Last year, China saw a boom in foundation models, the do-everything large language models that underpin the AI revolution. This year, the focus has shifted to AI agents—systems that are less about responding to users’ queries and more about autonomously accomplishing things for them.  There are now a host of Chinese startups building these general-purpose digital tools, which can answer emails, browse the internet to plan vacations, and even design an interactive website. Many of these have emerged in just the last two months, following in the footsteps of Manus—a general AI agent that sparked weeks of social media frenzy for invite codes after its limited-release launch in early March.  These emerging AI agents aren’t large language models themselves. Instead, they’re built on top of them, using a workflow-based structure designed to get things done. A lot of these systems also introduce a different way of interacting with AI. Rather than just chatting back and forth with users, they are optimized for managing and executing multistep tasks—booking flights, managing schedules, conducting research—by using external tools and remembering instructions.  China could take the lead on building these kinds of agents. The country’s tightly integrated app ecosystems, rapid product cycles, and digitally fluent user base could provide a favorable environment for embedding AI into daily life.  For now, its leading AI agent startups are focusing their attention on the global market, because the best Western models don’t operate inside China’s firewalls. But that could change soon: Tech giants like ByteDance and Tencent are preparing their own AI agents that could bake automation directly into their native super-apps, pulling data from their vast ecosystem of programs that dominate many aspects of daily life in the country.  As the race to define what a useful AI agent looks like unfolds, a mix of ambitious startups and entrenched tech giants are now testing how these tools might actually work in practice—and for whom. Set the standard It’s been a whirlwind few months for Manus, which was developed by the Wuhan-based startup Butterfly Effect. The company raised $75 million in a funding round led by the US venture capital firm Benchmark, took the product on an ambitious global roadshow, and hired dozens of new employees.  Even before registration opened to the public in May, Manus had become a reference point for what a broad, consumer‑oriented AI agent should accomplish. Rather than handling narrow chores for businesses, this “general” agent is designed to be able to help with everyday tasks like trip planning, stock comparison, or your kid’s school project.  Unlike previous AI agents, Manus uses a browser-based sandbox that lets users supervise the agent like an intern, watching in real time as it scrolls through web pages, reads articles, or codes actions. It also proactively asks clarifying questions, supports long-term memory that would serve as context for future tasks. "Manus represents a promising product experience for AI agents," says Ang Li, cofounder and CEO of Simular, a startup based in Palo Alto, California, that’s building computer use agents, AI agents that control a virtual computer. “I believe Chinese startups have a huge advantage when it comes to designing consumer products, thanks to cutthroat domestic competition that leads to fast execution and greater attention to product details.” In the case of Manus, the competition is moving fast. Two of the most buzzy follow‑ups, Genspark and Flowith, for example, are already boasting benchmark scores that match or edge past Manus’s.  Genspark, led by former Baidu executives Eric Jing and Kay Zhu, links many small “super agents” through what it calls multi‑component prompting. The agent can switch among several large language models, accepts both images and text, and carries out tasks from making slide decks to placing phone calls. Whereas Manus relies heavily on Browser Use, a popular open-source product that lets agents operate a web browser in a virtual window like a human, Genspark directly integrates with a wide array of tools and APIs. Launched in April, the company says that it already has over 5 million users and over $36 million in yearly revenue. Flowith, the work of a young team that first grabbed public attention in April 2025 at a developer event hosted by the popular social media app Xiaohongshu, takes a different tack. Marketed as an “infinite agent,” it opens on a blank canvas where each question becomes a node on a branching map. Users can backtrack, take new branches, and store results in personal or sharable “knowledge gardens”—a design that feels more like project management software (think Notion) than a typical chat interface. Every inquiry or task builds its own mind-map-like graph, encouraging a more nonlinear and creative interaction with AI. Flowith’s core agent, NEO, runs in the cloud and can perform scheduled tasks like sending emails and compiling files. The founders want the app to be a “knowledge marketbase”, and aims to tap into the social aspect of AI with the aspiration of becoming “the OnlyFans of AI knowledge creators”. What they also share with Manus is the global ambition. Both Genspark and Flowith have stated that their primary focus is the international market. A global address Startups like Manus, Genspark, and Flowith—though founded by Chinese entrepreneurs—could blend seamlessly into the global tech scene and compete effectively abroad. Founders, investors, and analysts that MIT Technology Review has spoken to believe Chinese companies are moving fast, executing well, and quickly coming up with new products.  Money reinforces the pull to launch overseas. Customers there pay more, and there are plenty to go around. “You can price in USD, and with the exchange rate that’s a sevenfold multiplier,” Manus cofounder Xiao Hong quipped on a podcast. “Even if we’re only operating at 10% power because of cultural differences overseas, we’ll still make more than in China.” But creating the same functionality in China is a challenge. Major US AI companies including OpenAI and Anthropic have opted out of mainland China because of geopolitical risks and challenges with regulatory compliance. Their absence initially created a black market as users resorted to VPNs and third-party mirrors to access tools like ChatGPT and Claude. That vacuum has since been filled by a new wave of Chinese chatbots—DeepSeek, Doubao, Kimi—but the appetite for foreign models hasn’t gone away.  Manus, for example, uses Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet—widely considered the top model for agentic tasks. Manus cofounder Zhang Tao has repeatedly praised Claude’s ability to juggle tools, remember contexts, and hold multi‑round conversations—all crucial for turning chatty software into an effective executive assistant. But the company’s use of Sonnet has made its agent functionally unusable inside China without a VPN. If you open Manus from a mainland IP address, you’ll see a notice explaining that the team is “working on integrating Qwen’s model,” a special local version that is built on top of Alibaba’s open-source model.  An engineer overseeing ByteDance’s work on developing an agent, who spoke to MIT Technology Review anonymously to avoid sanction, said that the absence of Claude Sonnet models “limits everything we do in China.” DeepSeek’s open models, he added, still hallucinate too often and lack training on real‑world workflows. Developers we spoke with rank Alibaba’s Qwen series as the best domestic alternative, yet most say that switching to Qwen knocks performance down a notch. Jiaxin Pei, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford’s Institute for Human‑Centered AI, thinks that gap will close: “Building agentic capabilities in base LLMs has become a key focus for many LLM builders, and once people realize the value of this, it will only be a matter of time." For now, Manus is doubling down on audiences it can already serve. In a written response, the company said its “primary focus is overseas expansion,” noting that new offices in San Francisco, Singapore, and Tokyo have opened in the past month. A super‑app approach Although the concept of AI agents is still relatively new, the consumer-facing AI app market in China is already crowded with major tech players. DeepSeek remains the most widely used, while ByteDance’s Doubao and Moonshot’s Kimi have also become household names. However, most of these apps are still optimized for chat and entertainment rather than task execution. This gap in the local market has pushed China’s big tech firms to roll out their own user-facing agents, though early versions remain uneven in quality and rough around the edges.  