Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label AI Models. Show all posts

Chinese Open AI Models Rival US Systems and Reshape Global Adoption

 

Chinese artificial intelligence models have rapidly narrowed the gap with leading US systems, reshaping the global AI landscape. Once considered followers, Chinese developers are now producing large language models that rival American counterparts in both performance and adoption. At the same time, China has taken a lead in model openness, a factor that is increasingly shaping how AI spreads worldwide. 

This shift coincides with a change in strategy among major US firms. OpenAI, which initially emphasized transparency, moved toward a more closed and proprietary approach from 2022 onward. As access to US-developed models became more restricted, Chinese companies and research institutions expanded the availability of open-weight alternatives. A recent report from Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Institute argues that AI leadership today depends not only on proprietary breakthroughs but also on reach, adoption, and the global influence of open models. 

According to the report, Chinese models such as Alibaba’s Qwen family and systems from DeepSeek now perform at near state-of-the-art levels across major benchmarks. Researchers found these models to be statistically comparable to Anthropic’s Claude family and increasingly close to the most advanced offerings from OpenAI and Google. Independent indices, including LMArena and the Epoch Capabilities Index, show steady convergence rather than a clear performance divide between Chinese and US models. 

Adoption trends further highlight this shift. Chinese models now dominate downstream usage on platforms such as Hugging Face, where developers share and adapt AI systems. By September 2025, Chinese fine-tuned or derivative models accounted for more than 60 percent of new releases on the platform. During the same period, Alibaba’s Qwen surpassed Meta’s Llama family to become the most downloaded large language model ecosystem, indicating strong global uptake beyond research settings. 

This momentum is reinforced by a broader diffusion effect. As Meta reduces its role as a primary open-source AI provider and moves closer to a closed model, Chinese firms are filling the gap with freely available, high-performing systems. Stanford researchers note that developers in low- and middle-income countries are particularly likely to adopt Chinese models as an affordable alternative to building AI infrastructure from scratch. However, adoption is not limited to emerging markets, as US companies are also increasingly integrating Chinese open-weight models into products and workflows. 

Paradoxically, US export restrictions limiting China’s access to advanced chips may have accelerated this progress. Constrained hardware access forced Chinese labs to focus on efficiency, resulting in models that deliver competitive performance with fewer resources. Researchers argue that this discipline has translated into meaningful technological gains. 

Openness has played a critical role. While open-weight models do not disclose full training datasets, they offer significantly more flexibility than closed APIs. Chinese firms have begun releasing models under permissive licenses such as Apache 2.0 and MIT, allowing broad use and modification. Even companies that once favored proprietary approaches, including Baidu, have reversed course by releasing model weights. 

Despite these advances, risks remain. Open-weight access does not fully resolve concerns about state influence, and many users rely on hosted services where data may fall under Chinese jurisdiction. Safety is another concern, as some evaluations suggest Chinese models may be more susceptible to jailbreaking than US counterparts. 

Even with these caveats, the broader trend is clear. As performance converges and openness drives adoption, the dominance of US commercial AI providers is no longer assured. The Stanford report suggests China’s role in global AI will continue to expand, potentially reshaping access, governance, and reliance on artificial intelligence worldwide.

OpenAI Warns Future AI Models Could Increase Cybersecurity Risks and Defenses

 

Meanwhile, OpenAI told the press that large language models will get to a level where future generations of these could pose a serious risk to cybersecurity. The company in its blog postingly admitted that powerful AI systems could eventually be used to craft sophisticated cyberattacks, such as developing previously unknown software vulnerabilities or aiding stealthy cyber-espionage operations against well-defended targets. Although this is still theoretical, OpenAI has underlined that the pace with which AI cyber-capability improvements are taking place demands proactive preparation. 

The same advances that could make future models attractive for malicious use, according to the company, also offer significant opportunities to strengthen cyber defense. OpenAI said such progress in reasoning, code analysis, and automation has the potential to significantly enhance security teams' ability to identify weaknesses in systems better, audit complex software systems, and remediate vulnerabilities more effectively. Instead of framing the issue as a threat alone, the company cast the issue as a dual-use challenge-one in which adequate management through safeguards and responsible deployment would be required. 

