incorporated in 2024. It begs the question: why didn’t MiniMax pursue the “Manus maneuver” and move overseas altogether? What are the best arguments against “China shedding” as an AI company?

• The AI girlfriend business has razor-thin margins. The average Talkie/Xingye customer spent only US$5 in the first nine months of 2025, and the number actually went down from 2024 to 2025 as MiniMax tried to court a larger international user base that’s cost-conscious. (According to Sensor Tower, the US, the Philippines, and Mexico have the largest numbers of Talkie users.) Recurring revenue is also more complicated for this side of their business, as users can pay on-the-go for tokens rather than subscriptions.

• MiniMax brings up an interesting dimension of open-source software use in the “Risks” section of their prospectus. They argue that since the terms of many open-source licenses have not been interpreted by courts, these licenses might later on be “construed in a way that could impose unanticipated conditions or restrict our ability to commercialize our products.” Will companies ever start to legally weaponize vague open-source licenses to compete with each other?

All this only scratches the surface of the information disclosed in these two documents, which give us rare insight into the AI business in China as it stands today.

Have more thoughts or observations? We’d love to hear from you!

For more analysis, check out coverage by Hello China Tech here and 36Kr here.

On January 10, Tsinghua University and Zhipu (the Beijing-based foundation model startup that recently went public) co-hosted AGI-Next, a summit for frontier AI, in Beijing.

The event included a series of keynotes by Tang Jie 唐杰 (Zhipu’s founder), Yang Zhilin 杨植麟 (CEO of Moonshot AI, which is behind the Kimi models), Lin Junyang 林俊旸 (tech lead for Qwen at Alibaba), and Yao Shunyu 姚顺雨 (current Principal AI Researcher at Tencent, formerly of OpenAI), followed by a panel.

Cyber Zen Heart 赛博禅心, a well-known tech influencer account (which we previously covered on ChinaTalk), released a transcript of the conversation online, and we’ve translated an abbreviated version into English here (we edited their discussion down to half of what was originally a 40-page Chinese transcript). This is a fascinating conversation on the AI landscape in China, covering the technical side, corporate dynamics, as well as the future as envisioned by China’s most important industry titans. The conversation includes:

• A honest look at whether China’s open-source leadership has actually narrowed the technology gap with the US;

• China’s emerging AI-for-business paradigm and why Palantir is an inspiration,

• And what it will take for Chinese researchers to take riskier bets.

A bit to taste from Tencent’s Yao Shunyu:

So, I think there are several key points. One is whether China can break through on lithography machines. If compute ultimately becomes the bottleneck, can we solve the compute problem? At the moment, we have strong advantages in electricity and infrastructure. The main bottlenecks are production capacity — especially lithography — and the software ecosystem. If these are solved, it would be a huge help.

Another question is whether, beyond the consumer side, China can develop a more mature and robust To-B market — or whether Chinese companies can really compete in international commercial environments. Today, many productivity-oriented or enterprise-focused models and applications are still born in the U.S., largely because willingness to pay is higher and the business culture is more supportive. Doing this purely within China is very difficult, so many teams choose to go overseas or pursue international markets. These are two major structural constraints.

More important are subjective factors. Recently, when talking with many people, our shared feeling is that China has an enormous number of very strong talents. Once something is proven doable, many people enthusiastically try it and want to do it even better.

What China may still lack is enough people willing to break new paradigms or take very risky bets. This is due to the economic environment, business environment, and culture. If we could increase the number of people with entrepreneurial or risk-taking spirit — people who truly want to do frontier exploration or paradigm-shifting work — that would help a lot. Right now, once a paradigm emerges, we can use very few GPUs and very high efficiency to do better locally. Whether we can lead a new paradigm may be the core issue China still needs to solve, because in almost everything else — business, industrial design, engineering — we are already, in some respects, doing better than the U.S.

…In China, people still prefer to work on safer problems. For example, pretraining has already been proven to be doable. It’s actually very hard and involves many technical challenges, but once it’s proven doable, we’re confident that within a few months or some period of time, we can basically figure it out. But if today you ask someone to explore long-term memory or continual learning, people don’t know how to do it or whether it can even be done, which is still a tough situation.

And Lin Junyang who works at Alibaba on Qwen:

U.S. compute may overall exceed ours by one to two orders of magnitude. What I see is that whether it’s OpenAI or others, a huge amount of their compute is invested into next-generation research. For us, by contrast, we’re relatively constrained — just fulfilling delivery requirements already consumes the vast majority of our compute. This is a major difference.

Perhaps this is a long-standing question throughout history: is innovation spurred by the hands of hand of the rich or the poor? The poor are not without opportunities. We sometimes feel that the rich waste GPUs, training many things that turn out not to be useful. But when you’re poor, things like algorithm-infrastructure co-optimization become necessary. If you’re very rich, there’s little incentive to do that.

Going one step further, as Shunyu mentioned with lithography machines, there may be another opportunity in the future. From a hardware-software co-design perspective, is it possible to truly build something new? For example, could the next-generation model and chip be designed together?

Americans naturally have a very strong risk-taking spirit. A classic example is early electric vehicles — despite leaking roofs and even fatal accidents, many wealthy people were still willing to invest. In China, I believe wealthy people would not do this; they prefer safe things. But today, people’s risk-taking spirit is improving, and as China’s business environment improves, innovation may emerge. The probability isn’t very large, but it is real.

Comments in brackets [ ] are our clarifying notes

Three of the “Four Heavenly Kings” of open source were present [a Buddhist reference]—DeepSeek couldn’t attend for reasons everyone knows [they’re grinding to drop a new model].

One roundtable, with participants including: Yang Qiang, Tang Jie, Lin Junyang, Yao Shunyu (joining remotely).

The closing remarks came from the highly respected Academician Zhang Bo 张钹.

The AGI-Next event was convened by Professor Tang Jie—his ability to bring people together is in a league of its own.

Making Machines Think Like Humans

Speaker: Tang Jie (Chief Scientist at Zhipu, Professor at Tsinghua University)

[Note: Zhipu AI/智谱 is one of China’s leading AI companies, which focuses on serving state customers. They’ve had an executive appear on ChinaTalk and their flagship model is GLM.]

...

Starting in 2019, we began thinking: can we make machines truly think, even just a little bit, like humans? So in 2019, we spun off from Tsinghua’s research achievements [成果转化 - “achievement transformation,” is the formal Chinese term for university tech transfer/commercialization]. With strong support from the university at the time, we founded this company called Zhipu. I’m now Chief Scientist there. We’ve also open-sourced a lot — you can see many open-source projects here, and on the left there are various things related to large model API calls.

I’ve been at Tsinghua for about 20 years — I graduated in 2006, so this year marks exactly 20 years. Looking back at what I’ve actually been doing, I’d summarize it as just two things: First, I built the AMiner system back in the day [AMiner is an influential academic search and mining platform]; second, the large models I’m working on now.

I’ve always held a view that has influenced me quite a bit — I call it “doing things with the spirit of coffee.” This actually relates closely to one of our guests here today: Professor Yang Qiang. One time after meeting in the café, I said I’d been drinking way too much coffee lately, maybe I should quit, it can’t be good for my health. Professor Yang’s first response was “Right, you should cut back.” Then he said, actually no—if we could be as addicted to research as you are to coffee, wouldn’t our research be excellent?