ByteDance is testing Coze Space, an AI agent based on its own Doubao model family that lets users toggle between “plan” and “execute” modes, so they can either directly guide the agent’s actions or step back and watch it work autonomously. It connects up to 14 popular apps, including GitHub, Notion, and the company’s own Lark office suite. Early reviews say the tool can feel clunky and has a high failure rate, but it clearly aims to match what Manus offers. Meanwhile, Zhipu AI has released a free agent called AutoGLM Rumination, built on its proprietary ChatGLM models. Shanghai‑based Minimax has launched Minimax Agent. Both products look almost identical to Manus and demo basic tasks such as building a simple website, planning a trip, making a small Flash game, or running quick data analysis. Despite the limited usability of most general AI agents launched within China, big companies have plans to change that. During a May 15 earnings call, Tencent president Liu Zhiping teased an agent that would weave automation directly into China’s most ubiquitous app, WeChat.  Considered the original super-app, WeChat already handles messaging, mobile payments, news, and millions of mini‑programs that act like embedded apps. These programs give Tencent, its developer, access to data from millions of services that pervade everyday life in China, an advantage most competitors can only envy. Historically, China’s consumer internet has splintered into competing walled gardens—share a Taobao link in WeChat and it resolves as plaintext, not a preview card. Unlike the more interoperable Western internet, China’s tech giants have long resisted integration with one another, choosing to wage platform war at the expense of a seamless user experience. But the use of mini‑programs has given WeChat unprecedented reach across services that once resisted interoperability, from gym bookings to grocery orders. An agent able to roam that ecosystem could bypass the integration headaches dogging independent startups. Alibaba, the e-commerce giant behind the Qwen model series, has been a front-runner in China's AI race but has been slower to release consumer-facing products. Even though Qwen was the most downloaded open-source model on Hugging Face in 2024, it didn’t power a dedicated chatbot app until early 2025. In March, Alibaba rebranded its cloud storage and search app Quark into an all-in-one AI search tool. By June, Quark had introduced DeepResearch—a new mode that marks its most agent-like effort to date.  ByteDance and Alibaba did not reply to MIT Technology Review’s request for comments. “Historically, Chinese tech products tend to pursue the all-in-one, super-app approach, and the latest Chinese AI agents reflect just that,” says Li of Simular, who previously worked at Google DeepMind on AI-enabled work automation. “In contrast, AI agents in the US are more focused on serving specific verticals.” Pei, the researcher at Stanford, says that existing tech giants could have a huge advantage in bringing the vision of general AI agents to life—especially those with built-in integration across services. “The customer-facing AI agent market is still very early, with tons of problems like authentication and liability,” he says. “But companies that already operate across a wide range of services have a natural advantage in deploying agents at scale.”

Last year, China saw a boom in foundation models, the do-everything large language models that underpin the AI revolution. This year, the focus has shifted to AI agents—systems that are less about responding to users’ queries and more about autonomously accomplishing things for them.  There are now a host of Chinese startups building these general-purpose digital tools, which can answer emails, browse the internet to plan vacations, and even design an interactive website. Many of these have emerged in just the last two months, following in the footsteps of Manus—a general AI agent that sparked weeks of social media frenzy for invite codes after its limited-release launch in early March.  These emerging AI agents aren’t large language models themselves. Instead, they’re built on top of them, using a workflow-based structure designed to get things done. A lot of these systems also introduce a different way of interacting with AI. Rather than just chatting back and forth with users, they are optimized for managing and executing multistep tasks—booking flights, managing schedules, conducting research—by using external tools and remembering instructions.  China could take the lead on building these kinds of agents. The country’s tightly integrated app ecosystems, rapid product cycles, and digitally fluent user base could provide a favorable environment for embedding AI into daily life.  For now, its leading AI agent startups are focusing their attention on the global market, because the best Western models don’t operate inside China’s firewalls. But that could change soon: Tech giants like ByteDance and Tencent are preparing their own AI agents that could bake automation directly into their native super-apps, pulling data from their vast ecosystem of programs that dominate many aspects of daily life in the country.  As the race to define what a useful AI agent looks like unfolds, a mix of ambitious startups and entrenched tech giants are now testing how these tools might actually work in practice—and for whom. Set the standard It’s been a whirlwind few months for Manus, which was developed by the Wuhan-based startup Butterfly Effect. The company raised $75 million in a funding round led by the US venture capital firm Benchmark, took the product on an ambitious global roadshow, and hired dozens of new employees.  Even before registration opened to the public in May, Manus had become a reference point for what a broad, consumer‑oriented AI agent should accomplish. Rather than handling narrow chores for businesses, this “general” agent is designed to be able to help with everyday tasks like trip planning, stock comparison, or your kid’s school project.  Unlike previous AI agents, Manus uses a browser-based sandbox that lets users supervise the agent like an intern, watching in real time as it scrolls through web pages, reads articles, or codes actions. It also proactively asks clarifying questions, supports long-term memory that would serve as context for future tasks. "Manus represents a promising product experience for AI agents," says Ang Li, cofounder and CEO of Simular, a startup based in Palo Alto, California, that’s building computer use agents, AI agents that control a virtual computer. “I believe Chinese startups have a huge advantage when it comes to designing consumer products, thanks to cutthroat domestic competition that leads to fast execution and greater attention to product details.” In the case of Manus, the competition is moving fast. Two of the most buzzy follow‑ups, Genspark and Flowith, for example, are already boasting benchmark scores that match or edge past Manus’s.  Genspark, led by former Baidu executives Eric Jing and Kay Zhu, links many small “super agents” through what it calls multi‑component prompting. The agent can switch among several large language models, accepts both images and text, and carries out tasks from making slide decks to placing phone calls. Whereas Manus relies heavily on Browser Use, a popular open-source product that lets agents operate a web browser in a virtual window like a human, Genspark directly integrates with a wide array of tools and APIs. Launched in April, the company says that it already has over 5 million users and over $36 million in yearly revenue. Flowith, the work of a young team that first grabbed public attention in April 2025 at a developer event hosted by the popular social media app Xiaohongshu, takes a different tack. Marketed as an “infinite agent,” it opens on a blank canvas where each question becomes a node on a branching map. Users can backtrack, take new branches, and store results in personal or sharable “knowledge gardens”—a design that feels more like project management software (think Notion) than a typical chat interface. Every inquiry or task builds its own mind-map-like graph, encouraging a more nonlinear and creative interaction with AI. Flowith’s core agent, NEO, runs in the cloud and can perform scheduled tasks like sending emails and compiling files. The founders want the app to be a “knowledge marketbase”, and aims to tap into the social aspect of AI with the aspiration of becoming “the OnlyFans of AI knowledge creators”. What they also share with Manus is the global ambition. Both Genspark and Flowith have stated that their primary focus is the international market. A global address Startups like Manus, Genspark, and Flowith—though founded by Chinese entrepreneurs—could blend seamlessly into the global tech scene and compete effectively abroad. Founders, investors, and analysts that MIT Technology Review has spoken to believe Chinese companies are moving fast, executing well, and quickly coming up with new products.  