In the development of such advanced AI systems, OpenAI says it is investing heavily in defensive cybersecurity applications. This includes helping models improve particularly on tasks related to secure code review, vulnerability discovery, and patch validation. It also mentioned its effort on creating tooling supporting defenders in running critical workflows at scale, notably in environments where manual processes are slow or resource-intensive. 

OpenAI identified several technical strategies that it thinks are critical to the mitigation of cyber risk associated with increased capabilities of AI systems: stronger access controls to restrict who has access to sensitive features, hardened infrastructure to prevent abuse, outbound data controls to reduce the risk of information leakage, and continuous monitoring to detect anomalous behavior. These altogether are aimed at reducing the likelihood that advanced capabilities could be leveraged for harmful purposes. 

It also announced the forthcoming launch of a new program offering tiered access to additional cybersecurity-related AI capabilities. This is intended to ensure that researchers, enterprises, and security professionals working on legitimate defensive use cases have access to more advanced tooling while providing appropriate restrictions on higher-risk functionality. Specific timelines were not discussed by OpenAI, although it promised that more would be forthcoming very soon. 

Meanwhile, OpenAI also announced that it would create a Frontier Risk Council comprising renowned cybersecurity experts and industry practitioners. Its initial mandate will lie in assessing the cyber-related risks that come with frontier AI models. But this is expected to expand beyond this in the near future. Its members will be required to offer advice on the question of where the line should fall between developing capability responsibly and possible misuse. And its input would keep informing future safeguards and evaluation frameworks. 

OpenAI also emphasized that the risks of AI-enabled cyber misuse have no single-company or single-platform constraint. Any sophisticated model, across the industry, it said, may be misused if there are no proper controls. To that effect, OpenAI said it continues to collaborate with peers through initiatives such as the Frontier Model Forum, sharing threat modeling insights and best practices. 

By recognizing how AI capabilities could be weaponized and where the points of intervention may lie, the company believes, the industry will go a long way toward balancing innovation and security as AI systems continue to evolve.

Genesis Mission Launches as US Builds Closed-Loop AI System Linking National Laboratories

 

The United States has announced a major federal scientific initiative known as the Genesis Mission, framed by the administration as a transformational leap forward in how national research will be conducted. Revealed on November 24, 2025, the mission is described by the White House as the most ambitious federal science effort since the Manhattan Project. The accompanying executive order tasks the Department of Energy with creating an interconnected “closed-loop AI experimentation platform” that will join the nation’s supercomputers, 17 national laboratories, and decades of research datasets into one integrated system. 

Federal statements position the initiative as a way to speed scientific breakthroughs in areas such as quantum engineering, fusion, advanced semiconductors, biotechnology, and critical materials. DOE has called the system “the most complex scientific instrument ever built,” describing it as a mechanism designed to double research productivity by linking experiment automation, data processing, and AI models into a single continuous pipeline. The executive order requires DOE to progress rapidly, outlining milestones across the next nine months that include cataloging datasets, mapping computing capacity, and demonstrating early functionality for at least one scientific challenge. 

The Genesis Mission will not operate solely as a federal project. DOE’s launch materials confirm that the platform is being developed alongside a broad coalition of private, academic, nonprofit, cloud, and industrial partners. The roster includes major technology companies such as Microsoft, Google, OpenAI for Government, NVIDIA, AWS, Anthropic, Dell Technologies, IBM, and HPE, alongside aerospace companies, semiconductor firms, and energy providers. Their involvement signals that Genesis is designed not only to modernize public research, but also to serve as part of a broader industrial and national capability. 

However, key details remain unclear. The administration has not provided a cost estimate, funding breakdown, or explanation of how platform access will be structured. Major news organizations have already noted that the order contains no explicit budget allocation, meaning future appropriations or resource repurposing will determine implementation. This absence has sparked debate across the AI research community, particularly among smaller labs and industry observers who worry that the platform could indirectly benefit large frontier-model developers facing high computational costs. 

The order also lays the groundwork for standardized intellectual-property agreements, data governance rules, commercialization pathways, and security requirements—signaling a tightly controlled environment rather than an open-access scientific commons. Certain community reactions highlight how the initiative could reshape debates around open-source AI, public research access, and the balance of federal and private influence in high-performance computing. While its long-term shape is not yet clear, the Genesis Mission marks a pivotal shift in how the United States intends to organize, govern, and accelerate scientific advancement using artificial intelligence and national infrastructure.

