The China Smart, US Dumb Push Is Working
August 7, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read “The US Should Run Faster on AI Instead of Trying to Trip Up China.” In a casual way, I am keeping an eye open for variations on the “China smart, US dumb” information I spot. The idea is that China is not just keeping pace with US innovation, the Middle Kingdom is either even or leading. The context is that the star burning bright for the American era has begun collapsing into a black hole or maybe to a brown dwarf. Avoidance of the US may be the best policy. As one of Brazil’s leaders noted: “America is not bullying our country [Brazil]. America is bullying the world.”
Right or wrong? I have zero idea.
The cited essay suggests that certain technology and economic policies have given China an advantage. The idea is that the disruptive kid in high school sits in the back of the room and thinks up a better Facebook-type system and then implements it.
The write up states:
The ostensible reason for the [technology and economic] controls was to cripple China’s AI progress. If that was the goal, it has been a failure.
As I zipped through the essay, I noted that the premise of the write up is that the US has goofed. The proof of this is no farther than data about China’s capabilities in smart software. I think that any large language model will evidence bias. Bias is encapsulated in many human-created utterances. I, for example, have written critically about search and retrieval for decades. Am I biased toward enterprise search? Absolutely. I know from experience that software that attempts to index content in an organization inevitably disappoints a user of that system. Why? No system to which I have been exposed has access to the totality of “information” generated by an organization. Maybe someday? But for the last 40 years, systems simply could not deliver what the marketers promised. Therefore, I am biased against claims that an enterprise search system can answer employees’ questions.
China is a slippery fish. I had a brief and somewhat weird encounter with a person deeply steeped in China’s somewhat nefarious effort to gain access to US pharma-related data. I have encountered a similar effort afoot in the technical disciplines related to nuclear power. These initiatives illustrate that China wants to be a serious contender for the title of world leader in bio-science and nuclear. Awareness of this type of information access is low even today.
I am, as a dinobaby, concerned that the lack of awareness issue creates more opportunities for information exfiltration from a proprietary source to an “open source” concept. To be frank, I am in favor of a closed approach to technology.
The reason I am making sure I have this source document and my comments is that it is a very good example of how the China good, America dumb information is migrating into what might be termed a more objective looking channel.
Net net: China’s weaponizing of information is working reasonably well. We are no longer in TikTok territory.
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: Is There Any Doubt?
August 1, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I have been identifying some of the “China smart, US dumb” information that I see. I noticed a write up from The Register titled “China Proves That Open Models Are More Effective Than All the GPUs in the World.” My Google-style Red Alert buzzer buzzed and the bubble gum machine lights flashed.
There is was. The “all.” A categorical affirmative. China is doing something that is more than “all the GPUs in the world.” Not only that “open models are more effective” too. I have to hit the off button.
The point of the write up for me is that OpenAI is a loser. I noted this statement:
OpenAI was supposed to make good on its name and release its first open-weights model since GPT-2 this week. Unfortunately, what could have been the US’s first half-decent open model of the year has been held up by a safety review…
But it is not just OpenAI muffing the bunny. The write up points out:
the best open model America has managed so far this year is Meta’s Llama 4, which enjoyed a less than stellar reception and was marred with controversy. Just this week, it was reported that Meta had apparently taken its two-trillion-parameter Behemoth out behind the barn after it failed to live up to expectations.
Do you want to say, “Losers”? Go ahead.
But what outfit is pushing out innovative smart software as open source? Okay, you can shout, “China. The Middle Kingdom. The rightful rulers of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia.
That’s the “right” answer if you accept the “all” type of reasoning in the write up.
China has tallied a number of open source wins; specifically, Deepseek, Qwen, M1, Ernie, and the big winner Kimi.
Do you still have doubts about China’s AI prowess? Something is definitely wrong with you, pilgrim.
Several observations:
- The write up is a very good example of the China smart, US dumb messaging which has made its way from the South China Morning Post to YouTube and now to the Register. One has to say, “Good work to the Chinese strategists.”
- The push for open source is interesting. I am not 100 percent convinced that making these models available is intended to benefit non-Middle Kingdom people. I think that the push, like the shift to crypto currency in non traditional finance, is part of an effort to undermine what might be called “America’s hegemony.”
- The obviousness of overt criticism of OpenAI and Meta (Facebook) illustrates a growing confidence in China that Western European information channels can be exploited.
Does this matter? I think it does. Open source software has some issues. These include its use as a vector for malware. Developers often abandon projects, leaving users high and dry with some reaching for their wallet to buy commercial solutions. Open source projects for smart software may have baked in biases and functions that are not easily spotted. Many people are aware of NSO Group’s ability to penetrate communications on a device by device basis. What happens if the phone home ability is baked into some open source software.