Money reinforces the pull to launch overseas. Customers there pay more, and there are plenty to go around. “You can price in USD, and with the exchange rate that’s a sevenfold multiplier,” Manus cofounder Xiao Hong quipped on a podcast. “Even if we’re only operating at 10% power because of cultural differences overseas, we’ll still make more than in China.” But creating the same functionality in China is a challenge. Major US AI companies including OpenAI and Anthropic have opted out of mainland China because of geopolitical risks and challenges with regulatory compliance. Their absence initially created a black market as users resorted to VPNs and third-party mirrors to access tools like ChatGPT and Claude. That vacuum has since been filled by a new wave of Chinese chatbots—DeepSeek, Doubao, Kimi—but the appetite for foreign models hasn’t gone away.  Manus, for example, uses Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet—widely considered the top model for agentic tasks. Manus cofounder Zhang Tao has repeatedly praised Claude’s ability to juggle tools, remember contexts, and hold multi‑round conversations—all crucial for turning chatty software into an effective executive assistant. But the company’s use of Sonnet has made its agent functionally unusable inside China without a VPN. If you open Manus from a mainland IP address, you’ll see a notice explaining that the team is “working on integrating Qwen’s model,” a special local version that is built on top of Alibaba’s open-source model.  An engineer overseeing ByteDance’s work on developing an agent, who spoke to MIT Technology Review anonymously to avoid sanction, said that the absence of Claude Sonnet models “limits everything we do in China.” DeepSeek’s open models, he added, still hallucinate too often and lack training on real‑world workflows. Developers we spoke with rank Alibaba’s Qwen series as the best domestic alternative, yet most say that switching to Qwen knocks performance down a notch. Jiaxin Pei, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford’s Institute for Human‑Centered AI, thinks that gap will close: “Building agentic capabilities in base LLMs has become a key focus for many LLM builders, and once people realize the value of this, it will only be a matter of time." For now, Manus is doubling down on audiences it can already serve. In a written response, the company said its “primary focus is overseas expansion,” noting that new offices in San Francisco, Singapore, and Tokyo have opened in the past month. A super‑app approach Although the concept of AI agents is still relatively new, the consumer-facing AI app market in China is already crowded with major tech players. DeepSeek remains the most widely used, while ByteDance’s Doubao and Moonshot’s Kimi have also become household names. However, most of these apps are still optimized for chat and entertainment rather than task execution. This gap in the local market has pushed China’s big tech firms to roll out their own user-facing agents, though early versions remain uneven in quality and rough around the edges.  ByteDance is testing Coze Space, an AI agent based on its own Doubao model family that lets users toggle between “plan” and “execute” modes, so they can either directly guide the agent’s actions or step back and watch it work autonomously. It connects up to 14 popular apps, including GitHub, Notion, and the company’s own Lark office suite. Early reviews say the tool can feel clunky and has a high failure rate, but it clearly aims to match what Manus offers. Meanwhile, Zhipu AI has released a free agent called AutoGLM Rumination, built on its proprietary ChatGLM models. Shanghai‑based Minimax has launched Minimax Agent. Both products look almost identical to Manus and demo basic tasks such as building a simple website, planning a trip, making a small Flash game, or running quick data analysis. Despite the limited usability of most general AI agents launched within China, big companies have plans to change that. During a May 15 earnings call, Tencent president Liu Zhiping teased an agent that would weave automation directly into China’s most ubiquitous app, WeChat.  Considered the original super-app, WeChat already handles messaging, mobile payments, news, and millions of mini‑programs that act like embedded apps. These programs give Tencent, its developer, access to data from millions of services that pervade everyday life in China, an advantage most competitors can only envy. Historically, China’s consumer internet has splintered into competing walled gardens—share a Taobao link in WeChat and it resolves as plaintext, not a preview card. Unlike the more interoperable Western internet, China’s tech giants have long resisted integration with one another, choosing to wage platform war at the expense of a seamless user experience. But the use of mini‑programs has given WeChat unprecedented reach across services that once resisted interoperability, from gym bookings to grocery orders. An agent able to roam that ecosystem could bypass the integration headaches dogging independent startups. Alibaba, the e-commerce giant behind the Qwen model series, has been a front-runner in China's AI race but has been slower to release consumer-facing products. Even though Qwen was the most downloaded open-source model on Hugging Face in 2024, it didn’t power a dedicated chatbot app until early 2025. In March, Alibaba rebranded its cloud storage and search app Quark into an all-in-one AI search tool. By June, Quark had introduced DeepResearch—a new mode that marks its most agent-like effort to date.  ByteDance and Alibaba did not reply to MIT Technology Review’s request for comments. “Historically, Chinese tech products tend to pursue the all-in-one, super-app approach, and the latest Chinese AI agents reflect just that,” says Li of Simular, who previously worked at Google DeepMind on AI-enabled work automation. “In contrast, AI agents in the US are more focused on serving specific verticals.” Pei, the researcher at Stanford, says that existing tech giants could have a huge advantage in bringing the vision of general AI agents to life—especially those with built-in integration across services. “The customer-facing AI agent market is still very early, with tons of problems like authentication and liability,” he says. “But companies that already operate across a wide range of services have a natural advantage in deploying agents at scale.”

Last year, China saw a boom in foundation models, the do-everything large language models that underpin the AI revolution. This year, the focus has shifted to AI agents—systems that are less about responding to users’ queries and more about autonomously accomplishing things for them.  There are now a host of Chinese startups building these general-purpose digital tools, which can answer emails, browse the internet to plan vacations, and even design an interactive website. Many of these have emerged in just the last two months, following in the footsteps of Manus—a general AI agent that sparked weeks of social media frenzy for invite codes after its limited-release launch in early March.  These emerging AI agents aren’t large language models themselves. Instead, they’re built on top of them, using a workflow-based structure designed to get things done. A lot of these systems also introduce a different way of interacting with AI. Rather than just chatting back and forth with users, they are optimized for managing and executing multistep tasks—booking flights, managing schedules, conducting research—by using external tools and remembering instructions.  China could take the lead on building these kinds of agents. The country’s tightly integrated app ecosystems, rapid product cycles, and digitally fluent user base could provide a favorable environment for embedding AI into daily life.  For now, its leading AI agent startups are focusing their attention on the global market, because the best Western models don’t operate inside China’s firewalls. But that could change soon: Tech giants like ByteDance and Tencent are preparing their own AI agents that could bake automation directly into their native super-apps, pulling data from their vast ecosystem of programs that dominate many aspects of daily life in the country.  As the race to define what a useful AI agent looks like unfolds, a mix of ambitious startups and entrenched tech giants are now testing how these tools might actually work in practice—and for whom. Set the standard It’s been a whirlwind few months for Manus, which was developed by the Wuhan-based startup Butterfly Effect. The company raised $75 million in a funding round led by the US venture capital firm Benchmark, took the product on an ambitious global roadshow, and hired dozens of new employees.  Even before registration opened to the public in May, Manus had become a reference point for what a broad, consumer‑oriented AI agent should accomplish. Rather than handling narrow chores for businesses, this “general” agent is designed to be able to help with everyday tasks like trip planning, stock comparison, or your kid’s school project.  