This idea of being “addicted to coffee” [喝咖啡上瘾] really struck me at the time, and it’s influenced me from 2008 until now — the idea that doing things well probably means being focused, and just keeping at it. This time I happened to encounter AGI, which is exactly the kind of thing that requires long-term investment and sustained effort. It’s not quick wins — you don’t do it today, see results tomorrow, and wrap up the day after. It’s very long-term, which makes it precisely worth investing in.

In 2019, our lab was actually doing quite well internationally in graph neural networks and knowledge graphs. But at that time, we firmly paused both of those directions — temporarily stopped working on them. Everyone pivoted to large models, everyone started launching research related to large models. And as of today we’ve had some real accomplishments.

…

Everyone still remembers earlier this year, I think there were two main directions: one was simple programming — doing Coding, doing Agents; the second was using AI to help us do research, similar to DeepResearch, even writing complex research reports. These two paths are probably quite different, and this is also a result of making choices. On one hand, you do Thinking and add some coding scenarios; on the other hand, you might want to interact with the environment, making the model more interactive, more dynamic — how do you do that?

In the end, we chose the path on the left — we gave it Thinking capability. But we didn’t abandon the right side either. On July 28th we did something that was relatively successful: we integrated coding, agentic, and reasoning capabilities together. On July 28th we released GLM 4.5, and got pretty good results in agents, reasoning, and code. All the models — domestically, including today’s Qwen and Kimi — are really chasing each other [a fun idiom 你追我赶 — “you chase me, I chase you”], Sometimes one is ahead, sometimes another is. On that particular day, we were in front.

We opened up this 4.5 for everyone to use — go ahead and code with it, our capabilities are pretty good now. Since we chose Coding and Agent, it could handle many programming tasks, so we let it write these very complex scenarios. Then users came back and told us: for example, if we want to code a Plants vs. Zombies game, this model can’t do it.

Real environments are often very complex. This game is automatically generated from a single prompt — including the whole game being playable, users can click to score, choose which plants, how to fight the zombies, zombies walking in from the right, including the interface, including the backend logic, all automatically written from one sentence by this program. At this point, 4.5 couldn’t do this scenario — lots of bugs appeared. What’s going on?

Later we discovered that in real programming environments, there are many problems inside. For example, in editing environments like the one above, there are many problems that need solving. This is exactly where RLVR [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards] comes in — reinforcement learning with verifiable environments. So we collected a large number of programming environments, used the programming environment as reinforcement, plus some SFT data, enabling two-way interaction to improve the model’s effectiveness. Overall, it’s exploring through verification. So at that time we got very good scores on SWE Bench, and recently we’ve gotten very good scores as well.

…

Next question: can we continue scaling going forward? What’s our next AGI paradigm? We face more challenges ahead.

We just did some open-sourcing, and some people might feel excited, thinking China’s large models seem to have surpassed America’s. Actually, the real answer is probably that our gap might still be widening, because American large models are mostly still closed-source. We’re playing in open source to make ourselves feel good, but our gap hasn’t narrowed the way we imagined. In some areas we might be doing pretty well, but we still need to acknowledge the challenges and gaps we face.

What should we do next? I think from the entire development history of large models, it’s really referencing the human brain’s cognitive learning process. From the earliest large models — you had to memorize all the world’s long-term knowledge, just like children who first read books from a young age, memorize all the knowledge first, then gradually learn to reason, learn math problems, learn more deduction and abstraction.

For the future, it’s the same principle. For human brain cognitive learning, what capabilities exist that current large models don’t have, but humans far exceed us in:

First, 2025 was the year of multimodal adaptation. Many multimodal models including ours haven’t drawn much attention as most are working on improving text intelligence. For large models, how do we collect multimodal information and unify perception — what we often call “native multimodal models.” Later I thought about it, and native multimodal models are quite similar to human “sensory integration” [感统 - short for 感觉统合, sensory integration]. Human sensory integration is: I collect some visual information here, also collect some audio information, also collect some tactile information — how do I integrate all this information together to perceive something? Sometimes when humans have brain issues, often it’s insufficient sensory integration — problems from sensory integration dysfunction. For models, how do we build this next level of multimodal sensory integration capability?

Second, current model memory capability and continuous learning capability are still insufficient. Humans have several levels of memory systems — we have short-term memory, working memory, long-term memory. I even chatted with our students and lab members before, and I said it seems like a person’s long-term memory doesn’t actually represent knowledge. Why? Because we humans only really preserve knowledge when we record it — for example, for me, if my knowledge can’t be recorded on Wikipedia, maybe 100 years later I’ll be gone too, I won’t have contributed anything to this world, it doesn’t seem to count as knowledge. It seems like when training future human large models, my knowledge won’t be useful either, it’ll all become noise. How do we take our entire memory system from an individual’s three levels to humanity’s fourth level of recording? This whole memory system is what we humans need to build for large models in the future.

Finally, reflection and self-awareness. Actually, models already have some reflection capability now, but self-awareness in the future is a very difficult problem. Many people question whether large models can have self-awareness capability. Among us there are also many experts from foundational model labs — some support this, some oppose it. I’m somewhat supportive — I think it’s possible and worth exploring.

…

We’re teaching machines the capacity for self-reflection and self-learning — through the machine being able to continuously self-critique, to learn which things it should do, which things it could do more optimally.

Looking to the future, we still need to teach machines to learn even more. For instance, learning self-awareness [自我认知] — letting machines explain their own behavior. Say AI generates massive amounts of content: it can self-explain why it generated this content, what it is, what its goals are. At the ultimate level, perhaps one day AI will also have consciousness.

We’ve roughly defined these five layers of thinking.

From a computer science angle, computers wouldn’t frame things this abstractly. In my view, computers have three fundamental capabilities:

First, representation and computation. You represent data, then you can compute on it.

Second, programming. Programming is the only way computers interact with the outside world.

Third, at its core, search.

But when you stack these capabilities together: First, with representation and computation, storage capacity can far exceed humans. Second, programming can produce logic more complex than what humans can handle. Third, search can be done faster than humans. Stack these three computer capabilities together, and you might get so-called “superintelligence” [超级智能] — perhaps exceeding human capabilities in certain areas.

...

For 2026, what’s more important to me is staying focused and doing some genuinely new things.

First, we’ll probably keep scaling. But scaling the known means constantly adding data, constantly probing the ceiling. There’s also scaling the unknown — new paradigms we haven’t discovered yet.

Second, technical innovation. We’re going to do genuinely new model architecture innovation — solving ultra-long context, more efficient knowledge compression. And we’re going to achieve knowledge memory and continuous learning. Put these two together, and it might be an opportunity to make machines just a little bit stronger than humans.

Third, multimodal sensory integration [多模态感统] — this is a hot topic and key priority this year. Because only with this capability can AI enter into long tasks inside machines, time-extended tasks within our human work environments — inside our phones, inside our computers — completing our long tasks. Once it can complete our long tasks, AI will have achieved an occupation [工种, literally “job type” or “trade” — the implication is AI becomes a worker capable of doing a full job, not just discrete tasks]. AI becomes like us, able to help us get things done. Only then can AI achieve embodiment [具身], only then can it enter the physical world.

I believe this year might be an explosive year for AI for Science, because so many capabilities have dramatically improved — we can do so much more.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you, everyone!