Hacker Exploits AI Chatbot Claude in Unprecedented Cybercrime Operation

 

A hacker has carried out one of the most advanced AI-driven cybercrime operations ever documented, using Anthropic’s Claude chatbot to identify targets, steal sensitive data, and even draft extortion emails, according to a new report from the company. 

It Anthropic disclosed that the attacker leveraged Claude Code — a version of its AI model designed for generating computer code — to assist in nearly every stage of the operation. The campaign targeted at least 17 organizations across industries including defense, finance, and healthcare, making it the most comprehensive example yet of artificial intelligence being exploited for cyber extortion. 

Cyber extortion typically involves hackers stealing confidential data and demanding payment to prevent its release. AI has already played a role in such crimes, with chatbots being used to write phishing emails. However, Anthropic’s findings mark the first publicly confirmed case in which a mainstream AI model automated nearly the entire lifecycle of a cyberattack. 

The hacker reportedly prompted Claude to scan for vulnerable companies, generate malicious code to infiltrate systems, and extract confidential files. The AI system then organized the stolen data, analyzed which documents carried the highest value, and suggested ransom amounts based on victims’ financial information. It also drafted extortion notes demanding bitcoin payments, which ranged from $75,000 to more than $500,000. 

Jacob Klein, Anthropic’s head of threat intelligence, said the operation was likely conducted by a single actor outside the United States and unfolded over three months. “We have robust safeguards and multiple layers of defense for detecting this kind of misuse, but determined actors sometimes attempt to evade our systems through sophisticated techniques,” Klein explained. 

The report revealed that stolen material included Social Security numbers, bank records, medical data, and files tied to sensitive defense projects regulated by the U.S. State Department. Anthropic did not disclose which companies were affected, nor did it confirm whether any ransom payments were made. 

While the company declined to detail exactly how the hacker bypassed safeguards, it emphasized that additional protections have since been introduced. “We expect this model of cybercrime to become more common as AI lowers the barrier to entry for sophisticated operations,” Anthropic warned. 

The case underscores growing concerns about the intersection of AI and cybersecurity. With the AI sector largely self-regulated in the U.S., experts fear similar incidents could accelerate unless stronger oversight and security standards are enforced.

Hackers Use DNS Records to Hide Malware and AI Prompt Injections

 

Cybercriminals are increasingly leveraging an unexpected and largely unmonitored part of the internet’s infrastructure—the Domain Name System (DNS)—to hide malicious code and exploit security weaknesses. Security researchers at DomainTools have uncovered a campaign in which attackers embedded malware directly into DNS records, a method that helps them avoid traditional detection systems. 

DNS records are typically used to translate website names into IP addresses, allowing users to access websites without memorizing numerical codes. However, they can also include TXT records, which are designed to hold arbitrary text. These records are often used for legitimate purposes, such as domain verification for services like Google Workspace. Unfortunately, they can also be misused to store and distribute malicious scripts. 

In a recent case, attackers converted a binary file of the Joke Screenmate malware into hexadecimal code and split it into hundreds of fragments. These fragments were stored across multiple subdomains of a single domain, with each piece placed inside a TXT record. Once an attacker gains access to a system, they can quietly retrieve these fragments through DNS queries, reconstruct the binary code, and deploy the malware. Since DNS traffic often escapes close scrutiny—especially when encrypted via DNS over HTTPS (DOH) or DNS over TLS (DOT)—this method is particularly stealthy. 

Ian Campbell, a senior security engineer at DomainTools, noted that even companies with their own internal DNS resolvers often struggle to distinguish between normal and suspicious DNS requests. The rise of encrypted DNS traffic only makes it harder to detect such activity, as the actual content of DNS queries remains hidden from most monitoring tools. This isn’t a new tactic. Security researchers have observed similar methods in the past, including the use of DNS records to host PowerShell scripts. 

However, the specific use of hexadecimal-encoded binaries in TXT records, as described in DomainTools’ latest findings, adds a new layer of sophistication. Beyond malware, the research also revealed that TXT records are being used to launch prompt injection attacks against AI chatbots. These injections involve embedding deceptive or malicious prompts into files or documents processed by AI models. 

In one instance, TXT records were found to contain commands instructing a chatbot to delete its training data, return nonsensical information, or ignore future instructions entirely. This discovery highlights how the DNS system—an essential but often overlooked component of the internet—can be weaponized in creative and potentially damaging ways. 