Unlike previous AI agents, Manus uses a browser-based sandbox that lets users supervise the agent like an intern, watching in real time as it scrolls through web pages, reads articles, or codes actions. It also proactively asks clarifying questions, supports long-term memory that would serve as context for future tasks. “Manus represents a promising product experience for AI agents,” says Ang Li, cofounder and CEO of Simular, a startup based in Palo Alto, California, that’s building computer use agents, AI agents that control a virtual computer. “I believe Chinese startups have a huge advantage when it comes to designing consumer products, thanks to cutthroat domestic competition that leads to fast execution and greater attention to product details.” In the case of Manus, the competition is moving fast. Two of the most buzzy follow‑ups, Genspark and Flowith, for example, are already boasting benchmark scores that match or edge past Manus’s.  Genspark, led by former Baidu executives Eric Jing and Kay Zhu, links many small “super agents” through what it calls multi‑component prompting. The agent can switch among several large language models, accepts both images and text, and carries out tasks from making slide decks to placing phone calls. Whereas Manus relies heavily on Browser Use, a popular open-source product that lets agents operate a web browser in a virtual window like a human, Genspark directly integrates with a wide array of tools and APIs. Launched in April, the company says that it already has over 5 million users and over $36 million in yearly revenue. Flowith, the work of a young team that first grabbed public attention in April 2025 at a developer event hosted by the popular social media app Xiaohongshu, takes a different tack. Marketed as an “infinite agent,” it opens on a blank canvas where each question becomes a node on a branching map. Users can backtrack, take new branches, and store results in personal or sharable “knowledge gardens”—a design that feels more like project management software (think Notion) than a typical chat interface. Every inquiry or task builds its own mind-map-like graph, encouraging a more nonlinear and creative interaction with AI. Flowith’s core agent, NEO, runs in the cloud and can perform scheduled tasks like sending emails and compiling files. The founders want the app to be a “knowledge marketbase”, and aims to tap into the social aspect of AI with the aspiration of becoming “the OnlyFans of AI knowledge creators”. What they also share with Manus is the global ambition. Both Genspark and Flowith have stated that their primary focus is the international market. A global address Startups like Manus, Genspark, and Flowith—though founded by Chinese entrepreneurs—could blend seamlessly into the global tech scene and compete effectively abroad. Founders, investors, and analysts that MIT Technology Review has spoken to believe Chinese companies are moving fast, executing well, and quickly coming up with new products.  Money reinforces the pull to launch overseas. Customers there pay more, and there are plenty to go around. “You can price in USD, and with the exchange rate that’s a sevenfold multiplier,” Manus cofounder Xiao Hong quipped on a podcast. “Even if we’re only operating at 10% power because of cultural differences overseas, we’ll still make more than in China.” But creating the same functionality in China is a challenge. Major US AI companies including OpenAI and Anthropic have opted out of mainland China because of geopolitical risks and challenges with regulatory compliance. Their absence initially created a black market as users resorted to VPNs and third-party mirrors to access tools like ChatGPT and Claude. That vacuum has since been filled by a new wave of Chinese chatbots—DeepSeek, Doubao, Kimi—but the appetite for foreign models hasn’t gone away.  Manus, for example, uses Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet—widely considered the top model for agentic tasks. Manus cofounder Zhang Tao has repeatedly praised Claude’s ability to juggle tools, remember contexts, and hold multi‑round conversations—all crucial for turning chatty software into an effective executive assistant. But the company’s use of Sonnet has made its agent functionally unusable inside China without a VPN. If you open Manus from a mainland IP address, you’ll see a notice explaining that the team is “working on integrating Qwen’s model,” a special local version that is built on top of Alibaba’s open-source model.  An engineer overseeing ByteDance’s work on developing an agent, who spoke to MIT Technology Review anonymously to avoid sanction, said that the absence of Claude Sonnet models “limits everything we do in China.” DeepSeek’s open models, he added, still hallucinate too often and lack training on real‑world workflows. Developers we spoke with rank Alibaba’s Qwen series as the best domestic alternative, yet most say that switching to Qwen knocks performance down a notch. Jiaxin Pei, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford’s Institute for Human‑Centered AI, thinks that gap will close: “Building agentic capabilities in base LLMs has become a key focus for many LLM builders, and once people realize the value of this, it will only be a matter of time.” For now, Manus is doubling down on audiences it can already serve. In a written response, the company said its “primary focus is overseas expansion,” noting that new offices in San Francisco, Singapore, and Tokyo have opened in the past month. A super‑app approach Although the concept of AI agents is still relatively new, the consumer-facing AI app market in China is already crowded with major tech players. DeepSeek remains the most widely used, while ByteDance’s Doubao and Moonshot’s Kimi have also become household names. However, most of these apps are still optimized for chat and entertainment rather than task execution. This gap in the local market has pushed China’s big tech firms to roll out their own user-facing agents, though early versions remain uneven in quality and rough around the edges.  ByteDance is testing Coze Space, an AI agent based on its own Doubao model family that lets users toggle between “plan” and “execute” modes, so they can either directly guide the agent’s actions or step back and watch it work autonomously. It connects up to 14 popular apps, including GitHub, Notion, and the company’s own Lark office suite. Early reviews say the tool can feel clunky and has a high failure rate, but it clearly aims to match what Manus offers. Meanwhile, Zhipu AI has released a free agent called AutoGLM Rumination, built on its proprietary ChatGLM models. Shanghai‑based Minimax has launched Minimax Agent. Both products look almost identical to Manus and demo basic tasks such as building a simple website, planning a trip, making a small Flash game, or running quick data analysis. Despite the limited usability of most general AI agents launched within China, big companies have plans to change that. During a May 15 earnings call, Tencent president Liu Zhiping teased an agent that would weave automation directly into China’s most ubiquitous app, WeChat.  Considered the original super-app, WeChat already handles messaging, mobile payments, news, and millions of mini‑programs that act like embedded apps. These programs give Tencent, its developer, access to data from millions of services that pervade everyday life in China, an advantage most competitors can only envy. Historically, China’s consumer internet has splintered into competing walled gardens—share a Taobao link in WeChat and it resolves as plaintext, not a preview card. Unlike the more interoperable Western internet, China’s tech giants have long resisted integration with one another, choosing to wage platform war at the expense of a seamless user experience. But the use of mini‑programs has given WeChat unprecedented reach across services that once resisted interoperability, from gym bookings to grocery orders. An agent able to roam that ecosystem could bypass the integration headaches dogging independent startups. Alibaba, the e-commerce giant behind the Qwen model series, has been a front-runner in China’s AI race but has been slower to release consumer-facing products. Even though Qwen was the most downloaded open-source model on Hugging Face in 2024, it didn’t power a dedicated chatbot app until early 2025. In March, Alibaba rebranded its cloud storage and search app Quark into an all-in-one AI search tool. By June, Quark had introduced DeepResearch—a new mode that marks its most agent-like effort to date.  ByteDance and Alibaba did not reply to MIT Technology Review’s request for comments. “Historically, Chinese tech products tend to pursue the all-in-one, super-app approach, and the latest Chinese AI agents reflect just that,” says Li of Simular, who previously worked at Google DeepMind on AI-enabled work automation. “In contrast, AI agents in the US are more focused on serving specific verticals.” Pei, the researcher at Stanford, says that existing tech giants could have a huge advantage in bringing the vision of general AI agents to life—especially those with built-in integration across services. “The customer-facing AI agent market is still very early, with tons of problems like authentication and liability,” he says. “But companies that already operate across a wide range of services have a natural advantage in deploying agents at scale.”

