×

tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024.

Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.

The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

“I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately.

These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

“I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote.

Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity.

What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.

President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video.

I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real.

In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.

#A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence"> A16Z Brags That Its AI Is Great for Poisoning the Internet With Fake Tech History Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026. Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024. Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic. Turns out that Flux 3 is exceptional at generating historical footage… like elementary school students in the ’90s predicting how we’ll use computers. (the last girl is my favorite!) pic.twitter.com/oH6qJy8AQU — Justine Moore (@venturetwins) July 28, 2026 The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films. “I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately. These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical. “I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote. Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity. What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim? This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action. President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video. I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real. In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point. #A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence
Tech-news

tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024.

Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.

The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

“I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately.

These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

“I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote.

Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity.

What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.

President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video.

I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real.

In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.

#A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence">A16Z Brags That Its AI Is Great for Poisoning the Internet With Fake Tech HistoryA16Z Brags That Its AI Is Great for Poisoning the Internet With Fake Tech History Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026. Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024. Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic. Turns out that Flux 3 is exceptional at generating historical footage… like elementary school students in the ’90s predicting how we’ll use computers. (the last girl is my favorite!) pic.twitter.com/oH6qJy8AQU — Justine Moore (@venturetwins) July 28, 2026 The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films. “I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately. These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical. “I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote. Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity. What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim? This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action. President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video. I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real. In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point. #A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence

Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026.

Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024.

Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.

The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

“I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately.

These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

“I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote.

Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity.

What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.

President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video.

I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real.

In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.

#A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence

Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would…

Chinese AI models like Kimi K3 and DeepSeek R1 came out of nowhere. But the truth is that even if you never travel to China, there’s an easy way to get a sense of what Chinese AI researchers are up to: log on to X.

In the past year, I’ve seen a steady increase of Chinese artificial intelligence researchers joining X and participating in the wider discourse about AI development and commercialization. Take Moonshot AI, the company behind Kimi K3, as an example. On Thursday, I was able to quickly find around 30 accounts on X run by people who claim to be currently affiliated with Moonshot, including two of the startup’s cofounders, as well as half a dozen former employees and collaborators. And these are not dormant accounts: They talk about Moonshot’s big releases and incremental research papers, make friends with Western researchers, and share details about their personal life and hobbies.

Moonshot is arguably the Chinese AI lab that’s most active on X, but you will easily find executives and technical staff from other leading Chinese startups, like Minimax and Z.ai. Even several employees at DeepSeek, who reportedly are unable to leave China because the government confiscated their passports, regularly post on X about the latest AI news and share job listings to recruit new talent.

“X is the best community” for AI discussions right now, says Meng Fanqing, cofounder of the startup Evolvent AI and a former intern at Moonshot, where he worked on the Kimi K2.5 model. “There are both Chinese and overseas audiences, and the recommendation algorithm works pretty well for showing you content in the same circle that you are in,” he says. Compared with Chinese platforms, where it’s often hard to have serious technical discussions, Chinese researchers like Meng say they would rather spend their time on X.

Meng says he started actively posting on X in mid-2025. At the start of the year, DeepSeek’s R1 model went viral around the world, shining a bright spotlight on China’s AI industry. Many Chinese researchers seized the moment and joined X to start sharing their perspective. “Around that time, all the Chinese researchers are starting to think about branding on an international level,” Meng says.

Chinese AI researchers may also be helping fill a growing gap left by researchers at OpenAI and Anthropic, who have become more reluctant to share their thinking online as their employers have grown into behemoth companies, says Tiezhen Wang, an independent AI analyst and former researcher at Hugging Face. “I guess they feel that their model architecture and how they train the model is kind of a secret, so they’re posting less,” Wang explains. As a result, Chinese researchers are getting more attention from audiences on X who are hungry to make sense of what’s happening in the fast-moving world of AI.

Why Choose X?

One reason X may have become popular among Chinese AI researchers is that there’s not really a comparable social platform in China for high-quality technical discussions about AI and other emerging technologies.

Some people say they used to post on Zhihu, a Quora-like platform that once branded itself as the premier destination for educated professionals to show and tell. But since 2020, Zhihu has increasingly pivoted to hosting fiction content, and expert contributors have gradually fallen off. For example, Deng Yu, a Chinese mathematician who was awarded a Fields Medal this year, publicly wrote on Zhihu in 2018 that he decided to stop posting on the site due to the rise of low-quality content.