Remember that “all.” The logical fallacy illustrates that some additional thinking may be necessary when it comes to embedding and using software from some countries with very big ambitions. What is China proving? Could it be China smart, US dumb?
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2025
No Big Deal. It Is Just Life or Death. Meh.
July 31, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I am not sure about information from old-fashioned television channels is rock solid, but today what information is? I read “FDA’s Artificial Intelligence Is Supposed to Revolutionize Drug Approvals. It’s Making Up Nonexistent Studies.” Heads up. You may have to pay to read the full write up.
The main idea in the report struck me as:
[Elsa, an AI system deployed by the US Food and Drug Administration] has also made up nonexistent studies, known as AI “hallucinating,” or misrepresented research, according to three current FDA employees and documents seen by CNN. This makes it unreliable for their most critical work, the employees said.
To be fair, some researchers make up data and fiddle with “real” images for some peer reviewed research papers. It makes sense that smart software trained on “publicly available” data would possibly learn that making up information is standard operating procedure.
The cited article does not provide the names and backgrounds of the individuals who provided the information about this smart software. That’s not unusual today.
I did not this anonymous quote:
“Anything that you don’t have time to double-check is unreliable. It hallucinates confidently,” said one employee — a far cry from what has been publicly promised. “AI is supposed to save our time, but I guarantee you that I waste a lot of extra time just due to the heightened vigilance that I have to have” to check for fake or misrepresented studies, a second FDA employee said.
Is this a major problem? Many smart people are working to make AI the next big thing. I have confidence that prudence, accuracy, public safety, and AI user well-being is a priority. Yep, that’s my assumption.
I wish to offer several observations:
- Smart software may need some fine tuning before it becomes the arbiter of certain types of medical treatments, procedures, and compounds.
- AI is definitely free from the annoying hassles of sick leave, health care, and recalcitrance that human employees evidence. Therefore, AI has major benefits by definition.
- Hallucinations are a matter of opinion; for example, humans are creative. Hallucinating software may be demonstrating creativity. Creativity is a net positive; therefore, why worry?
The cited news report stated:
Those who have used it say they have noticed serious problems. For example, it cannot reliably represent studies.
As I said, “Why worry?” Humans make drug errors as well. Example: immunomodulatory drugs like thalidomide. AI may be able to repurpose dome drugs. Net gain. Why worry?
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 20205
Guess Who Coded the Official Messaging App of Russia
July 30, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
The Bloomberg story title “Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin’s Handpicked Super App” caused me to poke around in the information my team and I have collected about “super apps,” encrypted messaging services, and ways the Kremlin wants to get access to any communication by Russian citizens and those living in the country and across the Russian Federation. The Bloomberg story is interesting, but I want to add some color to what seems to be a recent development.
If you answered the question “Guess who coded the official messaging app of Russia?” by saying, “Pavel and Nikolai Durov,” you are mostly correct. The official messaging act is a revamped version of VKontakte, the the Facebook knock off coded by Pavel and Nikolai Durov. By 2011, Kremlin authorities figured out that access to the content on a real time social media service like VK was a great way to stamp out dissent.
The Durovs did not immediately roll over, but by 2013, Pavel Durov folded. He took some cash, left Nikolai at home with mom, and set off to find a place for hospitable to his views of freedom, privacy, security, and living a life not involving a Siberian prison. Pavel Durov, however, has a way of attracting attention from government officials outside of Russia at this time. He is awaiting trial in France for a number of alleged online crimes, including CSAM. (CSAM is in the news in the US recently as well.)
Ongoing discussions with VK and an “integrator” have been underway for years. The Kremlin contracted with Sber and today’s VK to create a mandatory digital service for Russian citizens and anyone in the country buying a mobile phone in Russia. The idea is that with a mandatory messaging app, the Kremlin could access the data that Pavel Durov refused to produce.
The official roll out of the “new”, government-controlled VK service began in June 2025. On September 1, 2025, the new VK app must be pre-installed on any smartphone or tablet sold in the country. Early reports suggested that about one million users had jumped on the “new” messaging app MAX. Max is the post-Durov version of VKontakte without the Pavel Durov obstinacy and yapping about privacy.
The Russian online service https://PCNews.ru published “Ministry of Digital: Reports That the MAX Messenger Will Be Mandatory for Signing Electronic Documents Are Not True.” The write up reports that the “official” messaging service “MAX” will not be required for Russian is not true.