06/03 — 2025 by abduzeedo Explore the impactful branding and visual identity for Culture & Community Power Fund by Outside. See how design elevates community action. Hey creatives! Let's dive into some truly inspiring work today. Our friends at Outside, a global design and tech studio based in Kathmandu, recently rolled out a fresh brand and website for the Culture & Community Power Fund (C&CPF). This project isn't just about aesthetics; it's about design with a deeper purpose. Crafting a Visual Voice for Community Power C&CPF champions grassroots organizations. They focus on communities most affected by systemic oppression. Their mission involves direct funding, sharing resources, and building networks. Outside's goal was clear: uplift grantee work, create a wisdom hub, and clarify culture's role in social action . Elizabeth Lepro, Editorial Lead at Outside, shared that the project expanded their understanding of "culture." They aimed to visually inject the celebratory and communal aspects of shared spaces, rituals, stories, and traditions throughout the brand . This passion shines through in the final output. The Ampersand: A Symbol of Collaboration One standout element in C&CPF's new branding and visual identity is the ampersand (&). Outside emphasized this symbol in the logo, a direct nod to C&CPF's collaborative ethos. What's really clever is how they rendered the ampersand in various fonts. Each typeface reflects the diverse visions of C&CPF's partner-grantees. For instance, the rounded Akaya Kanadaka typeface conveys the joyful spirit of culturally infused community power building. Pilowlava, another typeface, speaks to a grantee-partner's work in urban farming and sustainability . It's a subtle yet powerful way to represent unity in diversity. Gritty, Bold, and Inviting Visuals Established in 2022, C&CPF is relatively new. They wanted to avoid looking overly traditional. Outside delivered a gritty, bold aesthetic, drawing inspiration from protest signs and zines. Snappy animations complement this vibe. They even provided image frames to unify varying aesthetics from featured organizations. The chosen color palette is a rich blend of orange, purple, yellow, black, and white. This combination expresses warmth and invitation, perfectly aligning with the Fund's focus on people and communities. The brand incorporates vibrant photography, showcasing scenes like festivals, local games, and urban farms. Bridging the Knowledge Gap Beyond the visual, Outside also provided copywriting and narrative support. They made sure the site explains "community power building" in accessible language. The "What is Community Power Building?" page breaks down basics, relevant vocabulary, and context. It clarifies that culture extends beyond art and music, encompassing traditions, stories, rituals, and shared spaces. A key feature is the "Knowledge Commons," a custom-built resource library. It serves both experienced practitioners and newcomers, fostering shared wisdom. This hub even accepts submissions, allowing C&CPF team members to edit and publish them. This project by Outside is a fantastic example of how thoughtful branding and visual identity can empower a mission. It shows that design isn't just about looking good; it's about building understanding, fostering connection, and driving meaningful change. What aspects of this purposeful design resonate most with you? Explore more of Outside's work and the Culture & Community Power Fund's initiatives to see how design can truly make an impact. Learn more about Outside's work Branding and visual identity artifacts Tags branding

Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.

Home Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy News Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy 7 min read Published: June 4, 2025 Key Takeaways Meta and Yandex have been found guilty of secretly listening to localhost ports and using them to transfer sensitive data from Android devices. The corporations use Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica scripts to transfer cookies from browsers to local apps. Using incognito mode or a VPN can’t fully protect users against it. A Meta spokesperson has called this a ‘miscommunication,’ which seems to be an attempt to underplay the situation. Wake up, Android folks! A new privacy scandal has hit your area of town. According to a new report led by Radboud University, Meta and Yandex have been listening to localhost ports to link your web browsing data with your identity and collect personal information without your consent. The companies use Meta Pixel and the Yandex Metrica scripts, which are embedded on 5.8 million and 3 million websites, respectively, to connect with their native apps on Android devices through localhost sockets. This creates a communication path between the cookies on your website and the local apps, establishing a channel for transferring personal information from your device. Also, you are mistaken if you think using your browser’s incognito mode or a VPN can protect you. Zuckerberg’s latest method of data harvesting can’t be overcome by tweaking any privacy or cookie settings or by using a VPN or incognito mode. How Does It Work? Here’s the method used by Meta to spy on Android devices: As many as 22% of the top 1 million websites contain Meta Pixel – a tracking code that helps website owners measure ad performance and track user behaviour. When Meta Pixel loads, it creates a special cookie called _fbp, which is supposed to be a first-party cookie. This means no other third party, including Meta apps themselves, should have access to this cookie. The _fbp cookie identifies your browser whenever you visit a website, meaning it can identify which person is accessing which websites. However, Meta, being Meta, went and found a loophole around this. Now, whenever you run Facebook or Instagram on your Android device, they can open up listening ports, specifically a TCP port (12387 or 12388) and a UDP port (the first unoccupied port in 12580-12585), on your phone in the background.  Whenever you load a website on your browser, the Meta Pixel uses WebRTC with SDP Munging, which essentially hides the _fbp cookie value inside the SDP message before being transmitted to your phone’s localhost.  Since Facebook and Instagram are already listening to this port, it receives the _fbp cookie value and can easily tie your identity to the website you’re visiting. Remember, Facebook and Instagram already have your identification details since you’re always logged in on these platforms. The report also says that Meta can link all _fbp received from various websites to your ID. Simply put, Meta knows which person is viewing what set of websites. Yandex also uses a similar method to harvest your personal data. Whenever you open a Yandex app, such as Yandex Maps, Yandex Browser, Yandex Search, or Navigator, it opens up ports like 29009, 30102, 29010, and 30103 on your phone.  When you visit a website that contains the Yandex Metrica Script, Yandex’s version of Meta Pixel, the script sends requests to Yandex servers containing obfuscated parameters.  These parameters are then sent to the local host via HTTP and HTTPS, which contains the IP address 127.0.0.1, or the yandexmetrica.com domain, which secretly points to 127.0.0.1. Now, the Yandex Metrica SDK in the Yandex apps receives these parameters and sends device identifiers, such as an Android Advertising ID, UUIDs, or device fingerprints. This entire message is encrypted to hide what it contains. The Yandex Metrica Script receives this info and sends it back to the Yandex servers. Just like Meta, Yandex can also tie your website activity to the device information shared by the SDK. Meta’s Infamous History with Privacy Norms This is not something new or unthinkable that Meta has done. The Mark Zuckerberg-led social media giant has a history of such privacy violations.  For instance, in 2024, the company was accused of collecting biometric data from Texas users without their express consent. The company settled the lawsuit by paying $1.4B.  Another of the most famous lawsuits was the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a political consulting firm accessed private data of 87 million Facebook users without consent. The FTC fined Meta $5B for privacy violations along with a 100M settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.  Meta Pixel has also come under scrutiny before, when it was accused of collecting sensitive health information from hospital websites. In another case dating back to 2012, Meta was accused of tracking users even after they logged out from their Facebook accounts. In this case, Meta paid $90M and promised to delete the collected data.  