#Chinese #Researchers #Finding #Voicemade in china,china,artificial intelligence,x,twitter,rednote,deepseek"> Chinese AI Researchers Are Finding Their Voice on XThe prevailing narrative in Silicon Valley is that Chinese AI models like Kimi K3 and DeepSeek R1 came out of nowhere. But the truth is that even if you never travel to China, there’s an easy way to get a sense of what Chinese AI researchers are up to: log on to X.In the past year, I’ve seen a steady increase of Chinese artificial intelligence researchers joining X and participating in the wider discourse about AI development and commercialization. Take Moonshot AI, the company behind Kimi K3, as an example. On Thursday, I was able to quickly find around 30 accounts on X run by people who claim to be currently affiliated with Moonshot, including two of the startup’s cofounders, as well as half a dozen former employees and collaborators. And these are not dormant accounts: They talk about Moonshot’s big releases and incremental research papers, make friends with Western researchers, and share details about their personal life and hobbies.Moonshot is arguably the Chinese AI lab that’s most active on X, but you will easily find executives and technical staff from other leading Chinese startups, like Minimax and Z.ai. Even several employees at DeepSeek, who reportedly are unable to leave China because the government confiscated their passports, regularly post on X about the latest AI news and share job listings to recruit new talent.“X is the best community” for AI discussions right now, says Meng Fanqing, cofounder of the startup Evolvent AI and a former intern at Moonshot, where he worked on the Kimi K2.5 model. “There are both Chinese and overseas audiences, and the recommendation algorithm works pretty well for showing you content in the same circle that you are in,” he says. Compared with Chinese platforms, where it’s often hard to have serious technical discussions, Chinese researchers like Meng say they would rather spend their time on X.Meng says he started actively posting on X in mid-2025. At the start of the year, DeepSeek’s R1 model went viral around the world, shining a bright spotlight on China’s AI industry. Many Chinese researchers seized the moment and joined X to start sharing their perspective. “Around that time, all the Chinese researchers are starting to think about branding on an international level,” Meng says.Chinese AI researchers may also be helping fill a growing gap left by researchers at OpenAI and Anthropic, who have become more reluctant to share their thinking online as their employers have grown into behemoth companies, says Tiezhen Wang, an independent AI analyst and former researcher at Hugging Face. “I guess they feel that their model architecture and how they train the model is kind of a secret, so they’re posting less,” Wang explains. As a result, Chinese researchers are getting more attention from audiences on X who are hungry to make sense of what’s happening in the fast-moving world of AI.Why Choose X?One reason X may have become popular among Chinese AI researchers is that there’s not really a comparable social platform in China for high-quality technical discussions about AI and other emerging technologies.Some people say they used to post on Zhihu, a Quora-like platform that once branded itself as the premier destination for educated professionals to show and tell. But since 2020, Zhihu has increasingly pivoted to hosting fiction content, and expert contributors have gradually fallen off. For example, Deng Yu, a Chinese mathematician who was awarded a Fields Medal this year, publicly wrote on Zhihu in 2018 that he decided to stop posting on the site due to the rise of low-quality content.#Chinese #Researchers #Finding #Voicemade in china,china,artificial intelligence,x,twitter,rednote,deepseek
Tech-news

Chinese AI models like Kimi K3 and DeepSeek R1 came out of nowhere. But the truth is that even if you never travel to China, there’s an easy way to get a sense of what Chinese AI researchers are up to: log on to X.

In the past year, I’ve seen a steady increase of Chinese artificial intelligence researchers joining X and participating in the wider discourse about AI development and commercialization. Take Moonshot AI, the company behind Kimi K3, as an example. On Thursday, I was able to quickly find around 30 accounts on X run by people who claim to be currently affiliated with Moonshot, including two of the startup’s cofounders, as well as half a dozen former employees and collaborators. And these are not dormant accounts: They talk about Moonshot’s big releases and incremental research papers, make friends with Western researchers, and share details about their personal life and hobbies.

Moonshot is arguably the Chinese AI lab that’s most active on X, but you will easily find executives and technical staff from other leading Chinese startups, like Minimax and Z.ai. Even several employees at DeepSeek, who reportedly are unable to leave China because the government confiscated their passports, regularly post on X about the latest AI news and share job listings to recruit new talent.

“X is the best community” for AI discussions right now, says Meng Fanqing, cofounder of the startup Evolvent AI and a former intern at Moonshot, where he worked on the Kimi K2.5 model. “There are both Chinese and overseas audiences, and the recommendation algorithm works pretty well for showing you content in the same circle that you are in,” he says. Compared with Chinese platforms, where it’s often hard to have serious technical discussions, Chinese researchers like Meng say they would rather spend their time on X.

