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

Why Does the Term 'Year of AI Computing Power Realization' Have Pitfalls? —Understanding the Four Hurdles from Policy Signals to Actual Orders in One Article

This article critiques the phrase "The First Year of AI Computing Power Cashing In," arguing it oversimplifies a complex, multi-stage process. It proposes a "Four Gates" framework to assess the true commercialization of domestic AI computing power (like Huawei's Ascend chips): 1. **Policy Procurement:** Widely open in 2026. Significant government funding and large bulk orders from tech giants like Alibaba and Tencent exist. However, purchasing hardware is not the same as deploying it for real use. 2. **Real Deployment:** A crack has opened. The key evidence is DeepSeek V4, a top-tier AI model fully migrating from NVIDIA's CUDA to domestic computing platforms. This proves the capability for real, high-level tasks, but widespread adoption beyond leading tech firms is still nascent. 3. **Mature Software Ecosystem:** A narrow crack has opened. While frameworks like Huawei's CANN are progressing, they lag far behind NVIDIA's vast, established CUDA ecosystem in terms of supported models and developer ease-of-use. Building this middle-to-downstream developer environment is estimated to need 1-2 more years. 4. **Scalable Replication:** Essentially closed. This final gate, where thousands of mid-sized enterprises across various industries can easily adopt the technology without major migration costs, is not expected before 2027-2028. The core risk is conflating these stages. While 2026 marks a real turning point in policy-driven procurement and proving technical viability (Gates 1 & 2), the phrase "cashing in" is premature for the full industry. True, large-scale value realization depends on the later, slower-to-open gates of software maturity and scalable replication to the broader market. DeepSeek V4's shift is identified as the most critical 2026 signal, changing the narrative from "can it work?" to "when will supply meet demand?"

marsbit27m ago

Why Does the Term 'Year of AI Computing Power Realization' Have Pitfalls? —Understanding the Four Hurdles from Policy Signals to Actual Orders in One Article

marsbit27m 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