In 2024, South Korea also fined Meta $15M for inappropriately collecting personal data, such as sexual orientation and political beliefs, of 980K users. In September 2024, Meta was fined $101.6M by the Irish Data Protection Commission for inadvertently storing user passwords in plain text in such a way that employees could search for them. The passwords were not encrypted and were essentially leaked internally. So, the latest scandal isn’t entirely out of character for Meta. It has been finding ways to collect your data ever since its incorporation, and it seems like it will continue to do so, regardless of the regulations and safeguards in place. That said, Meta’s recent tracking method is insanely dangerous because there’s no safeguard around it. Even if you visit websites in incognito mode or use a VPN, Meta Pixel can still track your activities.  The past lawsuits also show a very identifiable pattern: Meta doesn’t fight a lawsuit until the end to try to win it. It either accepts the fine or settles the lawsuit with monetary compensation. This essentially goes to show that it passively accepts and even ‘owns’ the illegitimate tracking methods it has been using for decades. It’s quite possible that the top management views these fines and penalties as a cost of collecting data. Meta’s Timid Response Meta’s response claims that there’s some ‘miscommunication’ regarding Google policies. However, the method used in the aforementioned tracking scandal isn’t something that can simply happen due to ‘faulty design’ or miscommunication.  We are in discussions with Google to address a potential miscommunication regarding the application of their policies – Meta Spokesperson This kind of unethical tracking method has to be deliberately designed by engineers for it to work perfectly on such a large scale. While Meta is still trying to underplay the situation, it has paused the ‘feature’ (yep, that’s what they are calling it) as of now. The report also claims that as of June 3, Facebook and Instagram are not actively listening to the new ports. Here’s what will possibly happen next: A lawsuit may be filed based on the report. An investigating committee might be formed to question the matter. The company will come up with lame excuses, such as misinterpretation or miscommunication of policy guidelines. Meta will eventually settle the lawsuit or bear the fine with pride, like it has always done.  The regulatory authorities are apparently chasing a rat that finds new holes to hide every day. Companies like Meta and Yandex seem to be one step ahead of these regulations and have mastered the art of finding loopholes. More than legislative technicalities, it’s the moral ethics of the company that become clear with incidents like this. The intent of these regulations is to protect personal information, and the fact that Meta and Yandex blatantly circumvent these regulations in their spirit shows the absolutely horrific state of capitalism these corporations are in. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setup (including a 29-inch LG UltraWide) that’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors. More from News View all View all

Pros Supports multiple big radiatorsExcellent dust filtrationSpace for open-loop cooling components Cons Not fully EATX-compliantMidpack thermal performance in our tests MSI MPG Velox 300R Airflow PZ Specs 120mm or 140mm Fan Positions 10 120mm to 200mm Fans Included 3 Dimensions (HWD) 20.6 by 9.3 by 19.5 inches Fan Controller Included? Front Panel Ports HD Audio Front Panel Ports USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A (2) Front Panel Ports USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C Included Fan Lighting Color Addressable RGB Internal 2.5-Inch Bays 5 Internal 3.5-Inch Bays 2 Internal Chassis Lighting Color None Maximum CPU Cooler Height 165 Maximum GPU Length 400 Motherboard Form Factors Supported ATX Motherboard Form Factors Supported MicroATX Motherboard Form Factors Supported Mini-ITX PCI Expansion Slot Positions 7 Power Supply Form Factor Supported ATX Power Supply Maximum Length 260 Power Supply Mounting Location Bottom Side Window(s)? Yes (Tempered Glass) Weight 23.5 All Specs MSI has built a formidable reputation over the past four decades, beginning with motherboards and working its way through servers and graphics cards before finally becoming a premier laptop manufacturer. Its name is synonymous with shopping for PC components, but its PC cases usually come to mind only when we think of its prebuilt desktop machines. Built from sturdy materials and loaded with popular features, its $149.99 MPG Velox 300R Airflow PZ is designed to leave a more lasting impression. Supporting MSI’s reverse-connector Project Zero motherboards and smartly designed for accommodating a substantive build that’s air- or liquid-cooled, the Velox is a worthy rival to Asus’ TUF Gaming cable-hiding case. PC builders weighing a Project Zero build to minimize visible cabling should shortlist this chassis, though the selection of reverse-connector-compatible PC cases is growing fast.Design: Packing in the Features for Project ZeroWith a sturdy steel structure making up most of its 23.5 pounds of heft, the MPG Velox 300R Airflow PZ is as weighty as its name is long. (We’ll call it“Velox 300R” from here on out.) Its numerous strengths include dust filters that cover every air inlet, giant 160mm ARGB intake fans connected to a factory-installed controller/hub, and even a logo-emblazoned low-restriction faceplate that will probably help make any dust that collects on the filter behind it slightly less noticeable as the PC waits for its next cleaning. A light tint on the 4mm-thick tempered glass side panel makes the black 120mm exhaust fan harder to spot against the case’s black interior. Mounted on four snaps and three guide pins, the faceplate easily pulls away to access the front panel’s plastic-framed nylon-sheet dust filter. Secured with three magnets on each side, the filter pulls easily away from the fans for cleaning.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Though “front-panel” ports and buttons often end up on the top panel of modern cases, the Velox 300R’s placement is somewhat unusual in that it’s a bit farther away from the actual front of the case than on most cases. Lined up along its right edge are a power button with a power-indicator LED window, an LED mode button, a headset (headphone/microphone) combo jack, two USB 3.2 Type-A ports, and a Gen 2x2 Type-C port. Unfortunately, there’s no reset button or drive-activity light.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The rear panel features the only Velox 300R vents that aren’t covered in dust filters, though that’s okay; these should probably be viewed as exhaust vents that flow filtered air from those big front-panel fans. We also see the ATX standard’s seven expansion slots, a 120mm exhaust fan screwed onto slots that allow a little vertical adjustment, a power supply mount with two sets of holes to allow inverted mounting, and two vertical vent sections running up the forward and rear portions of the right side panel.The expansion-slot panel is inset, which simplifies graphics card installation. (In short: There's no interference between the card bracket and the clearance area above the screws, as there sometimes is with cheaper cases with non-inset panels.) (Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)A long dust filter that covers most of the bottom panel slides out the back of the case from beneath the power supply bay.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The top panel and two long side panel vents are each covered internally with a perforated metal filter sheet, each of which uses magnetic tape around its periphery to stick to the steel panel.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The Velox 300R’s top panel is designed to hold a 360mm-format radiator up to 420mm long. (The radiator will have around 57mm of clearance above the motherboard’s top edge.) The Velox 300R’s top panel also includes a second set of mounting slots to enable three 140mm fans to be placed there instead.From this angle, we can also see that the power supply cover has two 120mm fan mounts, that an adjustable card brace is attached slightly forward of the power supply cover, and that a removable multi-purpose bracket is factory-mounted to the 120mm fan location at the front of the case’s bottom panel. The bracket is drilled to hold a single 3.5-inch or 2.5-inch drive, as well as a variety of open-loop liquid-cooling pump/reservoir combos.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Like the multifunction bracket that sits in front of it, the outer three-quarters of the power supply cover is removable. That fact eased the installation and removal of modular cables on our power supply.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The Velox 300R’s motherboard tray includes several extra pass-through holes designed to fit the connector locations of MSI’s Project Zero motherboards, but they are not excluded, in any way we can see, from otherwise supporting its largest competitor’s rear-facing-connector design, Asus BTF. A side mount that can hold up to three 120mm fans and/or 360mm-format radiators up to 440mm long is offset an inch behind the motherboard tray, so that a fan up to 38mm thick could fit behind an EATX motherboard if we add the length of the standoffs to that thickness. We wouldn’t call the Velox an EATX case, because it has no mechanical support to hold 13-inch-long boards, but some slightly bigger-than-ATX boards will fit without requiring such supports.