Scaling Law, Model Architecture, and Agent Intelligence

Speaker: Yang Zhilin 杨植麟 (Founder of Moonshot AI & Kimi)

Yang Zhilin’s talk was packed with technical details and formulas; here’s a brief summary:

Optimizing along two dimensions — token efficiency and long context — will lead to achieving stronger agent intelligence.

Yang argued that the key reason Transformers outperform LSTMs isn’t in short sequences, but in long-context settings where the loss is significantly lower — which is exactly the core demand in the agent era. The team used the Muon second-order optimizer to achieve a 2× improvement in token efficiency, and addressed training instability with QK-Clip, successfully completing stable training on the trillion-parameter Kimi K2.

Their next-generation architecture, Kimi Linear, uses Delta Attention (a linear attention mechanism). It outperforms full attention for the first time on long-horizon tasks, while delivering a 6–10× speedup. K2 has become China’s first agent model, capable of two to three hundred steps of tool calls, and it surpasses OpenAI on core benchmarks such as Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE).

Yang emphasized that upcoming models will need more “taste”, because intelligence isn’t like electricity that can be exchanged equivalently — tokens produced by different models are inherently not the same. He quoted a conversation with Kimi: the reason to keep developing AGI is that giving it up would mean giving up the upper bound of human civilization — and we cannot allow fear to bring progress to a halt.

Towards a Generalist Agent

Speaker: Lin Junyang (Alibaba Qwen)

Open Source and Products

We’ve been doing open source for quite a while, starting on August 3, 2023. A lot of people ask us: why do open source at all? A lot of things came together through chance and circumstance. In any case, after sticking with open source all the way through, we ended up doing a lot of work that was, at the very least, fairly industrial in nature. There isn’t a lot of “stuff” in the repo — basically just some scripts that people can look at directly. But we do have a lot of models. Why so many, relatively? In the past, a lot of people didn’t understand why we built small models, but today everyone understands that small models are still quite valuable.

Small models ultimately originated from an internal 1.8B model we used for experiments. We were doing pretraining, and resources were limited — you can’t run every experiment on 7B, so we used 1.8B for validation. At the time, a junior labmate told me we should open-source this model, and I really didn’t understand. I said: in 2023 this model is almost unusable — why would we open-source it? He told me 7B consumes too much compute, and many master’s and PhD students don’t have the resources to run experiments. If we open-source 1.8B, a lot of students would finally be able to graduate on time. That was a really good original motivation.

Then as we kept working, phone manufacturers came to us and said 7B is too big and 1.8B is too small — could you make a 3-4B model for us? That’s easy; it’s not a hard thing to do. As we went along, we ended up with more and more variants and types. To some extent, it has to do with serving the needs of users.

Qwen3: Our Biggest Improvements This Year

The biggest progress this year is Qwen3. This is the mascot — kind of looks like a bear, but it’s actually a capybara.

When we were building it, I felt our teammates were working too hard; I didn’t want them to suffer so much. In an era that’s this competitive, being a bit more laid-back isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We’re working across relatively more directions, but you can see that each direction has its own internally consistent logic. For example, we work on Text and VL, and Omni; we’ve also spent relatively longer on vision, text, and speech generation. In the process, one thing that’s special about us is that we’re backed by Alibaba Cloud, and a lot of our business is closely related to Alibaba Cloud’s customers. Cloud customers are very diverse, and we also provide services to everyone such as embeddings and guardrails.

Today, we’ll introduce the main line around Text and VL, including Omni; Coder will be included under Text and discussed accordingly.

Text: Qwen3 Series

This year, for text models, it’s mainly the Qwen3 series, and we’ve already reached 3.5. We spent longer on 3, because the previous generation, 2.5, took a very long time, and one of its biggest characteristics was overall capability improvement. What’s more interesting this year is that reasoning capability needed to improve. If I were to add a bit of my personal understanding, I’d say that reasoning is somewhat different from the current straightforward Instruct models.

Second is the languages and dialects we support. The number of languages alone isn’t that large, but including dialects, it totals 119. Why did we do multilingual support? There were also some coincidences. In 2023, we felt that as long as we did Chinese and English well, we could serve the people we needed to serve. But one time I ran into Korean friends and asked them why, when they were working on the Solar model, they didn’t use our model. They said, “your model doesn’t understand any Korean at all.” I felt really hurt, so I went and checked, and later found that [solving this issue] was actually very simple, so I just went ahead and did it. Later we found that our global users were increasing. I remember some friends in Pakistan kept telling me, “hurry up and support Urdu — we really don’t have any large models we can use.” I thought that was indeed a good thing, so we supported more languages.

We still haven’t finished this. Data from Africa is indeed hard to collect, [so] African languages aren’t covered yet. Today I chatted with some phone manufacturers, and there are still many people in Africa using “dumb” feature phones. We’ve already entered the smartphone era, but they’re still dealing with that, so if you want to help all of humanity, the road ahead is truly long and the responsibility is heavy. If your goal isn’t to help all of humanity, I think it might be better not to do it at all. That’s why we will keep going.

Third is that today’s long text and long video may be one example of this. But I find it really interesting: if you truly want to build a model with self-awareness, first your context has to be long enough. Some people previously debated whether there’s any need to stuff lots of junk into a long context, but only after you have that can you achieve the deeper understanding that comes next. So now we’ve pushed it to over 1M; internally we’ve actually reached several million, and it still might not be enough. That’s why today I still want to say this is a very, very long-term undertaking.

…

Coding: From Olympiad Problems to Software Engineering

Today’s “coder” is different from what we had in the past. For example, last year and the year before, we were mostly solving straightforward competition problems: you’re given a problem and you see whether you can produce the answer. What are we doing today? Software engineering. Back in 2024, people were really surprised by the idea of whether AI could be like a programmer. Today, the task is: maintaining a project is actually pretty hard — if you can just do that, that’s already great.

In actual practice, doing this involves some quite complicated steps for humans. The simplest thing is at least I can open these folders, look at the file names, and know which one I should click into — this is really a multi-turn interaction process. One very important point in building agents today is why everyone talks about multi-turn environment interaction: put plainly, opening a folder and taking a look is itself a way of interacting with the environment. This is important and also very interesting, and it makes us really excited — it can genuinely generate productivity. We want today’s coding models to be productive; the fact that they can write a lot of code is really surprising.

Of course, China and the U.S. are different. I just got back from the Bay Area, and I could feel that the two sides aren’t quite the same. [The difference] is pretty dramatic. Is it that the models aren’t good enough, or that vibe coding still isn’t popular enough? I think the difference is really in how people perceive it. What we want to do is reach the same destination by different paths; everyone wants it to generate productivity.

At the time we paid especially close attention to two benchmarks. One was SWE-bench — can you submit a PR that solves the issue? A score of 70 is a pretty high bar; of course now you can see scores above 75. That was in July; back then, we felt that getting 67 and 69 was already pretty good. Terminal-Bench is also quite hard. Today everyone is using this series of products, and you’ll find that it really does connect directly to your productivity—unlike before. What we’re doing today is tasks that are close to real-world practice. Maybe today it’s only one or two benchmarks, but making it fit real environments and real production tasks better is what we want to do.

When it first came out it was quite popular, but now the competition is too intense. At one point our token consumption even made it to second place on OpenRouter — just to brag a little bit.

