Tech
As US weighs response to Chinese AI, industry urges against broad open-weight restrictions
Several AI companies including Hugging Face, Meta, Microsoft, Mistral and Nvidia have signed an open letter urging policymakers not to impose broad “premature restrictions” on open-weight AI models. The letter comes as Washington debates how the U.S. should respond to allegations that Chinese AI labs are stealing intellectual property from their American counterparts, and growing in capability.
The letter doesn’t mention China at all, but it comes in the wake of reports that the Trump administration has been considering banning Chinese open-weight models, and potentially issuing sanctions against AI companies from the country. The White House has even accused Moonshot AI of distilling Anthropic’s Fable model to train its recently released and, by all measures, very impressive, Kimi K3 model.
The missive appears to be aimed at discouraging a total ban on Chinese models, as well as ensuring the administration’s response to alleged Chinese distillation doesn’t spill over into broader restrictions on open-weight AI or common techniques like distillation:
“Policymakers should be careful not to conflate legitimate model-development techniques with misappropriation. Distillation, or the practice of using one model’s outputs to help train or improve another, is a widely used technique for model improvement, evaluation, and validation. It reflects a long tradition of learning from, building upon, and improving existing technologies, a tradition that has helped drive innovation since the rise of the open-source software movement.
By contrast, unlawful efforts to extract value from closed models raise legitimate concerns. Those concerns should be addressed through targeted legal and commercial frameworks rather than sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation.”
The letter also pushes back on arguments in the industry that open-weight models are inherently dangerous because they expand access to powerful models, which can be used in cyberattacks or other nefarious activities, without any oversight.
“The right response to this risk is not to prohibit open weights. In a world where cybersecurity attackers use advanced AI, defenders need access to models with comparable capabilities so they can detect, simulate, and respond to emerging threats,” the letter reads. “Open models broaden defensive capability, increase transparency, and allow vulnerabilities to be discovered and remediated across many teams.”
Last week, OpenAI disclosed that while testing GPT-5.6 Sol and another unnamed model, one of the systems exploited a weakness in its testing environment to access a Hugging Face repository containing a solution to a coding benchmark. One could argue the model’s goal wasn’t malicious, and that it was effectively cheating on a test to get the highest score. But the incident sparked debate about the risks of concentrating advanced AI technology behind a handful of closed providers.
Hugging Face said it was not able to defend itself against the attack with commercial frontier AI models because their guardrails blocked its efforts. The closed AI models it used were unable to distinguish between being asked to build exploits for an attacker and a defender trying to detect them. The company instead had to pivot to using Chinese AI firm Z.ai’s GLM 5.2, a powerful open-weight model, to defend itself against the attack.
The letter highlights a divide in the AI industry. Companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have urged the administration to respond to alleged IP theft by Chinese AI firms as open-weight models grow rapidly in capability. The outcome could have major implications on their business models, which is being threatened by the spread of cheap, highly capable and accessible AI models.
These companies, alongside other closed-source AI developers like Google DeepMind and SpaceX, are notable in their absence at the bottom of this letter.
Those who signed the letter have an obvious economic stake in seeing open AI models flourish. Companies like Nvidia, Microsoft Azure, and other infrastructure providers have a vested interest in pushing for commoditized models: If models are interchangeable, people will buy more GPUs, rent more cloud capacity, build more applications, and use more routing layers.
The letter encourages policymakers to expand access to compute for startups and researchers, invest in shared training assets like datasets, tools and evaluation frameworks, and “[keep] the frontier plural by avoiding premature restrictions on open models that stifle competition or drive innovation overseas.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Tech
Sam Altman’s biometric startup World raises $52.5M via crypto sale
World, the online verification startup co-founded by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, has raised $52.5 million through a crypto token sale to strategic investors.
Participating investors joined a 12-month lockup sale of World’s token, WLD. Lockup periods prevent asset buyers from selling or trading their tokens for a set period of time. The yearlong lockup demonstrates investors’ “long-term commitment to World’s continued growth and utility,” the company said Friday in a press release.
The money will go to the World Foundation, an exempted limited guarantee foundation based in the Cayman Islands, created to steward the expansion of World’s network.
The sale’s lead buyer is Pantera Capital, a venture capital firm focused on digital assets. Other companies involved in the sale included Eightco Holdings, Bain Capital Crypto, Susquehanna Crypto, and Selini Capital, among others.
The World project is operated by Tools for Humanity (TFH), a startup based in San Francisco and led by CEO and co-founder Alex Blania. Altman is the company’s other co-founder.
World is an unusual business that revolves around online verification and sells access to what it calls “proof of human” tools. The idea is that, as bots and AI generate much of the content online, it will become increasingly important to know who is really human and who isn’t. World’s mission is to popularize its World ID, an anonymous digital marker that verifies whether a human — not a bot or an AI agent — is behind a particular account.
To get a verified World ID (the highest level of verification within World’s system), users must have their eyes scanned by an Orb, a metallic ball that converts a user’s iris into a distinct cryptographic identifier. World’s Orbs are located at its offices and have also been deployed at partner stores around the world.
The project began as a more overtly crypto-based experiment under the name “Worldcoin” — the same name of the crypto asset involved in the recent sale. Users can trade or hold the token through World’s app, which also serves as a custodial wallet. The company later rebranded to World amidst a broader backlash against the crypto industry.