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Behind the Velox 300R’s motherboard tray are its ARGB controller/fan hub and two drive trays. (Note that we also pulled the face panel off for our open case photos.) The controller’s hub supports four PWM fans and four ARGB devices.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Removing the plastic plugs above and below the front-face 160mm factory ARGB fans allows us to see that the fan rails running up and down the face are also removable. Had we also removed the factory-fitted 160mm fans themselves, we could have used the extra mounting holes you can see to move the brackets inward to 140mm or 120mm fan spacing. The 480mm of space (height) behind that mount exceeds the length of any 420mm-format radiator we’ve seen, so you could put a really big radiator up front if you so desire. That said, you'll probably want to keep these oversized fans if you are air cooling; they have a nifty design, with an offset circle of blades inside a larger circle(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The drive trays include one dual-2.5-inch tray without 3.5-inch provisions and one with 3.5-inch provisions. Installing a 3.5-inch drive fitted with vibration-damping grommets precludes the use of any 2.5-inch drives in the second tray.Recommended by Our Editors(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Building With the MSI Velox 300RLet's dig into the accessory kit. The Velox 300R includes an installation guide and a case sticker, four combo-head power supply screws, a Phillips-to-hex-adapter socket for installing standoffs, two spare standoffs, and lots of additional screws. These include 21 standard M3 screws, eight M3 and four #6-32 shoulder screws (for installing drives onto the grommet-filled drive tray), and 12 extra-long #6-32 screws (for installing 120mm fans to the top of the power supply cover). You also get a bag of six replacement snaps for the ball-snap side-panel attachments, and two hook-and-loop and six zip-style cable ties.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Case cables include a 19-pin USB 3.2 Gen 1 for the Type-A ports, a Type-E Gen 2x2 for the Type-C port, and an F_PANEL combo cable with breakout pins for a reset button that the case itself lacks. The ARGB controller/fan hub accepts PWM and ARGB control signals from the motherboard and is powered by a SATA-style power cable from your PSU.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Our standard ATX motherboard fit the Velox 300R perfectly, and its card brace slid up to meet the edge of our test graphics card’s fan bracket nicely.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The ARGB controller defaults to obeying the motherboard’s signal whenever its ARGB input is connected to the motherboard, but those who won’t be using motherboard control can also scroll through the controller’s inbuilt patterns via its mode button or even disable lighting entirely simply by holding the button for a few seconds.Here’s how the Velox looked all fleshed out with our standard test parts...(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)MSI also sent along one of its motherboards, based on the Z790 chipset, so we could show this PZ (Project Zero) case built with its cable concealment fully deployed. This photo shows how all the cable headers that would have been pointing outward on a traditional motherboard point backward on this model.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)We’ll have to push some of those ARGB fan controller/hub cables aside to reach the ARGB and ATX12V headers of the Z790 Project Zero motherboard.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)We’ll also have to stuff away a little more cable length since most of our cables are no longer required to reach around to the front of the board.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Though the displaced power and data cabling cleaned up the show side of our build nicely, we still have our graphics card’s supplemental power cable (12VHPWR) and our AIO CPU cooler’s tubes to contend with. Still, mighty clean and almost "Zero."(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)And though the Z790 Project Zero motherboard has far less lighting than the board from our standardized kit, some would argue that it still looks better thanks to the reduced cable clutter.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Testing the MSI Velox 300R: Twice-Benchmarked, Once With Project ZeroHere’s a list of the internal components from both of the above-photographed builds, along with the settings we used for our tests.The Velox 300R’s thermal performance is exactly mid-pack when using our standard test kit, and swapping in the rear-connector motherboard only resulted in a faster-warming voltage regulator (likely due to the lower mass of its heat sink). Its temperature control falls behind its most direct competitor, the Asus TUF Gaming GT302 ARGB, in both configurations.The reason the Velox 300R’s cooling performance fell behind the Lian Li Lancool 207 and GT302 ARGB appears fairly obvious when observing our noise charts: It’s quieter than both those cases.Both companies were aware that they could get better thermal results simply by spinning their fans a little harder, but MSI appears to have favored a quieter approach. Be aware that simply enabling the automatic fan profiles for your motherboard could potentially put all three of these cases into a tie with regard to both temperature and noise.

Let's make this simple: You want to know if there are any post- or mid-credits scenes in Karate Kid: Legends. The answer is yes!Well, what do you call it when a movie ends, they cut to a title card, but then they immediately cut to another scene? Let’s call it a starts-credit scene. It would be hard to miss, but if you had to pee and were thinking of leaping out of your seat the second it seemed the movie was over, well, you shouldn’t. Full spoilers for the entire movie follow!The prophecy of six movies and six seasons of a TV show – wait, was that a thing? – has been fulfilled, as the Karate Kid franchise returns to theaters in Karate Kid: Legends. Though it is opening just a few months after the conclusion of the hit Netflix series Cobra Kai, the filmmakers have stressed this is a standalone story and that while Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio) is in both, fans shouldn’t expect the film to continue Cobra Kai storylines, as we shift focus to a new Karate Kid, Li Fong (Ben Wang). Still, it was hard not to wonder if there would be any overt connections between the two beyond Daniel’s presence - or if fans should actually worry that the film would outright contradict the series in any way. Ultimately, while the movie sticks to that standalone promise pretty strongly, and Daniel actually has a relatively small role, there are two scenes that touch upon other aspects of the larger Karate Kid franchise - specifically tied to The Karate Kid Part II and, yes, Cobra Kai. Ranking the Karate Kid MoviesThe Karate Kid Part II Connection (and Continuity Error)Karate Kid: Legends has been marketed as a movie where Li Fong gets trained by two legends from Karate Kid history - Daniel LaRusso and Jackie Chan’s Mr. Han. This is pretty notable because Mr. Han’s only appearance prior to this was alongside Jaden Smith in 2010’s The Karate Kid, a film that was intended at the time to be an outright remake of the 1984 original. And while it changed the character names and locations, it used nearly every notable story beat from the 1984 film. All of which makes it pretty funny that it’s now been retconned to be part of the larger Karate Kid/Cobra Kai universe, since it means we just have to accept Mr. Han and Mr. Miyagi had remarkably similar experiences as widowed handymen who were secretly martial arts masters that ended up mentoring and befriending a bullied young boy who moved into the building they worked in… And then entered them in a tournament where they could face their bully… And one night drunkenly broke down and spoke about their dead family to the kid they were training... And so on…But hey, the universe works in mysterious ways, and I guess maybe it’s even more cosmic that Han and Miyagi lived such similar lives since it turns out they were really good friends whose families had been bonded together for literal centuries! Legends reveals that the two were longtime pals and we even get a photoshopped image of Pat Morita and Jackie Chan in the mid-1980s together to prove it. Legends opens with a flashback scene pulled from The Karate Kid Part II to dive into the bond between the Miyagi and Han families.