…

Visual Understanding: Equipping Models with Eyes

When you build language models, you also have to think about one question: can it have “eyes” to see the world? For example, we just mentioned wanting to build a coding agent to improve productivity: I have to let it operate a computer and see the computer screen. Without eyes it can’t see, so we worked on this with no hesitation. That’s a huge difference: just go and build visual understanding, don’t question it.

But today, many models can actually see things more clearly than humans. For example, I’m nearsighted and I have astigmatism, so my eyesight basically isn’t that great and there’s a lot that I can’t see clearly. But at least I can distinguish up, down, left, and right very easily. AI is interesting: it can see very fine details very clearly, yet when you ask it about front/back/left/right, it for some reason can’t tell. For a long time we evaluated a case called “live subject orientation.” I even asked our evaluators what “live subject” meant. It couldn’t tell whether something was on the left or the right — I found that pretty strange, but that’s exactly the problem we need to solve.

And it’s not just that. Another thing we need to do is make sure its intelligence doesn’t drop. We don’t expect it to dramatically raise its IQ, but at the very least it shouldn’t get dumber, because a lot of the time when you build VL models, they get dumber. This time, we finally made it stop getting dumber — it’s roughly on par with our 235B language model.

…

I want to share a more interesting case. People also ask me these days: how exactly did the open-source community help your team develop this model? If the open-source community hadn’t told us, we would never have thought of this issue ever in our daily lives. There was an image where we basically wanted to remove the person on the right side of the picture. You’d find that after [the model] removed them, when you overlaid the two images, the result looks blurry. It has shifted a bit; it’s no longer in the original position, but instead misaligned. For a lot of people who do Photoshop work, this needs to be extremely precise. You can’t just move things around arbitrarily. So the key focus of version 2511 was solving this problem. In version 2511, when I overlay the two images, the person is basically still in the original position. I think developers gave us a really good use case—showing that we can actually build things that genuinely help them

Agent: Towards Simulated and Physical Worlds

Agents can actually move toward both the virtual world and the physical world, which is why there’s an approach like embodied reasoning. Internally we discussed a path: even if you’re building VLA models or coding models, when you strip it down, you’re still converting language into an embodied model. From this perspective it’s extremely encouraging, so we felt like going all-in and seeing whether we can move toward a digital agent. Being able to do GUI operations while also using APIs: that would be a truly perfect digital agent.

And if we move toward the physical world, could it pick up a microphone, and could it pour tea and water today? That’s something we really want to do.

Thank you all very much!

Panel: The Next Step for Chinese AI

Moderator: Li Guangmi

Panel Members: Yang Qiang (HKUST), Tang Jie (Zhipu), Lin Junyang (Qwen), Yao Shunyu (Tencent)

Opening Remarks:

Li Guangmi (Moderator): I am the moderator for the next panel, Li Guangmi. … Let’s start with the first — rather interesting — point: the clear fragmentation (分化) of Silicon Valley companies. Let’s start our conversation around this topic of “fragmentation.”

Anthropic’s model has actually been a great source of inspiration for China; in the face of such intense Silicon Valley competition, they didn’t entirely follow the rest and try to do everything. Instead, they focused on enterprise, coding, and agents. I also am wondering: in what directions will Chinese models end up fragmenting? I think this topic of fragmentation is really interesting.

… Shunyu, could you expand your views on this topic of model fragmentation? …

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): I think I have two major impressions: one is the clear divergence between “to consumer” and “to business” models, and the other is divergence between the path of vertical integration and the path of separating the model and application layers [模型和应用分层].

I’ll start with the first point. I think when people think of AI, the two biggest names are ChatGPT and Claude Code. They are both the canonical examples of “to consumer” versus “to business.” What’s really interesting is if you compare ChatGPT today versus ChatGPT from last year, there really isn’t a difference in feeling. On the other hand, Coding — to exaggerate slightly — has already reshaped how the entire coding industry works. People already don’t write code anymore, they instead talk with their computer in plain English.

The core point is that in respect to the “to consumer” models, the majority of people, the majority of the time, just don’t need to use that strong of AI. Maybe compared to last year today’s ChatGPT is stronger at abstract writing and Galois Theory [abstract mathematics], but most people most of the time can’t feel it. The majority of people, especially in China, use it as an enhanced search engine. Most of the time, they don’t know how to properly use it to elicit its “intelligence.”

But for business-facing models, it’s clear that higher intelligence represents higher productivity, which is more and more valuable. These things are all correlated.

There’s also another obvious point about business-facing models: most of the time, people want to use the strongest model. One model might cost $200 a month, and the second-best or slightly weaker model might be $50 or $20 a month. Today, we find that many Americans are willing to pay a premium for the best model. [Suppose] your salary is $200,000, and you have 10 tasks you have to do daily. A really good model can do eight or nine of those, while the weaker one can [only] do five or six. The problem is when you don’t know which five or six tasks they are, you have to spend extra effort monitoring it.

I think regardless of whether it’s people or models, in the “to business” market we’ve realized a really interesting phenomenon: the divergence between strong models and somewhat weaker models will become more and more pronounced. I think that’s the first observation.

The second observation is about the difference between vertically-integrated models and ones that separate the model and application layers. I think a good example is the difference between ChatGPT Agent and Claude or Gemini with an application-layer product like Manus. In the past, everyone thought that vertically-integrated paths would definitely be better, but at least today that’s not certain. First, the capabilities needed at the model layer versus the application layer are rather different. Especially in the case of business-facing or productivity scenarios, larger pre-training is still a key factor, and that’s really difficult for product companies (产品公司) to do. But if you want to use such a good model well, or if this sort of model has overflow capacity (溢出能力), you still need to do a lot of work on the application or environment side.

We also realize that for consumer-facing applications, vertical integration, whether it’s ChatGPT or Doubao (豆包), still holds; models and products are tightly coupled and iterate together. But for business-facing cases, this trend is almost flipped, as models are getting stronger and better, but there will still be models that do many application-layer things well being applied to different productivity workloads.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Because Shunyu has a new role, what are you thinking about doing next in the Chinese market? Do you have any distinctive characteristics or keywords? Can you share anything with us right now?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): I think Tencent is definitely a company with stronger consumer-facing genetics. I think we will think deeply about how we can make today’s large models or AI development give users a greater value. A core consideration is that we realize most of the time, in respect to our environment or stronger models, we need additional context.

Being business-facing in China is truly difficult. The productivity revolution, including many Chinese companies doing coding agents, requires breaking into foreign markets. We will think deeply about how to serve ourselves well first. The difference between a start-up and a big company doing coding [agents] is that the big company already has many kinds of application scenarios, many places where we need to improve productivity. If our models can do well in those areas, not only will these models have their unique advantages, not only will our company develop well, but, importantly, we will be able to capture data from real-world scenarios, which is really interesting. For example, startups like Claude, if they want more Coding Agent data, they need to find data vendors to label that data, they need to use all kinds of software engineers to think about what data they need to label. The thing is there are only a few data vendors in total, they’ve only hired so many people, so in the end they’re limited. But if you are a company with 100,000 people, there might be a few interesting attempts at trying to use real-world data well, rather than relying on data labellers or agreements.