Earlier this week (July 28, 2025):
… the [Russian] government of the Kemerovo region is officially switching to using the Russian MAX messenger for all work communications. Before this, the national messenger began to be implemented in St. Petersburg, as we have already reported, Novosibirsk and Tatarstan. Depending on the region, the platform is used both in government structures and in the field of education. In Russia they want to ensure free and secure transfer of user data from WhatsApp and Telegram instant messengers to the Russian MAX platform. From September 1, 2025, the Max messenger will have to be pre-installed on all smartphones and tablets sold in Russia. In late June 2025, the developers announced that over one million users had registered with Max.
This means that not everything the Kremlin requires will reside on the super app MAX. From a government security vantage point, the decision is a good one. The Kremlin, like other governments, has information it tries hard to keep secret. The approach works until something like Microsoft SharePoint is installed or an outstanding person like Edward Snowden hauls off some sensitive information.
The Russians appear to be quite enthusiastic about the new government responsive super app. Here’s some data to illustrate the level of the survey sample’s enthusiasm.
“The Attitude of Russians Towards the National Messenger Has Become Known” reports:
- 55% of respondents admitted that they would like their data to be stored on Russian servers
- 85% communicate with loved ones using messaging apps
- 49% watch the news
- 47% of respondents use instant messengers for work or study
- 38% of respondents supported the idea of creating a Russian national messenger
- 26% answered that they rather support it
- 19% of respondents admitted that they were indifferent to this topic.
Other findings included:
- 36% of Russians named independence from the departure of foreign services among the advantages of creating a domestic messenger
- 33% appreciate popularization of Russian developments
- 32% see a positive from increasing data security
- 53% of respondents liked the idea when in one service you can not only communicate, but also use government services and order goods.
Will Russians be able to circumvent the mandatory use of MAX? Almost anything set up to cage online users can be circumvented. The Great Firewall of China after years of chatter does not seem to impede the actions of some people living in China from accessing certain online services. At this time, I can see some bright young people poking around online for tips and tricks related to modern proxy services, commodity virtual private networks, and possibly some fancy dancing with specialized hardware.
What about Telegram Messenger, allegedly the most popular encrypted messaging super app in Russia, the Russian Federation, and a chunk of Southeast Asia? My perception is that certain online habits, particularly if they facilitate adult content, contraband transactions, and money laundering are likely to persist. I don’t think it will take long for the “new” MAX super app to be viewed as inappropriate for certain types of online behavior. How long? Maybe five seconds?
Stephen E Arnold, July 30, 2025
Indiscriminate Scanning: Hello, Telegram, This Is for You
July 29, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read a version of the message the European Union is sending to Pavel Durov. This super special human is awaiting trial in France for a couple of minor infractions. Yep, minor as in CSAM. Oh, the French judiciary tossed in a few other crimes.
The EU, following France’s long overdue action, is mustering some oomph, according to “The EU Could Be Scanning Your Chats by October 2025 – Here’s Everything We Know”:
Denmark kicked off its EU Presidency on July 1, 2025, and, among its first actions, lawmakers swiftly reintroduced the controversial child sexual abuse (CSAM) scanning bill to the top of the agenda. Having been deemed by critics as Chat Control, the bill aims to introduce new obligations for all messaging services operating in Europe to scan users’ chats, even if they’re encrypted.
After a three year hiatus, the EU is in “could” and “try” mode. The write up says:
As per its first version, all messaging software providers would be required to perform indiscriminate scanning of private messages to look for CSAM – so-called ‘client-side scanning’. The proposal was met with a strong backlash, and the European Court of Human Rights ended up banning all legal efforts to weaken encryption of secure communications in Europe.
Where does Telegram fit into this “could” initiative?
Telegram semi-encrypts. The idea is that the user’s Messenger mini app encrypts a message, adds routing, and whisks the contents to the user… sort of. Telegram has a command-and-control node which receives the encrypted message, the header, assorted metadata, and then decrypts the message in the Telegram command-and-control center. Why? Good question.
Telegram does support complete end-to-end encryption. The command-and-control center just hands off the encrypted message. There is no slam dunk information available about Telegram’s sucking up the metadata for these EE2E messages which may contain text, rich media, or other content objects.
How will Telegram interpret this “could” move? My view is that the French judiciary may have some ways to realign Mr. Durov’s thinking. I understand that France has some lovely prison facilities like the facilities at the French Foreign Legion headquarters and the salubrious quarters in Africa. I would not suggest these are five star hotel type detainment structures, but Mr. Durov’s attorneys may convince him to reconsider his position as a French citizen under the watchful eye of the French legal system.
