Many people are reposting the following image: Kimi K3 surpasses Claude 5. But I think what's really worth watching is not the rankings, but the "little essay" by Dean W. Ball, the head of OpenAI strategy. The short essay has extremely high value. While it appears to be discussing Kimi's technology, it actually highlights the underlying anxiety of Silicon Valley's closed source AI giants towards China's open source ecosystem. ✅ I have summarized the 5 underlying business warfare logics: one ⃣ Dean admits that Kimi K3 is very strong: this is not copied from homework Let me explain here, what does the tech industry like to call distillation? For example: Just like the top student in the class (OpenAI) who completed a full set of high difficulty papers, ordinary students (from other vendors) bought the top student's questions and answers, memorized and imitated them every day, and finally scored high in the exam. ——This is called "distillation", which means taking shortcuts and copying homework. Dean's implicit message is: I tested the Kimi K3 this time and found that it didn't rely on rote memorization of top students' answers to pass. It really understood this complex logic on its own. At least in the field of Agent programming, China's top AI has entered the global top tier. ” ——Alright, the top student/first place in the class feels threatened. Just like individual investors losing money, blame KOLs; If a top student is going to be surpassed, it's like blaming the homeroom teacher. Dean is also going to be a weirdo, he blames the US government. Continuing to see how he blames the US government? two ⃣ China's open source is forced by the United States' "neck restriction" ▫️ Faced with Kimi K3's announcement of open source, Dean speculates that a large part of China's open source efforts are due to the United States' adoption of high-end GPUs. Because doing closed source and selling APIs requires a massive number of top-level graphics cards to support global user concurrency. However, due to export restrictions on high-end GPUs, China's path is indeed difficult to take. Since we cannot rely on selling APIs to collect monthly subscription fees like OpenAI, Claude, and Google. Then it's better to take a different path and directly open the model weights (Open Weight) for free, allowing the world to run them on their own servers. Dean's meaning is actually very simple: China doesn't need to burn its own computing power, but it may ruin the jobs of OpenAI, Claude, and Google. After blaming the person, complaining, and then starting to feel anxious. three ⃣ Capital anxiety: Free tap water will ruin the bottled water business ▫️ The gist of Dean's original words is: If everyone could download such a great open-source model as Kimi K3 for free, who would spend billions to develop the next big model? This will turn AI into government subsidized public infrastructure. I think this is the most subjective and representative paragraph of OpenAI's interests for Dean in the entire article. Give a vivid analogy: The business logic of Silicon Valley is capitalism - I invest $50 billion to develop the most powerful AI (bottled water), then sell it to you to make money, and once I make money, I go on to develop better AI. But now, China has dug a well directly beside it, sweet and refreshing, completely free (open source tap water). This well is an open-source model. From here, we can see Dean's implicit message, which has two progressive relationships: If free Kimi can solve 90% of front-end code problems for enterprises, who would still be willing to pay high subscription fees to OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google every month? If no one can make money, investors will stop. In the end, AI research and development cannot be driven by commercial profits, and can only become a 'public infrastructure' that is subsidized by the state and used for free by everyone, just like building roads and power grids. In the eyes of Americans, this is simply a 'hellish story' of commercial competition (although it is a paradise for developers). ” After blaming the people and complaining, I started looking for my mom. Let's see how Dean comes up with a solution. four ⃣ Dean's prediction: The US government is going to start playing 'psychological warfare' ▫️ The gist of Dean's original words is: The Trump administration may not truly ban Chinese open-source models in the future, as they cannot be banned. A more realistic approach is to have various regulatory departments continuously release risk signals and create FUD. Are you familiar with it? Previously, if we couldn't handle Japanese cars, we would increase taxes; If we can't handle Chinese products, we'll increase taxes. Nowadays, AI open source cannot be taxed, and it is also difficult to directly ban it. Then what should we do? ——Manufacturing regulatory risks. Let me give you a vivid analogy: it's like one day the Federal Reserve or the security department suddenly issued a notice: 'According to some internal clues, there may be backdoors in China's open-source AI models. Please use them with caution.'. ” Leaving aside whether there is a backdoor, I am not a technician and I don't know. But when banks and large enterprises see it, they immediately dare not use it. Damn it, this is a magic attack, using 'backdoors' to create panic; Large banks and enterprises will prohibit their employees from using open-source models themselves five ⃣ Finally, let me intimidate my colleagues again After blaming the US government and analyzing the business model, Dean finally reminded the entire industry. ▫️ The gist of Dean's original words is: Now Kimi is just writing code. If more powerful AI is fully open sourced in the future, anyone can download, modify, and deploy it. At that time, the risk may have really come. For example, a closed source model is like a tiger locked in an OpenAI zoo. There are safety fences and administrators. And open source models are like making the genetic sequence of a tiger public. Anyone can replicate one at home, even making it more aggressive. Dean's subtext: Kimi is not yet capable of destroying the world. But if stronger AI in the future is also fully open sourced, there may really be no regret medicine left. Well, Americans do have a way of playing with public opinion. ✅ To summarize: Dean Ball's article may seem to be discussing technology, but it is actually sounding an alarm for American politicians and investors. What he really wants to say is: Don't think that Chinese AI will only plagiarize anymore. They are currently using world-class models for free and open source, and are using an 'unreasonable free model' to undermine the 'paid business model' we have established in Silicon Valley. If the United States does not raise the threshold for companies to use Chinese open source models through regulatory and compliance measures as soon as possible, the closed source business story supported by hundreds of billions of dollars may become increasingly difficult to tell in the future.