…

Topic 2: The Next Paradigm 下一个范式

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Moving to the second interesting question. Today is a special moment in time [时间点特别特殊]. One reason is that pretraining has gone on for the past three years, and many people say we may now have captured 70-80% of the potential gains [“走到了七八成的收益” this is a fractional metaphor, not a literal statistic — the implication here is that the low hanging fruit has already been picked]. Reinforcement learning has also become a consensus, unlocking perhaps 40-50% of the remaining space, with huge room left in data and environment space. So the question of a new paradigm going forward is especially worth discussing. Professor Tang also mentioned autonomous learning and self-learning. Since the theme of today’s event is “Next” I think this is a topic particularly worth digging into.

Let’s start with Shunyu. You’ve worked at OpenAI, which is at the frontier. How do you think about the next paradigm? OpenAI is a company that has advanced humanity through the first two paradigms. Based on your observations, could you share some thoughts on what a third paradigm might look like?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): Autonomous learning [自主学习] is a very hot term right now. In Silicon Valley — on every street corner and in every café [大街小巷咖啡馆里面] — people are talking about it, and it’s forming a kind of consensus. From my observations, though, everyone defines and understands it differently. I’ll make two points.

First, this is not really a methodology problem, but a data or task problem. When we talk about autonomous learning, the key question is: in what kind of scenario, and based on what kind of reward function, is it happening? When you’re chatting and the system becomes more and more personalized, that’s a kind of autonomous learning. When you’re writing code and it becomes increasingly familiar with each company’s unique environment or documentation, that’s another kind of autonomous learning. When it explores new science — like a PhD student going from not knowing what organic chemistry is to becoming an expert in the field — that’s also autonomous learning. Each type of autonomous learning involves different challenges and, in a sense, different methodologies.

Second — and I’m not sure if this is a non-consensus view — this is actually already happening. Very obviously, ChatGPT is using user data to continuously bridge the gap [the verb here is “弥合” — literally, “to prompt an open wound to heal” — which implies passivity/emergent behavior rather than active design] in understanding what human conversational styles are like, making it feel increasingly good to interact with. Isn’t that a form of self-learning?

Today, Claude has already written 95% of the code for the Claude project itself. It’s helping to make itself better. Isn’t that also a form of self-learning? Back in 2022 and 2023, when I was in Silicon Valley promoting this work, the very first slide I used said that the most important aspect of ASI was autonomous learning. Today’s AI systems essentially have two parts. First, there’s the model itself. Second, there’s a codebase. How you use the model — whether for reasoning or as an agent — depends on the corresponding codebase. If we look at the Claude system today, it essentially consists of two parts: one is a large amount of code related to the deployment environment, and the other is a large amount of code that governs how the system is used — whether that’s GPU-related, frontend-related, or environment-related. I think Claude Code is already doing this at scale today, though people may not fully realize it. These examples of autonomous learning are still confined to very specific scenarios, so they don’t yet feel overwhelmingly powerful.

This is already happening, but there are still efficiency constraints and other limitations — many different issues. Personally, I see this more as a gradual change rather than a sudden leap [更像是一个渐变，不是突变].

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Let me follow up on that. Some people are relatively optimistic about autonomous learning and think we might see signals as early as 2026. In your view, what practical problems still need to be solved before we see those signals? For example, long context, parallel model sampling, or other factors — what key conditions still need to fall into place before these signals really emerge?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): A lot of people say we’ll see signals in 2026, but I think we’ll see them in 2025. Take Cursor, for example: every few hours they retrain using the latest user data, including new models, and they’re already using real-world environment data to train. People might feel this isn’t yet a “shock to the system” simply because they don’t have pretraining capabilities, and their models are indeed not as strong as OpenAI’s. But clearly, this is already a signal.

The biggest issue is imagination. It’s relatively easy for us to imagine what a reinforcement learning or reasoning paradigm might look like once it’s implemented. We can imagine something like o1: originally scoring 10 points on math problems, then jumping to 80 points thanks to reinforcement learning and very strong chains of thought. But if in 2026 or 2027 a new paradigm emerges — if I announce that a new model or system has achieved self-learning — what kind of task should we use to evaluate it? What kind of performance should it have for you to believe it’s real? Is it a profitable trading system that makes a lot of money? Does it genuinely solve scientific problems that humans previously couldn’t? Or something else entirely? I think we first need to imagine what it would actually look like.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Shunyu, OpenAI has already driven two paradigm shifts. If a new paradigm emerges in 2027, which company globally do you think has the highest probability of leading that paradigm innovation — if you had to name just one?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): Probably still OpenAI. Although commercialization and various other changes have weakened its innovative DNA to some extent, I still think it’s the place most likely to give birth to a new paradigm [最有可能诞生新范式的地方].

…

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Junyang just mentioned initiative, including personalization. Do you think that if we really achieve memory, we’ll see a breakthrough-level technological leap by 2026?

Lin Junyang (Qwen): My personal view is that many so-called “breakthroughs” in technology are really issues of observation. Technologically, things are developing in a linear way; it’s just that humans experience them very intensely. Even the emergence of ChatGPT, for those of us working on large models, was linear growth. Right now everyone is working on “memory.” Is this technology right or wrong? Many solutions aren’t inherently right or wrong, but the results, at least in our own experience, are often disappointing [the word used here is 献丑, a self-depreciating term meaning “to present ugliness; to put one’s own artistic incompetence on display.” You might use this term to describe your poor karaoke abilities.] — our memory knows what I’ve done in the past, but it’s really just recalling past events. Calling my name every time doesn’t actually make you seem very smart. The question is whether memory can reach some critical point where, combined with memory, it becomes like a person in real life. People used to say this about movies — that moment when it really feels human. Understanding memory might be that moment, when human perception suddenly bursts forth [人类的感受突然间迸发].

I think it will still take at least a year. Technology often doesn’t move that fast. Everyone feels very “involuted,” [比较卷] with something new every day, but technologically it’s still linear growth. It’s just that from an observational perspective, we’re in an exponential-feeling phase. For example, a small improvement in coding ability can generate a lot of productive value, so people feel AI is advancing very fast. From a technical standpoint, we’re just doing a bit more work. Every day when we look at what we’re building, it feels pretty crude [“挺土的” — literally, “quite rustic/earthy”] — those bugs are honestly embarrassing to talk about. But if we can achieve these results in this way, I think in the future, with better integration of algorithms and infrastructure, there may be much more potential.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Let’s call on Professor Yang Qiang.

Yang Qiang (HKUST): I’ve always worked on federated learning. The core idea of federated learning is collaboration among multiple centers. What I’m seeing more and more now is that many scenarios lack sufficient local resources, yet local data comes with strong privacy and security requirements. So as large models become more powerful, we can imagine collaboration between general-purpose large models and locally specialized small models or domain-expert models. I think this kind of collaboration is becoming increasingly possible.

Take Zoom in the United States — Huang Xuandong and his team built an AI system with a large foundational base. Everyone can plug into this base, and in a decentralized state it can both protect privacy and communicate and collaborate effectively with general large models.

I think this open-source model is especially good: open sourcing knowledge, open sourcing code, and open sourcing at the model level.

In particular, in fields like healthcare and finance, I think we’ll see more and more of this phenomenon.