Stephen E Arnold, August 29, 2025
Will Apple Do AI in China? Subsidies, Investment, Saluting Too
July 25, 2025
![Dino 5 18 25_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Dino-5-18-25_thumb3-2.gif "Dino 5 18 25_thumb[3]")
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
Apple long ago vowed to use the latest tech to design its hardware. Now that means generative AI. Asia Financial reports, “Apple Keen to Use AI to Design Its Chips, Tech Executive Says.” That tidbit comes from a speech Apple VP Johny Srouji made as he accepted an award from tech R&D group Imec. We learn:
“In the speech, a recording of which was reviewed by Reuters, Srouji outlined Apple’s development of custom chips from the first A4 chip in an iPhone in 2010 to the most recent chips that power Mac desktop computers and the Vision Pro headset. He said one of the key lessons Apple learned was that it needed to use the most cutting-edge tools available to design its chips, including the latest chip design software from electronic design automation (EDA) firms. The two biggest players in that industry – Cadence Design Systems and Synopsys – have been racing to add artificial intelligence to their offerings. ‘EDA companies are super critical in supporting our chip design complexities,’ Srouji said in his remarks. ‘Generative AI techniques have a high potential in getting more design work in less time, and it can be a huge productivity boost.’”
Srouji also noted Apple is one to commit to its choices. The post notes:
“Srouji said another key lesson Apple learned in designing its own chips was to make big bets and not look back. When Apple transitioned its Mac computers – its oldest active product line – from Intel chips to its own chips in 2020, it made no contingency plans in case the switch did not work.”
Yes, that gamble paid off for the polished tech giant. Will this bet be equally advantageous?
Has Apple read “Apple in China”?
Cynthia Murrell, July 25, 2025
A Security Issue? What Security Issue? Security? It Is Just a Normal Business Process.
July 23, 2025
Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way, no smart software.
I zipped through a write up called “A Little-Known Microsoft Program Could Expose the Defense Department to Chinese Hackers.” The word program does not refer to Teams or Word, but to a business process. If you are into government procurement, contractor oversight, and the exiting world of inspector generals, you will want to read the 4000 word plus write up.
Here’s a passage I found interesting:
Microsoft is using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems — with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel — leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary…
The balance of the cited article explain what’s is going on with a business process implemented by Microsoft as part of a government contract. There are lots of quotes, insider jargon like “digital escort,” and suggestions that the whole approach is — how can I summarize it? — ill advised, maybe stupid.
Several observations:
- Someone should purchase a couple of hundred copies of Apple in China by Patrick McGee, make it required reading, and then hold some informal discussions. These can be modeled on what happens in the seventh grade; for example, “What did you learn about China’s approach to information gathering?”
- A hollowed out government creates a dependence on third-parties. These vendorsdo not explain how outsourcing works. Thus, mismatches exist between government executives’ assumptions and how the reality of third-party contractors fulfill the contract.
- Weaknesses in procurement, oversight, continuous monitoring by auditors encourage short cuts. These are not issues that have arisen in the last day or so. These are institutional and vendor procedures that have existed for decades.
Net net: My view is that some problems are simply not easily resolved. It is interesting to read about security lapses caused by back office and legal processes.
Stephen E Arnold, July 23, 2025
Google and the EU: A Couple That Do Not Get Along
July 11, 2025
Google’s EU legal woes are in the news again. The Mercury News shares the Bloomberg piece, “Google Suffers Setback in Fight Over EU’s 4.1 Billion Euros Fine.” An advisor to the EU’s Court of Justice, Advocate General Juliane Kokott, agrees with regulators’ choice to punish google for abusing Android’s market power and discredits the company’s legal arguments. She emphasized:
“Google held a dominant position in several markets of the Android ecosystem and thus benefited from network effects that enabled it to ensure that users used Google Search. As a result, Google obtained access to data that enabled it in turn to improve its service.”
Though Kokott’s opinion is not binding, the court is known to rely heavily on its adviser’s opinions in final rulings. For its part, Google insists any market advantage it has is solely “due to innovation.” Sure, rigging the Search environment in its favor was plenty innovative. Just not legal. Not in the EU, anyway. Samuel Stolton reports:
“The top EU court’s final decision could prove pivotal for the future of the Android business model — which has provided free software in exchange for conditions imposed on mobile phone manufacturers. Such contracts provoked the ire of the commission in 2018, when the watchdog accused Alphabet Inc.’s Google of three separate types of illegal behavior that helped cement the dominance of its search engine, accompanying the order with the record fine. First, it said Google was illegally forcing handset makers to pre-install the Google Search app and the Chrome browser as a condition for licensing its Play Store — the marketplace for Android apps. Second, the EU said Google made payments to some large manufacturers and operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app. Lastly, the EU said the Mountain View, California-based company prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install apps from running alternative versions of Android not approved by Google.”