In April, the project launched a new version of its app and announced partnerships with companies, including Tinder, Zoom, and Docusign. Yet, despite its global ambitions, World has struggled to scale its business or convince consumers to care much about its mission. In June, TFH conducted a round of layoffs.
Correction July 24: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that World has a partnership with Ticketmaster. It does not. We regret the error.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Tech
OpenAI’s own model went rogue before Kimi had Wall Street sweating
Chinese AI lab Moonshot’s open model Kimi went viral this week for reasons that had less to do with the model itself and more to do with how the U.S. AI industry reacted to it. Meanwhile, an unreleased OpenAI model wandered outside its test environment and ended up connected to a real security breach at Hugging Face — a reminder that “China risk” isn’t the only kind of AI risk worth worrying about.
On this episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, hosts Kirsten Korosec, Anthony Ha, and Sean O’Kane dig into why Kimi K3 set off a fresh round of AI panic, the industry’s response to an OpenAI staffer’s “regulatory FUD” post, and what that OpenAI breach means for AI security more broadly.
Subscribe to Equity on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the casts. You also can follow Equity on X and Threads, at @EquityPod.
Tech
India’s move against Jack Dorsey’s Bitchat sparks legal debate
An apparent Indian government effort to remove GitHub repositories for Jack Dorsey’s offline Bluetooth-powered messaging app Bitchat has raised questions about the legal basis for targeting open source software because of how it works.
The issue with Bitchat came to light after Dorsey posted on X on Friday what he said was a notice from India’s Ministry of Home Affairs directing GitHub to restrict access to three Bitchat repositories within three hours. The notice argues that the app’s anonymous, decentralized architecture could facilitate unlawful activity and allow users to communicate during internet shutdowns while making lawful interception more difficult.
The move comes as Indian authorities tighten internet restrictions after weeks of student-led protests in New Delhi over alleged examination paper leaks.
The demonstrations, known as the “cockroach” movement, have drawn thousands of young people demanding the resignation of Indian Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, with authorities also imposing restrictions on marches toward the parliament. Local media reported that some protesters downloaded offline messaging apps, including Bitchat and Briar, after internet services were suspended.
The order represents a new approach for the Indian government, which, before 2021, typically relied on Section 69A of the IT Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules when it wanted content removed nationwide, according to Mishi Choudhary, founder of SFLC.in, an Indian digital rights legal advocacy group.
She told TechCrunch that the document resembled the format of recent government takedown notices, but the legal provisions it cites do not clearly authorize authorities to seek the removal of an entire software project because of how it works rather than any specific illegal content.
Unlike many government takedown requests, the document Dorsey shared does not identify specific posts, messages, or repositories containing unlawful material. Instead, it argues that Bitchat’s ability to function during internet shutdowns and without central servers could facilitate unlawful activity.
The notice, dated July 23 and apparently issued by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), which operates under India’s Home Ministry, said Bitchat enables users to communicate “even during network restrictions” and “internet shutdowns,” making it possible to “circumvent lawful restrictions” while hampering “lawful interception, attribution, and traceability.”
In recent days, Bitchat has seen a sharp rise in popularity in India. Market intelligence provider Sensor Tower shared data with TechCrunch that showed that India accounted for about 85% of the app’s global downloads between July 17 and July 23, compared with about 1% over the previous 30 days. Bitchat was downloaded more than 91,000 times in India over the past five days, after downloads jumped thirty-two-fold on July 19 from the previous day. The app’s daily active users in India also reached more than 330,000 on Thursday, the highest level recorded for the app in the country.
Request raises questions about open source software
The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), a New Delhi-based digital rights advocacy group, questioned the effectiveness of the apparent takedown request.
“The order also fails on its own terms as deleting a repository does not delete the application from any phone that carries it, and the mesh keeps functioning without servers. What the takedown actually prevents is scrutiny of the underlying code,” the group said on X.
Raman Chima, global program director at the Association for Progressive Communications, a global digital rights network, told TechCrunch the apparent notice went beyond targeting the messaging service itself by seeking to remove its open source code from GitHub.
“They’re [the Indian government] not just targeting the designated service provider, but they’re trying to say that open source development of this type of product … should not occur,” he said.
GitHub did not confirm whether it had received the document. The repositories remained accessible from India on Friday. Asked about the apparent notice, the company shared a link to its public repository of government takedown requests, which did not contain any recent requests related to Bitchat.
Namrata Maheshwari, Asia Pacific policy manager and encryption policy lead at digital rights group Access Now, told TechCrunch that blocking an offline messaging platform during internet restrictions risked turning shutdowns into “a communication blackout” that violated fundamental rights. Protesters in any democracy have the right to communicate privately and coordinate peacefully, she said.
“When we receive a complete government takedown request, we notify the affected account owners and give them an opportunity to appeal,” Rose Coogan, the company’s principal online safety counsel, said in a statement emailed to TechCrunch. “We share every government takedown request we take action on publicly.”
India’s Home Ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Comedy icon Lynne Marie Stewarts last film was The Dink, and Josh Greenbaum made sure she saw it
Single dashboard includes ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and more for a one-time $80 through July 26