As encryption becomes more widespread, organizations need to enhance their DNS monitoring capabilities and adopt more robust defensive strategies to close this blind spot before it’s further exploited.

Why Running AI Locally with an NPU Offers Better Privacy, Speed, and Reliability

 

Running AI applications locally offers a compelling alternative to relying on cloud-based chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Deepseek, especially for those concerned about data privacy, internet dependency, and speed. Though cloud services promise protections through subscription terms, the reality remains uncertain. In contrast, using AI locally means your data never leaves your device, which is particularly advantageous for professionals handling sensitive customer information or individuals wary of sharing personal data with third parties. 

Local AI eliminates the need for a constant, high-speed internet connection. This reliable offline capability means that even in areas with spotty coverage or during network outages, tools for voice control, image recognition, and text generation remain functional. Lower latency also translates to near-instantaneous responses, unlike cloud AI that may lag due to network round-trip times. 

A powerful hardware component is essential here: the Neural Processing Unit (NPU). Typical CPUs and GPUs can struggle with AI workloads like large language models and image processing, leading to slowdowns, heat, noise, and shortened battery life. NPUs are specifically designed for handling matrix-heavy computations—vital for AI—and they allow these models to run efficiently right on your laptop, without burdening the main processor. 

Currently, consumer devices such as Intel Core Ultra, Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite, and Apple’s M-series chips (M1–M4) come equipped with NPUs built for this purpose. With one of these devices, you can run open-source AI models like DeepSeek‑R1, Qwen 3, or LLaMA 3.3 using tools such as Ollama, which supports Windows, macOS, and Linux. By pairing Ollama with a user-friendly interface like OpenWeb UI, you can replicate the experience of cloud chatbots entirely offline.  

Other local tools like GPT4All and Jan.ai also provide convenient interfaces for running AI models locally. However, be aware that model files can be quite large (often 20 GB or more), and without NPU support, performance may be sluggish and battery life will suffer.  

Using AI locally comes with several key advantages. You gain full control over your data, knowing it’s never sent to external servers. Offline compatibility ensures uninterrupted use, even in remote or unstable network environments. In terms of responsiveness, local AI often outperforms cloud models due to the absence of network latency. Many tools are open source, making experimentation and customization financially accessible. Lastly, NPUs offer energy-efficient performance, enabling richer AI experiences on everyday devices. 

In summary, if you’re looking for a faster, more private, and reliable AI workflow that doesn’t depend on the internet, equipping your laptop with an NPU and installing tools like Ollama, OpenWeb UI, GPT4All, or Jan.ai is a smart move. Not only will your interactions be quick and seamless, but they’ll also remain securely under your control.

AI and the Rise of Service-as-a-Service: Why Products Are Becoming Invisible

 

The software world is undergoing a fundamental shift. Thanks to AI, product development has become faster, easier, and more scalable than ever before. Tools like Cursor and Lovable—along with countless “co-pilot” clones—have turned coding into prompt engineering, dramatically reducing development time and enhancing productivity. 

This boom has naturally caught the attention of venture capitalists. Funding for software companies hit $80 billion in Q1 2025, with investors eager to back niche SaaS solutions that follow the familiar playbook: identify a pain point, build a narrow tool, and scale aggressively. Y Combinator’s recent cohort was full of “Cursor for X” startups, reflecting the prevailing appetite for micro-products. 

But beneath this surge of point solutions lies a deeper transformation: the shift from product-led growth to outcome-driven service delivery. This evolution isn’t just about branding—it’s a structural redefinition of how software creates and delivers value. Historically, the SaaS revolution gave rise to subscription-based models, but the tools themselves remained hands-on. For example, when Adobe moved Creative Suite to the cloud, the billing changed—not the user experience. Users still needed to operate the software. SaaS, in that sense, was product-heavy and service-light. 

Now, AI is dissolving the product layer itself. The software is still there, but it’s receding into the background. The real value lies in what it does, not how it’s used. Glide co-founder Gautam Ajjarapu captures this perfectly: “The product gets us in the door, but what keeps us there is delivering results.” Take Glide’s AI for banks. It began as a tool to streamline onboarding but quickly evolved into something more transformative. Banks now rely on Glide to improve retention, automate workflows, and enhance customer outcomes. 