“Legends actually opens with a flashback scene pulled from The Karate Kid Part II to dive into the bond between the Miyagi and Han families. In Part II, when Daniel traveled with Miyagi to Okinawa, Miyagi explained to him how in the year 1625, his ancestor, fisherman Shimpo Miyagi, got drunk on his boat and woke up to find himself off the coast of China. He would return to Okinawa a decade later with a Chinese wife and two children, also now knowing the secret of Miyagi family karate, bringing karate to Okinawa for the first time in the process. However, Legends transitions from this scene between Daniel and Miyagi into animation accompanied by a soundalike for the late Pat Morita (is it an actual human or AI? Who can say these days?) that goes into specifics we didn’t hear in The Karate Kid Part II. Here, Miyagi says that it was the kung fu experts in the Han family who Shimpo encountered and learned from, and that is what forged a bond that has lasted to the present day between the two families. Oh, and a side note fanboy rant: Karate Kid: Legends literally begins with this flashback scene, alongside onscreen text that says “Okinawa, 1986.” 1986 is the year The Karate Kid Part II was released, yes, but that’s not the year that movie took place in! The Karate Kid Part II is set the summer after Daniel won the All-Valley in December 1984 in the first movie. Hence, it’s the summer of 1985. They make sure to get this right on Cobra Kai when referencing Part II’s events (and hell, when referencing The Karate Kid Part III as well, which takes place later in 1985), so it is odd and annoying that no one noticed this error in the entire process of completing this film, when plenty of Karate Kid/Cobra Kai fans can spot it instantly. Sigh… End rant. PlayLi’s Three Dads (Can Fight)Karate Kid: Legends is actually rather misleading in terms of marketing, because yes, Li ends up being trained by Mr. Han and Daniel together for this film’s big tournament, the New York-based 5 Boroughs. But none of that happens – and we don’t even see Daniel outside of that old Part II footage – until the second half of the movie. The first half follows Li moving to New York with his mom (Ming-Na Wen) where, at first, he’s having the traditional Karate Kid new kid in town path of falling for a friendly cute girl he meets (Sadie Stanley as Mia) whose ex-boyfriend (Aramis Knight as Connor) turns out to be a bullying a-hole who’s also a seemingly unbeatable karate champion. But one big difference this time is that Li actually is a rather formidable kung fu fighter already, thanks to the training he received back in China from Mr. Han - he’s just not ready for someone as skilled as Connor yet. But the other big difference is that the film then takes a huge detour from other Karate Kid films for quite awhile when Li bonds with Mia’s dad, Victor (Joshua Jackson), an ex-boxer turned pizza place owner who’s attempting a boxing comeback in order to quickly make money he needs to pay back a loan from the dangerous O’Shea (Tim Rozon). O’Shea is also the guy who runs the Demolition karate school that trains Connor, so basically think of him as Kreese from the original Karate Kid… if he also had a side hustle as a mobster/loan shark type.      After Li helps Victor fight off some of O’Shea’s goons, Victor is amazed at his fighting prowess and asks the kid to help him train to get back into fighting shape - and pass on some of his kung fu techniques for punching and dodging. Li accepts, and for a surprising amount of the first half of its run time Karate Kid: Legends does a fun twist on the usual underdog story, with the young teen character mentoring the older character on how to fight. However, in Victor’s big comeback fight, his opponent goes for some brutal sucker punches at O’Shea’s orders, sending Victor to the hospital. With Connor still harassing Li and Li now wanting to help Victor and Mia get the money they still need to pay off Victor’s debt, he is convinced by Mr. Han – who comes from China to see him – to enter the 5 Boroughs tournament, which comes with a snazzy $50,000 prize for the winner. Mr. Han will of course help train him, but he can’t do it alone, because the 5 Boroughs is a karate tournament, not kung fu. So it’s off to Los Angeles and to Mr. Miyagi’s house (AKA Miyagi-Do Karate Dojo to Cobra Kai fans) to recruit a reluctant Daniel LaRusso to help, with Han explaining his friendship with Miyagi - though you’d think Daniel might already know about him?Karate Kid: Legends Ending ExplainedSoon enough, as Han predicts, Daniel does come to New York and he and Han team up to get Li ready for the tournament in just a few days time, using his foundation of kung fu to build upon to teach him Miyagi karate. Daniel also gives Li a headband he found among Miyagi’s belongings that he believes is connected to the bond between the Hans and the Miyagis and the idea of “two branches, one tree.” And then Li gets his ass kicked in the tournament and loses to Connor! Li beats Connor, and it being a Karate Kid movie, he does it using a special move he’d practiced earlier, of course.“Just kidding, Li beats Connor, and it being a Karate Kid movie, he does it using a special move he’d practiced earlier, of course - this one a fancy kick his late brother taught him, with an added second slide move suggested by Daniel, since Connor already has seen and countered that kick on its own in a previous skirmish the two had.Does Karate Kid: Legends Have a Mid- or Post-Credits Scene?As mentioned above, Karate Kid: Legends does have an additional scene – two, actually – though they appear almost immediately after the film appears to end, rather than true “mid-credits” scenes, since no credits actually run before they appear. After Li wins, Victor holds him up triumphantly to the cheering crowd and we get the traditional Karate Kid freeze frame on Li and then cut to the movie’s logo filling the screen… Except then, instead of the closing credits beginning, we get the two back-to-back scenes that actually wrap up the story. In the first scene, Victor is opening a new second location for his pizza place, with Li and Mia assisting. Han is there too alongside Li’s mom, though he mentions he will be returning to China soon, while Li says something about a pizza delivery to a notably far address. William Zabka (center) does show up as Johnny Lawrence in the "mid-credits" scene!We then cut to Los Angeles and a knock at the door of Mr. Miyagi’s home. Daniel answers and is confused to see it’s a pizza, saying he didn’t order one. However, when he opens the box, alongside the pizza (which we only glimpse, but it does appear to be freeze-dried, thankfully) is a note from Li, thanking Daniel for his help. Daniel walks inside with the pizza and up to… Johnny Lawrence! Yes, William Zabka does make a cameo in this movie as Johnny, in the one moment at my press screening of Karate Kid: Legends that got a big cheer from the crowd. The scene is an amusing comedic one, as Johnny first mocks the New York pizza Daniel received, insisting the best pizza is in the Valley’s own Encino. He then suggests to Daniel they open their own pizza place, which he has the perfect name for - Miyagi-Dough. An exasperated Daniel tells Johnny that’s offensive and walks off as Johnny begins brainstorming slogans like “Slice hard, slice fast.”So Is That It for Cobra Kai Connections in Karate Kid: Legends? Pretty much. And obviously the Johnny appearance is not an “important” scene, in that it doesn’t overtly set up anything for the future (unless we get a Miyagi-Dough Netflix series), but it does acknowledge Cobra Kai for the first time in the film. Prior to that, at no point does Daniel mention his wife or kids or that he runs a car dealership and an active dojo or really anything about the characters and events from the series, who we can presume are all simply living their lives off screen. But Johnny finally showing up, as Daniel’s pal, does at least let us know they are reinforcing where the show left off as far as where Daniel is in his life. If you’re searching for possible connections beyond that, there are a couple of slight/tenuous ones. When Li is explaining how vicious Connor fights, they end up describing him like he’s a tiger, with Daniel suggesting they just need to bait him. He mentions having fought opponents like that before, though it’s up to the viewer to determine if he means Johnny, Chozen, Mike Barnes, Kreese, Terry Silver, some combination of those guys, or someone else entirely. Then there’s the headband that Daniel says he found among Miyagi’s belongings. Was this something Daniel has had in his possession since Miyagi died or did he find it more recently? The final season of Cobra Kai had Daniel discover a trunk Miyagi had hidden away, containing artifacts from his past, including his headband from the brutal Sekai Taikai tournament. Was this second headband in there too and we just didn’t see it on the show or did Daniel already have it? That’s probably not a question we’ll ever get an answer to on screen, so the answer may be whichever you’d like it to be.But what did you think of Legends? Let’s discuss in the comments!