Meng says he started actively posting on X in mid-2025. At the start of the year, DeepSeek’s R1 model went viral around the world, shining a bright spotlight on China’s AI industry. Many Chinese researchers seized the moment and joined X to start sharing their perspective. “Around that time, all the Chinese researchers are starting to think about branding on an international level,” Meng says.

Chinese AI researchers may also be helping fill a growing gap left by researchers at OpenAI and Anthropic, who have become more reluctant to share their thinking online as their employers have grown into behemoth companies, says Tiezhen Wang, an independent AI analyst and former researcher at Hugging Face. “I guess they feel that their model architecture and how they train the model is kind of a secret, so they’re posting less,” Wang explains. As a result, Chinese researchers are getting more attention from audiences on X who are hungry to make sense of what’s happening in the fast-moving world of AI.

Why Choose X?

One reason X may have become popular among Chinese AI researchers is that there’s not really a comparable social platform in China for high-quality technical discussions about AI and other emerging technologies.

Some people say they used to post on Zhihu, a Quora-like platform that once branded itself as the premier destination for educated professionals to show and tell. But since 2020, Zhihu has increasingly pivoted to hosting fiction content, and expert contributors have gradually fallen off. For example, Deng Yu, a Chinese mathematician who was awarded a Fields Medal this year, publicly wrote on Zhihu in 2018 that he decided to stop posting on the site due to the rise of low-quality content.

#Chinese #Researchers #Finding #Voicemade in china,china,artificial intelligence,x,twitter,rednote,deepseek">Chinese AI Researchers Are Finding Their Voice on X

The prevailing narrative in Silicon Valley is that Chinese AI models like Kimi K3 and DeepSeek R1 came out of nowhere. But the truth is that even if you never travel to China, there’s an easy way to get a sense of what Chinese AI researchers are up to: log on to X.

In the past year, I’ve seen a steady increase of Chinese artificial intelligence researchers joining X and participating in the wider discourse about AI development and commercialization. Take Moonshot AI, the company behind Kimi K3, as an example. On Thursday, I was able to quickly find around 30 accounts on X run by people who claim to be currently affiliated with Moonshot, including two of the startup’s cofounders, as well as half a dozen former employees and collaborators. And these are not dormant accounts: They talk about Moonshot’s big releases and incremental research papers, make friends with Western researchers, and share details about their personal life and hobbies.

Moonshot is arguably the Chinese AI lab that’s most active on X, but you will easily find executives and technical staff from other leading Chinese startups, like Minimax and Z.ai. Even several employees at DeepSeek, who reportedly are unable to leave China because the government confiscated their passports, regularly post on X about the latest AI news and share job listings to recruit new talent.

“X is the best community” for AI discussions right now, says Meng Fanqing, cofounder of the startup Evolvent AI and a former intern at Moonshot, where he worked on the Kimi K2.5 model. “There are both Chinese and overseas audiences, and the recommendation algorithm works pretty well for showing you content in the same circle that you are in,” he says. Compared with Chinese platforms, where it’s often hard to have serious technical discussions, Chinese researchers like Meng say they would rather spend their time on X.

Meng says he started actively posting on X in mid-2025. At the start of the year, DeepSeek’s R1 model went viral around the world, shining a bright spotlight on China’s AI industry. Many Chinese researchers seized the moment and joined X to start sharing their perspective. “Around that time, all the Chinese researchers are starting to think about branding on an international level,” Meng says.

Chinese AI researchers may also be helping fill a growing gap left by researchers at OpenAI and Anthropic, who have become more reluctant to share their thinking online as their employers have grown into behemoth companies, says Tiezhen Wang, an independent AI analyst and former researcher at Hugging Face. “I guess they feel that their model architecture and how they train the model is kind of a secret, so they’re posting less,” Wang explains. As a result, Chinese researchers are getting more attention from audiences on X who are hungry to make sense of what’s happening in the fast-moving world of AI.

Why Choose X?

One reason X may have become popular among Chinese AI researchers is that there’s not really a comparable social platform in China for high-quality technical discussions about AI and other emerging technologies.

Some people say they used to post on Zhihu, a Quora-like platform that once branded itself as the premier destination for educated professionals to show and tell. But since 2020, Zhihu has increasingly pivoted to hosting fiction content, and expert contributors have gradually fallen off. For example, Deng Yu, a Chinese mathematician who was awarded a Fields Medal this year, publicly wrote on Zhihu in 2018 that he decided to stop posting on the site due to the rise of low-quality content.

#Chinese #Researchers #Finding #Voicemade in china,china,artificial intelligence,x,twitter,rednote,deepseek

The prevailing narrative in Silicon Valley is that Chinese AI models like Kimi K3 and…

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety"> Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for DominanceI was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety
Tech-news

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety">Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for Dominance

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.

More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I…