The interface is still a product, but the substance is service. The same trend is visible across leading AI startups. Zendesk markets “automated customer service,” where AI handles tickets end-to-end. Amplitude’s AI agents now generate product insights and implement changes. These offerings blur the line between tool and outcome—more service than software. This shift is grounded in economic logic. Services account for over 70% of U.S. GDP, and Nobel laureate Bengt Holmström’s contract theory helps explain why: businesses ultimately want results, not just tools. 

They don’t want a CRM—they want more sales. They don’t want analytics—they want better decisions. With agentic AI, it’s now possible to deliver on that promise. Instead of selling a dashboard, companies can sell growth. Instead of building an LMS, they offer complete onboarding services powered by AI agents. This evolution is especially relevant in sectors like healthcare. Corti’s CEO Andreas Cleve emphasizes that doctors don’t want more interfaces—they want more time. AI that saves time becomes invisible, and its value lies in what it enables, not how it looks. 

The implication is clear: software is becoming outcome-first. Users care less about tools and more about what those tools accomplish. Many companies—Glean, ElevenLabs, Corpora—are already moving toward this model, delivering answers, brand voices, or research synthesis rather than just access. This isn’t the death of the product—it’s its natural evolution. The best AI companies are becoming “services in a product wrapper,” where software is the delivery mechanism, but the value lies in what gets done. 

For builders, the question is no longer how to scale a product. It’s how to scale outcomes. The companies that succeed in this new era will be those that understand: users don’t want features—they want results. Call it what you want—AI-as-a-service, agentic delivery, or outcome-led software. But the trend is unmistakable. Service-as-a-Service isn’t just the next step for SaaS. It may be the future of software itself.

Security Teams Struggle to Keep Up With Generative AI Threats, Cobalt Warns

 

A growing number of cybersecurity professionals are expressing concern that generative AI is evolving too rapidly for their teams to manage. 

According to new research by penetration testing company Cobalt, over one-third of security leaders and practitioners admit that the pace of genAI development has outstripped their ability to respond. Nearly half of those surveyed (48%) said they wish they could pause and reassess their defense strategies in light of these emerging threats—though they acknowledge that such a break isn’t realistic. 

In fact, 72% of respondents listed generative AI-related attacks as their top IT security risk. Despite this, one in three organizations still isn’t conducting regular security evaluations of their large language model (LLM) deployments, including basic penetration testing. 

Cobalt CTO Gunter Ollmann warned that the security landscape is shifting, and the foundational controls many organizations rely on are quickly becoming outdated. “Our research shows that while generative AI is transforming how businesses operate, it’s also exposing them to risks they’re not prepared for,” said Ollmann. 
“Security frameworks must evolve or risk falling behind.” The study revealed a divide between leadership and practitioners. Executives such as CISOs and VPs are more concerned about long-term threats like adversarial AI attacks, with 76% listing them as a top issue. Meanwhile, 45% of practitioners are more focused on immediate operational challenges such as model inaccuracies, compared to 36% of executives. 

A majority of leaders—52%—are open to rethinking their cybersecurity strategies to address genAI threats. Among practitioners, only 43% shared this view. The top genAI-related concerns identified by the survey included the risk of sensitive information disclosure (46%), model poisoning or theft (42%), data inaccuracies (40%), and leakage of training data (37%). Around half of respondents also expressed a desire for more transparency from software vendors about how vulnerabilities are identified and patched, highlighting a widening trust gap in the AI supply chain. 

Cobalt’s internal pentest data shows a worrying trend: while 69% of high-risk vulnerabilities are typically fixed across all test types, only 21% of critical flaws found in LLM tests are resolved. This is especially alarming considering that nearly one-third of LLM vulnerabilities are classified as serious. Interestingly, the average time to resolve these LLM-specific vulnerabilities is just 19 days—the fastest across all categories. 

However, researchers noted this may be because organizations prioritize easier, low-effort fixes rather than tackling more complex threats embedded in foundational AI models. Ollmann compared the current scenario to the early days of cloud adoption, where innovation outpaced security readiness. He emphasized that traditional controls aren’t enough in the age of LLMs. “Security teams can’t afford to be reactive anymore,” he concluded. “They must move toward continuous, programmatic AI testing if they want to keep up.”