Also on this topic, it's worth highlighting how the recent Anthropic news (reminder: in the same week, they (i) refused to allow DoW to use their AI for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons, but also (ii) cancelled their safety pledge, and (iii) argued that China bad for distilling their models and making open-weights models) can be perceived by people who do not have "Anthropic bags" (or "America bags").
Here's one fascinating article from China:
https://t.co/aXiTq6QDoo
Excerpt translation:
-----
Anthropic accuses its competitors of "stealing" capabilities from Claude, yet remains silent about its own history of "taking" knowledge from the entire internet. It emphasizes that distilled models lack "safety guardrails" and pose risks, but fails to explain why only Anthropic holds the authority to define what constitutes "necessary guardrails." This double standard ultimately boils down to a hegemonic logic: rules are crafted by the strongest; the actions of the powerful are deemed conventional, while those of the weak are labeled as attacks.
Interestingly, Anthropic's statement—intended to undermine its rivals—unintentionally became the most powerful advertisement for open-source AI. Through its own actions, Anthropic has demonstrated to all: under the architecture of closed-source AI services, your privacy, your autonomy, and your right to know cannot be guaranteed. When a company can monitor you, judge you, and punish you at will in the name of "safety," so-called "trust" ceases to be a virtue and becomes a risk.
---
I think it will be dangerous for AI safety if AI safety becomes seen as indistinguishable from a "our company / our country deserves to run the world" mentality.
Added more ETH.
Real demand is already here and growing: stablecoins, DeFi, and RWA—and Ethereum still dominates.
With faster finality, better data scaling, improving privacy, ETH will be harder to replace.