WIRED contacted Huawei to ask about its potential role in the subsidies. Huawei did not comment in time for publication.
One of the earliest subsidies appeared online in March, when the Commerce Bureau of Shenzhen Longgang District—the district where Huawei’s headquarters are located—posted that local car buyers can get up to 4,000 RMB (about $560) for buying a car that runs on Huawei’s driver-assistance system. The subsidies will be given out on a first-come, first-served basis until the total budget of 14,000,000 RMB is exhausted, meaning over 3,500 Shenzhen residents could have benefited from it.
Starting in May, many announcements in similar language were subsequently posted by the commerce bureaus in other provinces and municipalities. In China, these commerce bureaus function as consumer regulators and are in charge of distributing government subsidies, including a massive program launched last year to encourage trading in old electronics and cars to help stimulate the economy. The fact that the Huawei subsidies are being announced through the commerce bureaus make them almost indistinguishable from the official government welfare program.
In some cases, like in Henan and Anhui provinces, the subsidies were instead published by provincial auto industry associations. While these are technically private trade groups, the announcements were printed on official-looking letterheads and with red stamps, giving them a sense of authority.
After American trade restrictions devastated Huawei’s global smartphone business and essentially forced it to exit markets outside of China, the tech giant has been trying to reinvent itself. Along with creating the Harmony operating system for smartphones, smart appliances, and cars, it’s also increasingly working on large language models and autonomous driving technologies amid the AI boom.
The company has famously vowed to never make a car itself—unlike its smartphone peer and competitor Xiaomi—but it has partnered with a slew of Chinese auto companies. Huawei’s autonomous driving technology is particularly appealing to Chinese manufacturers that don’t have the capacity to develop self-driving on their own. It’s “technically brand-agnostic, which is attractive for the brands that are struggling to keep up with progress in the intelligent driving space,” says Tu. “Effectively, if you’re desperate and you can’t keep up, you should partner with Huawei in the China market.”
The subsidies have stirred up controversy in China, as they seem to give certain brands a leg up in what has become a brutally competitive EV landscape. As the domestic market saturates, Chinese EV brands have been forced to slash prices and give consumers free tech upgrades or interest-free financing options to stay afloat.
Earlier this year, Beijing signaled that carmakers should avoid using extreme pricing tactics. “The central government ultimately wants to see stable, profitable companies and not a super fragmented industry where nobody’s making any money,” says Ilaria Mazzocco, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has closely studied China’s industrial policy for EVs. “For consumers, this is fantastic right now, but it just isn’t sustainable in the long term.”
Pressure from the central government to avoid fueling price wars may be driving companies to come up with more creative ways to make their cars more affordable. At the same time, Mazzocco says, local governments may view Huawei’s self-driving technology favorably because it fits with another policy goal to develop high-tech manufacturing and self-sufficient AI technologies in China.
Before this year, WIRED could only identify one other similar Huawei car subsidy from 2022. That year, Shenzhen, Huawei’s hometown, was giving out $1,400 per car to people who bought vehicles equipped with HarmonyOS. Huawei didn’t answer questions from WIRED about whether the company was paying for those either.
Source link
#Cities #China #Advertising #Exclusive #Subsidies #HuaweiPowered #Cars
![Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House](https://i1.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/06/GeneralJoshuaRudd-1280x853.jpg?ssl=1 "Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House")
![Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/06/GeneralJoshuaRudd-1280x853.jpg "Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House")
Post Comment