A Western Scholar's Field Notes from Visiting Chinese AI Labs: Humility, Openness, No Philosophy, Just Wanting to Train Better Models

marsbitPublished on 2026-05-08Last updated on 2026-05-08

Abstract

An Impressed Western Scholar's Observations from a Tour of Chinese AI Labs: Humility, Openness, and Pragmatism A visiting Western academic's key takeaways from touring numerous Chinese AI companies highlight striking differences from the US ecosystem. Researchers in China displayed deep humility, frequently praising competitors like DeepSeek with genuine admiration. They operate in a remarkably open and collaborative atmosphere, often sharing research publicly, contrasting with the more guarded, zero-sum competition perceived in the West. The primary focus is intensely pragmatic: training better models. Philosophical debates about AI's societal impact or consciousness are largely absent; the drive is purely technical. Researchers are young, often PhD students working in industry, and are highly online and tool-savvy. Their passion is palpable when users engage with their models. Public sentiment also differs, with Chinese citizens showing greater optimism about AI's benefits compared to Western skepticism. While major closed-source players exist, the prevalence of open-source models fosters a unique cooperative spirit. The visit left the author optimistic about the future of open AI research and hopeful for increased international collaboration.

Author:Florian Brand

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide TechFlow Introduction: The context of this article is that SAIL (a media alliance that brings together top AI writers from Substack, including members like Nathan Lambert, Sebastian Raschka, ChinaTalk, etc.) organized a visit to Chinese AI labs. The author, Florian, joined the group and visited over a dozen companies including Moon's Dark Side, Xiaomi, MiniMax, Zhipu AI, Meituan, Alibaba, Ant Group, ModelScope, 01.AI, Unitree Robotics, and others. These are his impressions.

Florian Brand is a PhD student at Trier University and the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), focusing on the application and evaluation of large language models.

While not "famous" per se, he has some visibility within the open-source AI community. It's quite interesting to see the Chinese AI ecosystem from the first-person perspective of a foreign AI practitioner.

Main Text

For the past 10 days or so, I've had the privilege of visiting AI labs in China with my SAIL companions. As someone who visited both China and the US for the first time in six months, I found the differences fascinating, but the similarities were even more so.

What left the strongest impression on me was how humble all the AI researchers I met were.

They spoke highly of other labs and their peers. DeepSeek was mentioned frequently, likely because they had just released a model a few days before our visit. People talked about DeepSeek's paper with genuine admiration.

Many researchers are close friends with each other, hailing from the same university or hometown. They discuss their work candidly, with research results published as papers months later.

This is one of the biggest differences from the Western AI scene. In the U.S., the atmosphere often feels more like a zero-sum game. Labs are careful about positioning. Researchers think about competition, and some hold themselves in high regard. Leaders insult and attack each other in leaked memos. This difference might be explained by the fact that leading U.S. labs are closed-source, while many Chinese labs are open-source. Chinese labs have "a healthy respect" for ByteDance's Doubao, the most widely used chatbot, which is closed-source and holds a significant lead.

Meanwhile, the overall atmosphere is strikingly similar to San Francisco. Researchers are extremely online, reading extensively on Twitter and the increasingly popular Xiaohongshu. They all use Claude Code or their own CLIs to build the next model. Some monitored training runs during our meetings, watching the reward curves climb. They are thinking about further scaling and complaining about insufficient compute. They are frustrated with the current state of benchmarks.

Their main focus is training better models. This differs from San Francisco, where researchers ponder the political or philosophical implications of AI. They don't think about mass unemployment, a permanent underclass, or whether their models are conscious. They just want to train excellent models.

Their eyes light up when they hear you've used their model. They are eager to fix all the flaws of the current model in the next generation. They work overnight to push out model releases, yet still show up in the office afterwards.

Most researchers I met were young, many in their early 20s or around 25. Some were undergraduates, but more commonly they were PhD students working in the industry simultaneously. The consensus was that the industry is more interesting than academia right now, a view I strongly share, as I've done exactly the same thing. Labs place great importance on acquiring this kind of talent, actively recruiting interns and graduate students; something Western labs often don't do.

The researchers' optimism extends to the general public, who seem much more optimistic about technology and the future of AI and robotics. During the trip, people shared stories about their parents and grandparents using Doubao and DeepSeek for all sorts of tasks, including discussing mathematical theorems. This is noticeably different from the West, where the general public harbors animosity towards AI.