Tang Jie (Zhipu): I’m very confident that this year we’ll see major paradigm innovations. I won’t go into too much detail, but as I mentioned earlier — continual learning, memory, even multimodality — I think all of these could see new paradigm shifts.

There’s also a new trend I want to talk about: why would such a paradigm emerge? In the past, industry ran far ahead of academia. I remember going back to Tsinghua last year and the year before, talking with many professors about whether they could work on large models. The first issue wasn’t just a lack of GPUs — it was that the number of GPUs was almost zero. Industry had ten thousand GPUs; universities had zero or one. That’s a ten-thousand-fold difference. But now, many universities have a lot of GPUs, and many professors have begun doing large-model research. In Silicon Valley too, many professors are starting to work on model architectures and continual learning. We used to think industry dominated everything, but by late 2025 to early 2026, that gap won’t really exist anymore. Maybe there’s still a tenfold difference, but the seeds have been planted [孵化出种子]. Academia has the genes for innovation and the potential — this is the first point.

Second, innovation always emerges when there is massive investment in something and efficiency becomes a bottleneck. In large models, investment is already enormous, but efficiency isn’t high. If we keep scaling, there will still be gains — early 2025 maybe data went from 10 TB to 30 TB, and maybe we can scale to 100 TB. But once you scale to 100 TB, how much benefit do you get, and at what computational cost? That becomes the question. Without innovation, you might spend one or two billion and get very little return, which isn’t worth it.

On the other hand, for new intelligence innovations, if every time we have to retrain a foundation model and then retrain lots of reinforcement learning — when RL came out in 2024, many people felt continuing training had returns. But today, continuing aggressive RL still has returns, but not that much. It’s an efficiency-of-returns problem. Maybe in the future we need to define two things: one is that if we want to scale up, the dumbest way is just scaling — scaling does bring gains and raises the upper bound of intelligence. The second is defining “intelligence efficiency”: how efficiently we gain intelligence, how much incremental intelligence we get per unit of investment. If we can get the same intelligence gains with less input, especially when we’re at a bottleneck, then that becomes a critical breakthrough.

So I believe that in 2026, such a paradigm will definitely emerge. We’re working hard and hope it happens to us, but it might not.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Like Professor Tang, I’m also very optimistic. For every leading model company, compute grows by about tenfold each year. With more compute and more talent flowing in, people have more GPUs, run more experiments, and it’s possible that some experimental engineering effort, some key point, will suddenly break through.

Topic Three: Agent Strategy

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Professor Tang just talked about how to measure intelligence. The third topic is Agent strategy. Recently I’ve talked with many researchers, and there’s another big expectation for 2026. Today, agents can reason in the background for 3–5 hours and do the equivalent of one to two days of human work. People expect that by 2026, agents could do one to two weeks of normal human work. This would be a huge change — it’s no longer just chat, but truly automating a full day or even a full week of workflows. 2026 may be a key year for agents to create economic value.

On the agent question, let’s open it up for discussion. Shunyu mentioned vertical integration earlier — having both models and agent products. We’ve seen several Silicon Valley companies doing end-to-end work from models to agents. Shunyu has spent a lot of time researching agents. From the perspective of 2026 — long agents really doing one to two weeks of human work — and from the standpoint of agent strategy and model companies, how do you think about this?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): I think, as mentioned earlier, To B and To C are quite different. Right now, the To B side seems to be on a continuously rising curve, with no sign of slowing down.

What’s interesting is that there isn’t much radical innovation involved. It’s more about steadily making models larger through pretraining, and diligently doing post-training on real-world tasks. As long as pretraining keeps scaling up and post-training keeps grounding models in real tasks, they’ll get smarter and generate more value.

In a sense, for To B, all goals are more aligned: the higher the model’s intelligence, the more tasks it can solve; the more tasks it solves, the greater the returns in To B scenarios.

…

Also, I think education is extremely important. From what I observe, the gap between people today is enormous. More often than not, it’s not that AI is replacing human jobs; rather, people who know how to use these tools are replacing those who don’t. It’s like when computers first emerged — if you turned around and learned programming while someone else kept using a slide rule, the gap between you would be massive.

Today, the most meaningful thing China can do is to improve education — teaching people how to better use products like Claude or ChatGPT. Of course, Claude may not be accessible in China, but we can use domestic models like Kimi or Zhipu instead.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Thank you, Shunyu. Next, we’d like Junyang to share his thoughts on agents. Qwen also has an ecosystem — Qwen builds its own agents and also supports a broader agent ecosystem. You can expand on that as well.

Lin Junyang (Qwen): This may touch on questions of product philosophy. Manus is indeed very successful, and whether “wrapper apps” [套壳] are the future is itself an interesting topic. At this stage, I actually agree with your view — that the model is the product [模型即产品]. When I talk with people at DeepMind, they call what they do “research,” and I really like that framing. From my perspective on OpenAI as well, there are many cases where research itself can become a product—researchers can effectively act as product managers and build things directly. Even internally, our own research teams can work on things that face the real world.

I’m willing to believe that the next generation of agents can do what we just discussed, and that this is closely tied to the idea of proactive or self-directed learning. If an agent is going to work for a long time, it has to evolve during that process. It also has to decide what to do, because the instructions it receives are very general tasks. Our agents have now become more like hosted or delegated agents, rather than something that requires constant back-and-forth iteration [来来回回交互].

From this perspective, the requirements on the model are very high. The model is the agent, and the agent is the product. If they are fully integrated, then building a foundation model is essentially the same as building a product. Seen this way, as long as you keep pushing up the upper bound of model capability — through scaling, for example — this vision is achievable.

Another important point is interaction with the environment. Right now, the environments we interact with aren’t very complex — they’re mostly computer-based environments. I have friends working on AI for Science. Take AlphaFold, for example: even if you achieve impressive results, it still hasn’t reached the stage where it can directly transform drug development. Even with today’s AI, it doesn’t necessarily help that much, because you still need to run experiments and perform physical processes to get feedback.

So the question is: could AI environments in the future become as complex as the real human world—where AI directs robots to run experiments and dramatically increase efficiency? Human efficiency today is extremely low. We still have to hire lots of outsourced labor to conduct experiments in lab environments. If we can reach that point, then that’s the kind of long-horizon work I imagine agents doing — not just writing files on a computer. Some of this could happen quite quickly this year, and over the next three to five years, it will become even more interesting. This will likely need to be combined with embodied intelligence.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): I want to follow up with a sharper question. From your perspective, is the opportunity for building general-purpose agents something for startups, or is it simply a matter of time before model companies inevitably build great general agents themselves?

Lin Junyang (Qwen): Just because I work on foundation models doesn’t mean I should act as a startup mentor — I won’t do that. I can only borrow a line from successful people: the most interesting thing about building general agents is that the long tail is actually where the real value lies. In fact, the greatest appeal of AI today is in the long tail.

If it were just a Matthew effect [that is, a “winners keep winning” dynamic], the head of the distribution [“头部” that is, high-frequency use cases] would be easy to solve. Back when we worked on recommendation systems, we saw how concentrated recommendations were — everything was at the head. We wanted to push items from the tail, but that was extremely difficult. As someone working in multimodality who tried to tackle the Matthew effect in recommendation systems, I was basically sprinting down a dead end [奔着死路去的].

