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.

Trending Cryptos

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

Earning Six Figures and Still Struggling to Rent in San Francisco

A couple in San Francisco with a combined tech income over $360,000 struggled for months to find a one-bedroom apartment under $5,000 per month. Their story highlights how the AI wealth boom, driven by upcoming IPOs from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, is dramatically escalating the city's cost of living. Even six-figure salaries are becoming insufficient for a comfortable lifestyle. The article details the financial reality for tech workers earning around $180,000 annually. After taxes, retirement contributions, and healthcare, take-home pay is roughly $7,000 per month. With average rents exceeding $3,800 and one-bedrooms often costing $4,500-$5,200, discretionary income shrinks to $1,500-$2,500. This contrasts sharply with reported median total compensations of $640,000 at OpenAI and $420,000 at Anthropic. The AI gold rush is identified as the primary driver. The scale of potential wealth from these IPOs, far surpassing previous tech booms, is flooding the housing market. Data shows San Francisco's average rent is now the highest in the U.S., with vacancy rates in desirable neighborhoods plummeting to around 3%. The overall cost of living is 65.6% above the national average. The piece features multiple professionals, including a 25-year-old with a $250,000 salary, facing housing instability, fierce competition for rentals, and a persistent, low-grade financial anxiety despite high earnings. It concludes that the rapid concentration of AI wealth is redefining what constitutes a "high salary" in San Francisco, pushing out mid-tier tech talent and creating a stark divide between those in the AI sector and everyone else.

marsbit1h ago

Earning Six Figures and Still Struggling to Rent in San Francisco

marsbit1h ago

Rate Hikes to Save STRC, Selling Bitcoin to Preserve Credit: Strategy Picks Its Two Most Expensive Paths

Over the past six weeks, Strategy has faced a significant crisis of confidence, with its core securities MSTR and STRC experiencing sharp price declines. The situation escalated as the company utilized dollar reserves intended for dividends and interest payments to repurchase debt, and then sold a small amount of Bitcoin for the first time since 2022—an action that contradicted its "never sell" narrative and signaled potential liquidity strain. In response, Strategy introduced a Digital Credit capital framework. This formalized a series of measures to manage the pressure down its capital structure: ordinary shareholders have already borne costs through equity dilution from an $11.5 billion ATM offering; new rules enforce a hard dollar reserve covering at least 12 months of expected dividend and interest payments; the STRC dividend rate was increased from 11.5% to 12%; and, most notably, Bitcoin was officially integrated into the capital toolkit, with board authorization to sell up to $1.25 billion worth if needed to support obligations and repurchase programs. The market reacted with a mix of relief and skepticism. While the announcement triggered a sharp single-day rally in both MSTR and STRC, the preferred shares still trade at a significant discount. Supporters view the framework as pragmatic crisis management that provides a price floor and clearer rules. Critics argue that institutionalizing Bitcoin sales undermines the core investment thesis and, with Bitcoin's price below the company's average cost basis, amounts to selling assets at a loss to maintain its financial structure. The broader context shows institutional Bitcoin buying drying up, highlighting that Strategy's challenges and new framework are now a key indicator for overall market risk sentiment. Ultimately, the framework buys time, but STRC's return to par value depends on market belief in the company's ability to cover dividends without further dilution or substantial Bitcoin sales—a task that would be easier if Bitcoin's price recovers.

链捕手1h ago

Rate Hikes to Save STRC, Selling Bitcoin to Preserve Credit: Strategy Picks Its Two Most Expensive Paths

链捕手1h ago

Has Bitcoin Bottomed? Unpacking 12 Key Data Indicators

Author: BitalkNews **Title: Has Bitcoin Bottomed? Analyzing 12 Key Data Indicators** The current Bitcoin price is around $59,600, representing a maximum drawdown of approximately 53% from the 2025 high. The market is in a deep correction phase. Multiple indicators suggest valuations are nearing historical lows, but a confirmed bottom requires more time. **Summary of Key Indicators:** 1. **Fear & Greed Index:** At 16, indicating "Extreme Fear," similar to levels seen during the 2022 FTX collapse. 2. **Rainbow Chart:** BTC has fallen into the "Bitcoin is dead" zone, only the second such occurrence historically. 3. **MVRV Ratio:** Currently around 1.13, near the lower historical band, pointing to a bottoming valuation area (approx. $53,200-$53,400). 4. **Realized Price:** The aggregate cost basis is ~$53,400; the current price is only about 12% above it but hasn't broken below yet. 5. **UTXO Profit/Loss Ratio:** Has dropped to its lowest level this cycle, signaling a potential "capitulation" event often seen near cycle bottoms. 6. **Long-Term Holder SOPR:** For holders >155 days, it's at 0.662, now negative, indicating seasoned investors are selling at a loss. 7. & 8. **Miner Health:** ~20% of miners are unprofitable, and actual miner revenue is below theoretical levels, indicating ongoing miner stress. 9. **ETF Flows:** U.S. spot BTC ETFs have seen sustained net outflows, including a 13-day streak with over $1.7B in weekly outflows. 10. **Strategy Risk:** Strategy's stock premium has significantly contracted, pressuring the traditional "borrow-to-buy" model. 11. **Bear Duration & Drawdown:** The correction has lasted >265 days with a ~52.5% drawdown, shorter in depth but lengthy in duration. 12. **Market Expectations (Polymarket):** Betting markets suggest an ~80% probability of BTC falling below $55,000 and a notable chance below $50,000. **Conclusion:** Bitcoin is in a deep correction with potential bottom formation. Valuation metrics are in historically low ranges, and on-chain capitulation signals are accumulating. However, a complete shakeout isn't finished—the realized price hasn't been breached, and ETF demand hasn't reversed. The area below $60,000 holds long-term appeal, but patience is advised. Key signals to watch for include a return to ETF inflows, a recovery in the Long-Term Holder SOPR, and easing miner pressure.

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin Bottomed? Unpacking 12 Key Data Indicators

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot

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