Meanwhile, the company is also in hot water over the EU’s Digital Markets Act. We learn that, in March, regulators scolded the firm elevating its own services over others and actively preventing app developers from guiding users to offers outside its app store. These practices violate the act, Google was told, and continuing to do so could lead to more fines. But are fines, even $4 billion ones, enough to deter the tech giant?
Cynthia Murrell, July 11, 2025
Can AI Do What Jesus Enrique Rosas Does?
July 8, 2025
Just a dinobaby without smart software. I am sufficiently dull without help from smart software.
I learned about a YouTube video via a buried link in a story in my newsfeed. The video is titled “Analysis of Jeffrey Epstein’s Cell Block Video Released by the FBI.” I know little about Mr. Rosas. He is a body language “expert.” I know zero about this field. He gives away a book about body language, and I assume that he gets inquiries and sells services. He appears to have developed what he calls a Knesix Code. He does not disclose his academic background.
But …
His video analysis of the Epstein surveillance camera data makes clear that Sr. Rosas has an eye for detail. Let me cite two examples:
First, he notes that in some of the footage released by the FBI, a partial image of a video editing program’s interface appears. Not only does it appear, but the image appears in several separate sectors of the FBI-released video. Mr. Rosas raises the possibility that the FBI footage (described as unaltered) was modified.
Here is an example of that video editing “tell” or partial image:
Second, Sr. Rosas spots a time gap in the FBI video. Here’s where the “glitch” appears:
How much is missing from the unedited video file? More than a minute.
Observations:
- I feed the interface image into a couple of smart software systems. None was able to identify the specific program’s interface from the partial image
- Mr. Rosas’ analysis identified two interesting anomalies in the video
- The allegedly unedited video appears to have been edited.
Net net: AI is not able to do what Sr. Rosas did. I do not want to speculate how “no videos” became this one video. I do not want to speculate why an unedited video contains two editing indications. I don’t want to think much about Jeffrey Epstein, the kiddie trafficking, and the individuals associating with him. I will stick with my observation, “AI does not seem to have the ability to do what Sr. Rosas did.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 8, 2025
Google Fireworks: No Boom, Just Ka-ching from the EU Regulators
July 7, 2025
No smart software to write this essay. This dinobaby is somewhat old fashioned.
The EU celebrates the 4th of July with a fire cracker for the Google. No bang, just ka-ching, which is the sound of the cash register ringing … again. “Exclusive: Google’s AI Overviews Hit by EU Antitrust Complaint from Independent Publishers.” The trusted news source which reminds me that it is trustworthy reports:
Alphabet’s Google has been hit by an EU antitrust complaint over its AI Overviews from a group of independent publishers, which has also asked for an interim measure to prevent allegedly irreparable harm to them, according to a document seen by Reuters. Google’s AI Overviews are AI-generated summaries that appear above traditional hyperlinks to relevant webpages and are shown to users in more than 100 countries. It began adding advertisements to AI Overviews last May.
Will the fine alter the trajectory of the Google? Answer: Does a snowball survive a fly by of the sun?
Several observations:
- Google, like Microsoft, absolutely has to make its smart software investments pay off and pay off in a big way
- The competition for AI talent makes fat, confused ducks candidates for becoming foie gras. Mr. Zuckerberg is going to buy the best ducks he can. Sports and Hollywood star compensation only works if the product pays off at the box office.
- Google’s “leadership” operates as if regulations from mere governments are annoyances, not rules to be obeyed.
- The products and services appear to be multiplying like rabbits. Confusion, not clarity, seems to be the consequence of decisions operating without a vision.
Is there an easy, quick way to make Google great again? My view is that the advertising model anchored to matching messages with queries is the problem. Ad revenue is likely to shift from many advertisers to blockbuster campaigns. Up the quotas of the sales team. However, the sales team may no longer be able to sell at a pace that copes with the cash burn for the alleged next big thing, super intelligence.
Reuters, the trusted outfit, says:
Google said numerous claims about traffic from search are often based on highly incomplete and skewed data.
Yep, highly incomplete and skewed data. The problem for Google is that we have a small tank of nasty cichlids. In case you don’t have ChatGPT at hand, a cichlid is fish that will kill and eat its children. My cichlids have names: Chatty, Pilot girl, Miss Trall, and Dee Seeka. This means that when stressed or confined our cichlids are going to become killers. What happens then?
Stephen E Arnold, July 7, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