What people now call AGI is really about solving this problem. When you build a general agent, can you solve long-tail problems? A user has a problem that they’ve searched for everywhere and simply cannot find anyone who can help — but at that moment, the AI can solve it. No matter where you look in the world, there’s no solution, yet the AI can help you. That’s the greatest charm of AI [这就是AI最大的魅力].

So should you build a general agent? I think it depends [“见仁见智” means something like, “reasonable people can disagree about this”]. If you’re exceptionally good at building wrapper applications and can do it better than model companies, then go for it. But if you don’t have that confidence, this may ultimately be left to model companies pursuing “model-as-product.” When they encounter a problem, they can just retrain the model or throw more compute at it [“烧卡” — literally, “to burn GPUs”], and the problem may be solved. So ultimately, it depends on the person.

Tang Jie (Zhipu): I think there are several considerations that determine the future trajectory of Agents.

First, does the Agent itself actually solve human problems, and are those problems valuable? How valuable? For example, when GPT first came out, many early Agents were built. But you later discovered that those Agents were extremely simple, and in the end a prompt alone could solve the problem. At that point, most Agents gradually died off. So the first issue is whether the problem an Agent solves is valuable and whether it actually helps people.

Second, how expensive is doing this? If the cost is extremely high, that’s also a problem. As Junyang just mentioned, perhaps calling an API can already solve the problem. But on the flip side, if calling an API can solve it, then when the API provider realizes the problem is very valuable, they might simply build it into the base model themselves. This is a contradiction — a very deep contradiction. The base model layer and the application layer are always in tension.

Finally, there’s the speed of application development. Suppose I have a six-month window and can quickly meet a real application need. Then, six months later, whether you can iterate, how you follow up, and how you keep moving forward all become critical.

Large models today are more oriented towards competing on speed and timing. Maybe our code is correct, maybe that lets us go a bit further — but if we fail, half a year may just be gone. This year we’ve only done a little in coding and Agents, but our coding API call volume is already quite good. I think this points to a new direction, just as working on Agents in the future is also a direction.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Thank you. In the past, model companies had to chase after general capabilities, so they may not have put as much priority into exploration. After general capabilities catch up, we increasingly expect that by 2026, Zhipu and Qwen will have their own “Claude moments” and “memory moments.” I think that’s worth anticipating.

Topic Four: The Future of Chinese AI

Li Guangmi (Moderator): The fourth question and final question is quite interesting. Given the timing of this event, we need to look ahead. I’d like to ask everyone: three to five years from now, what is the probability that the world’s most advanced AI company will be a Chinese team? What key conditions are required for us to move from being followers today to leaders in the future? In short, over the next 3–5 years, what is the probability, and what key conditions still need to be fulfilled?

You’ve experienced both Silicon Valley and China — what is your judgment on the probability and on the key conditions?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): I think the probability is actually quite high. I’m fairly optimistic. Right now, whenever something is discovered, China can replicate it very quickly and often does better in specific areas. This has happened repeatedly in manufacturing and electric vehicles.

So, I think there are several key points. One is whether China can break through on lithography machines. If compute ultimately becomes the bottleneck, can we solve the compute problem? At the moment, we have strong advantages in electricity and infrastructure. The main bottlenecks are production capacity — especially lithography — and the software ecosystem. If these are solved, it would be a huge help.

Another question is whether, beyond the consumer side, China can develop a more mature and robust To-B market — or whether Chinese companies can really compete in international commercial environments. Today, many productivity-oriented or enterprise-focused models and applications are still born in the U.S., largely because willingness to pay is higher and the business culture is more supportive. Doing this purely within China is very difficult, so many teams choose to go overseas or pursue international markets. These are two major structural constraints.

More important are subjective factors. Recently, when talking with many people, our shared feeling is that China has an enormous number of very strong talents. Once something is proven doable, many people enthusiastically try it and want to do it even better.

What China may still lack is enough people willing to break new paradigms or take very risky bets. This is due to the economic environment, business environment, and culture. If we could increase the number of people with entrepreneurial or risk-taking spirit — people who truly want to do frontier exploration or paradigm-shifting work — that would help a lot. Right now, once a paradigm emerges, we can use very few GPUs and very high efficiency to do better locally. Whether we can lead a new paradigm may be the core issue China still needs to solve, because in almost everything else — business, industrial design, engineering — we are already, in some respects, doing better than the U.S.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Let me follow up with Shunyu on one question. Do you have anything you’d like to bring to attention regarding research culture in Chinese labs? You’ve experienced OpenAI and also DeepMind in the Bay Area. What differences do you see between Chinese and U.S. research cultures, and how do these research cultures fundamentally affect AI-native companies? Do you have any observations or suggestions?

Yao Shunyu (Tencent): I think research culture varies a lot from place to place. The differences among the U.S. labs may actually be larger than the differences between Chinese and U.S. labs, and the same is true within China.

Personally, I think there are two main points. One is that in China, people still prefer to work on safer problems. For example, pretraining has already been proven to be doable. It’s actually very hard and involves many technical challenges, but once it’s proven doable, we’re confident that within a few months or some period of time, we can basically figure it out. But if today you ask someone to explore long-term memory or continual learning, people don’t know how to do it or whether it can even be done, which is still a tough situation.

This is not only about preferring certainty over innovation. A very important factor is the accumulation of culture and shared understanding, which takes time. OpenAI started working on these things in 2022, while domestic efforts began in 2023, so there are differences in understanding. The gap may not actually be that large — much of it may simply be a matter of time. When cultural depth and foundational understanding accumulate, they subtly influence how people work, but this influence is very hard to capture through rankings or leaderboards.

China tends to place a lot of weight on leaderboard rankings and numerical metrics. One thing DeepSeek has done particularly well is caring less about benchmark scores and more about two questions: first, what is actually the right thing to do; and second, what feels genuinely good or bad in real use. That’s interesting, because if you look at Claude, it may not rank highest on programming or software-engineering leaderboards, yet everyone knows it’s one of the most usable models. I think we need to move beyond the constraints of leaderboards and stick with processes we believe are truly correct.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Thank you, Shunyu. Let’s now ask Junyang to talk about probability and challenges.

Lin Junyang (Qwen): This is a dangerous question. In theory, at an occasion like this, you’re not supposed to pour cold water over everything. But if we talk in terms of probability, I want to share some differences I’ve felt between China and the U.S.

For example, U.S. compute may overall exceed ours by one to two orders of magnitude. What I see is that whether it’s OpenAI or others, a huge amount of their compute is invested into next-generation research. For us, by contrast, we’re relatively constrained — just fulfilling delivery requirements already consumes the vast majority of our compute. This is a major difference.

Perhaps this is a long-standing question throughout history: is innovation spurred by the hands of hand of the rich or the poor? The poor are not without opportunities. We sometimes feel that the rich waste GPUs, training many things that turn out not to be useful. But when you’re poor, things like algorithm-infrastructure co-optimization become necessary. If you’re very rich, there’s little incentive to do that.

Going one step further, as Shunyu mentioned with lithography machines, there may be another opportunity in the future. From a hardware-software co-design perspective, is it possible to truly build something new? For example, could the next-generation model and chip be designed together?

In 2021, when I was working on large models, Alibaba’s chip team came to me and asked whether I could predict whether three years later the model would still be a Transformer, and whether it would still be multimodal. Why three years? Because they needed three years to roll out a chip. At the time, my answer was: I don’t even know whether I’ll still be at Alibaba in three years! But today I’m still at Alibaba, and indeed it’s still Transformers and still multimodal. I deeply regret that I didn’t push them harder back then.