Overall, this trip gave me a tiny glimpse into this ecosystem. It's impossible to understand the culture of such a vast civilization in a few days. As a strong supporter of an open AI ecosystem and open research, I'm very optimistic about the future of both and hope for a lot of international collaboration ahead.

I want to thank all the amazing people we met at Moon's Dark Side, Xiaomi, MiniMax, Zhipu AI, Meituan, Alibaba, Ant Group's Lingxi, ModelScope, 01.AI, Unitree Robotics, and other places. Thank you for your time and warm hospitality. Also, thank you to SAIL for organizing the trip and to all the writers and journalists who participated. I'm incredibly grateful to have met so many outstanding and driven individuals in such a short time.

Related Questions

QWhat is the most prominent difference between the attitudes of AI researchers in China and those in the West, as described in the article?

AThe most prominent difference is the mindset and focus. Chinese AI researchers were described as humble, collaborative, and openly admiring of each other's work, with a primary focus on simply training better models. In contrast, the Western AI scene (particularly the US) is portrayed as more of a zero-sum game, with labs being guarded about their positioning, researchers thinking about competition, and a greater tendency for leaders to engage in public disputes. Western researchers are also noted to spend more time contemplating the political and philosophical implications of AI.

QAccording to the author's observations, what is the primary focus of the AI researchers he met in China?

AThe primary and overwhelming focus of the AI researchers in China is on training better models. They are intensely practical, thinking about scaling, complaining about insufficient compute, and are frustrated with the current state of benchmarks. Unlike their Western counterparts, they do not spend significant time considering large-scale philosophical or political questions about AI, such as unemployment, societal class structures, or machine consciousness.

QHow does the article characterize the relationship between Chinese AI labs and the concept of 'open source'?

AThe article notes that many leading Chinese AI labs are open source, which is presented as a key factor contributing to their collaborative and less secretive culture. This is contrasted with the US, where leading labs are largely closed-source. The article mentions that even within China, the closed-source chatbot 'Doubao' from ByteDance is viewed with some apprehension by other labs due to its large lead and widespread usage.

QWhat demographic trend did the author observe among the researchers he met in Chinese AI labs?

AThe author observed that most of the researchers he met were very young, often in their early 20s or around 25 years old. Many were undergraduates or, more commonly, PhD students who were simultaneously working in the industry. There was a consensus that industry work is more interesting than academia, a view the author shares. Chinese labs actively recruit such young talent through internships and graduate programs, a practice the author notes is not common among Western labs.

QHow does the public sentiment towards AI in China compare to that in the West, based on the author's account?

ABased on anecdotal stories shared during the trip, the general public in China appears to be more optimistic and positive about technology and the prospects of AI and robotics. The author heard stories of parents and grandparents using AI chatbots like Doubao and DeepSeek for various practical tasks. This stands in stark contrast to the West, where the author states there is a prevailing sentiment of 'distaste' for AI among the general public.

Related Reads

Smart Money Hoards $40 Billion in Cash, Retail Bets $2.6 Trillion on Calls: The Critical Moment of the US Stock Market's AI Narrative

Title: Smart Money Hoards $40 Billion in Cash, Retail Traders Bet $2.6 Trillion on Call Options: The Tipping Point for the AI Narrative in U.S. Stocks The U.S. stock market is experiencing a striking divergence. While the S&P 500 hits new highs, the financial sector is down 6% year-to-date, underperforming more than during the 2008 and COVID crises. In contrast, a record $2.6 trillion in S&P 500 call options traded in a single day, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index RSI is at its highest since 1999. This reflects a clear split: "smart money" is retreating while retail traders chase gains. Key data points highlight this critical juncture in the AI-driven rally: 1. SoftBank had to cut its $10 billion loan target against its OpenAI stake to $6 billion, as lenders questioned the valuation of the private AI giant, signaling primary market skepticism. 2. The explosive $2.6 trillion daily options volume, with 60% being calls, is described by a Goldman Sachs partner as a "semi-irrational chase," drawing parallels to the 1999 tech bubble. 3. The financial sector's severe underperformance relative to the S&P 500 is a classic technical warning signal, indicating potential underlying economic stress. 4. Apollo Global Management, despite strong earnings, is building a $40 billion cash buffer in its insurance business, preparing for what its CEO calls a 30-35% probability of an exogenous shock from geopolitics, inflation, and AI's economic disruption. 5. Consumer behavior mirrors this split: while Whirlpool plunged on a worsening macro outlook for big-ticket items, DoorDash rose on strong demand for small, immediate services. Together, these conflicting signals from primary markets, secondary markets, leading sectors, and top institutions suggest market risk premia have compressed to a precarious level. The current price action may be increasingly reliant on speculative sentiment rather than fundamental support, marking a potential tipping point for the AI investment narrative.

marsbit20m ago

Smart Money Hoards $40 Billion in Cash, Retail Bets $2.6 Trillion on Calls: The Critical Moment of the US Stock Market's AI Narrative

marsbit20m ago

Tiger Research: AI Agents Will Now Need Identity Verification

Tiger Research: AI Agents Now Need "ID Verification" AI agents are increasingly capable of autonomously executing contracts, making payments, and conducting trades. However, a critical issue remains unresolved: how to verify the identity of the agent on the other side of a transaction. This article examines the emerging competition to establish a KYA (Know Your Agent) standard and the current state of regulatory progress. **Core Points:** 1. As AI agents operate independently in A2A (agent-to-agent) scenarios, the focus shifts from KYC (Know Your Customer) to KYA for identity verification. 2. KYA is not universally required; it's essential primarily when independently deployed agents interact with open ecosystems like DEXs, engage in A2A payments, or pay merchants, not within centralized platforms. 3. A standards battle is underway, with four key players approaching KYA from different angles: * **ERC-8004:** A blockchain-native approach, creating agent IDs as NFTs with on-chain registries for identity, reputation, and validation. * **Visa TAP:** Leverages Visa's payment network to issue verified "Agent Intent" credentials, bundling agent identity into its payment rails. * **Trulioo:** Adapts the SSL certificate model to issue dynamic "Digital Agent Passports," verifying both developer (KYB) and user (KYC) credentials. * **Sumsub:** Focuses on real-time risk detection and re-verification of the human behind an agent during suspicious transactions, rather than pre-issuing certificates. 4. Regulatory momentum is building. The EU AI Act, the U.S. NIST, and Singapore's national AI governance framework are prioritizing agent identity management. The rollout of KYA standards is likely to follow a pattern similar to the FATF Travel Rule, becoming a watershed moment for the industry. The market is unlikely to have a single winner. Different approaches will dominate specific niches: ERC-8004 for on-chain autonomous transactions, Visa TAP for payment-bound commerce, Trulioo for regulated finance, and Sumsub for fraud-prone scenarios. The key differentiator will be which players successfully integrate their identity infrastructure earliest as adoption scales.

marsbit1h ago

Tiger Research: AI Agents Will Now Need Identity Verification

marsbit1h ago

Perspective: The current AI supercycle will last 15 years, but most are still buying stocks in the first FOMO stage

This article outlines a 15-year AI supercycle, segmented into four investment stages. It argues that while most investors are still focused on the first stage, smart money is already moving to the third. **Stage 1: The Foundation (2023-2025) - Priced In** The semiconductor layer (e.g., NVIDIA, AMD) is complete. While growth continues, the historic entry opportunity is over as risk/reward has compressed. **Stage 2: The Build-Out (2025-2027) - In Progress** This phase involves building the necessary physical infrastructure: power/utilities (CEG), cooling (VRT), networking (ANET), and nuclear SMRs (OKLO, SMR). Significant upside remains, but obvious names have already moved. **Stage 3: The Asymmetric Bet (2026-2028) - Positioning Window** AI moves into the physical world. Key areas include robotics/autonomy (Tesla Optimus), space/defense/drones (Rocket Lab, LUNR), and critical materials. This stage presents the best asymmetric risk/reward and is where positioning should occur now. **Stage 4: The Endgame (2028+) - Software Dominance** The mega-cap cloud platforms (Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta), with their massive capital expenditure, will build the AI software layer and AGI infrastructure, aiming to win the entire cycle. **Core Conclusion:** The cycle is confirmed in Stage 2. Stage 3 (robotics, space, defense, nuclear SMRs) is where capital is currently rotating for maximum opportunity, while the majority of investors are expected to be 12 months behind this shift.

marsbit1h ago

Perspective: The current AI supercycle will last 15 years, but most are still buying stocks in the first FOMO stage

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片