At that time, our communication was completely misaligned. He explained many things to me that I couldn’t understand at all; when I explained things to him, he also didn’t understand what we were doing. So we missed this opportunity. Could such an opportunity come again? Even though we’re a group of “poor people,” perhaps poverty forces change. Might innovation happen here?

Today, education is improving. I’m from the earlier 1990s generation, Shunyu is from the later 1990s, and we have many post-2000s in our team. I feel that people’s willingness to take risks is getting stronger and stronger. Americans naturally have a very strong risk-taking spirit. A classic example is early electric vehicles — despite leaking roofs and even fatal accidents, many wealthy people were still willing to invest. In China, I believe wealthy people would not do this; they prefer safe things. But today, people’s risk-taking spirit is improving, and as China’s business environment improves, innovation may emerge. The probability isn’t very large, but it is real.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): If you had to give a number?

Lin Junyang (Qwen): You mean a percentage?

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Yes. Three to five years from now, what’s the probability that the leading AI company will be a Chinese one?

Lin Junyang (Qwen): I think it’s 20%. Twenty percent is already very optimistic, because there are truly many historical factors at play here.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Thank you, Junyang. Let’s invite Professor Yang. You’ve experienced many AI cycles and seen many Chinese AI companies become the strongest in the world. What is your judgment on this question?

Yang Qiang (HKUST): We can look back at how the internet developed. It also began in the United States, but China quickly caught up, and applications like WeChat became world-leading. I see AI as a technology rather than a finished end product. China has many talented people who can push this technology to its limits, whether in consumer or enterprise applications. Personally, I’m more optimistic about the consumer side, because it allows for many different ideas to flourish and for collective creativity to emerge. Enterprise applications may face some constraints—such as willingness to pay and corporate culture—but these factors are also evolving.

I’ve also recently been observing business trends and discussing them with some business school classmates. For example, there’s a U.S. company called Palantir. One of its ideas is that no matter what stage AI development is at, it can always find useful things within AI to apply to enterprises. There will inevitably be a gap, and they aim to bridge that gap. They use a method called ontology. I looked into it, and its core idea is similar to what we previously did with transfer learning — taking a general solution and applying it to a specific practice, using an ontology to transfer knowledge. This method is very clever. Of course, it’s implemented through an engineering approach, sometimes referred to as front-end engineering (FDE).

In any case, I think this is something very much worth learning from. I believe Chinese enterprises — especially AI-native companies — should develop such To B solutions, and I believe they will. So I think To C will definitely see a hundred flowers bloom, and To B will also quickly catch up.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Thank you, Professor Yang. Let’s bring in Professor Tang.

Tang Jie (Zhipu): First, I think we do have to acknowledge that between China and the U.S., there is indeed a gap in research, especially in enterprise AI labs. That’s the first point.

But I think looking to the future, China is gradually getting better, especially the post-90s and post-2000s generations, who are far better than previous generations. Once, at a conference, I joked that our generation is the unluckiest: the previous generation is still working, we’re also still working, so we haven’t had our moment yet — and unfortunately, the next generation has already arrived, and the world has been handed over to them, skipping our generation entirely. That was a joke.

China may have the following opportunities.

First, there is now a group of smart people who truly dare to do very risky things. I think they exist now — among the post-2000s and post-90s generations — including Junyang, Kimi, and Shunyu, who are all very willing to take risks to do these things.

Second, the overall environment may be improving. This includes the broader national context, competition between large and small firms, challenges facing startups, and the business environment more generally. As Junyang mentioned earlier, he’s still tied up with delivery work. If we can further improve the environment so that smart, risk-taking people have more time to focus on real innovation—giving people like Junyang more space to do creative work—this is something the government and the country may be able to help with.

Third, it comes back to each of us personally: can we push through? Are we willing to stay on one path, dare to act, dare to take risks, and keep going even if the environment isn’t perfect? I think the environment will never be the best. But we are actually fortunate — we’re living through a period where the environment is gradually improving. We are participants in that process, and perhaps we’ll be the ones who gain the most from it. If we stubbornly persist, maybe the ones who make it to the end will be us.

Thank you, everyone.

Li Guangmi (Moderator): Thank you, Professor Tang. We also want to call on more resources and capital to be invested into China’s AGI industry — more compute, so that more young AI researchers can use GPUs, maybe for three to five years. It’s possible that in three to five years, China will have three to five of its own Ilyas [Ilysa Sutskever]. That’s what we’re really looking forward to.

Thank you all very much!

AGI-Next: Outlook
Speaker: Zhang Bo 张钹 (Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Professor at Tsinghua University)

What is our goal?
In the past, artificial intelligence was simply a tool. Today, we are in a deeply contradictory situation: on the one hand, we want AI to take on more and more complex tasks; on the other, we fear that it may surpass us and become a new kind of subject in its own right. This creates widespread anxiety. In the past, we only had one subject—humanity—and even that was difficult to manage, because humanity is plural rather than singular: each subject has different demands. If non-human subjects emerge, what should we do? How should we coexist with artificial intelligence? And how should we address these concerns?

In fact, future subjects can be divided into three levels.

First, functional or action-oriented subjects.

This is a stage we have already reached — and one we actively welcome— because it can be genuinely helpful to us.

Second, normative or responsibility subjects.
We have not yet reached this stage. One of the greatest difficulties is how to make machines capable of bearing responsibility. This is something we hope to achieve, but from the current situation, it is quite difficult — the technical challenges are very high. But I believe everyone will continue striving toward this.

Third, experiential–conscious subjects.
This is what people fear most. Once machines have consciousness, what should humans do?

If we are people actually running companies, we may not need to think that far ahead — we can focus on the first and second levels. But there are two issues that must be considered: alignment and governance.

The question of alignment has been discussed a lot. Must machines align with humans? This is a question worth discussing. Humans do not only have virtues; humans are also greedy and deceptive — machines originally had none of these traits. If machines align with humans, are humans already the highest standard? Clearly not.

As for governance, I believe the most important governance is not the governance of machines, but the governance of humans — namely, researchers and users.

This involves the responsibilities that enterprises and entrepreneurs in the AI era should bear.

Before large language models appeared, I strongly opposed my students starting businesses. Some students’ parents even agreed with me. But after large language models, I believe the most outstanding students should start businesses because artificial intelligence has redefined what it means to be an entrepreneur. As I mentioned earlier, artificial intelligence will define everything, and it will also define the entrepreneurs of the future.

In the future, entrepreneurs will need to take on six kinds of responsibilities. Let me briefly talk about one of them: redefining how value is created. Artificial intelligence is not simply about delivering products or services. Instead, it transforms knowledge, ethics, and applications into reusable tools that can benefit humanity. This represents a fundamental shift. AI should be treated as a general-purpose technology—like water or electricity—made broadly available to society. That places very high demands on entrepreneurs. Beyond building companies, they must also take responsibility for governance and for advancing inclusive and sustainable growth.

Therefore, entrepreneurs in the AI era carry many new missions. And it is precisely these missions that make entrepreneurship — and entrepreneurs themselves — honorable, even sacred, professions.

Thank you, everyone.

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: