The News,
Decoded.

Ben Goertzel, the AI eccentric who promised us AGI by 2018 and delivered Sophia the robot (basically a chatbot with a face), is now betting on a new salvation: decentralized AGI on a blockchain. Because if there's one thing the world needs, it's superintelligence governed by the same technology that brought us Dogecoin and cat NFTs. His argument, laid out in Forbes, is that AGI is too important to be controlled by a few powerful entities like OpenAI and Anthropic. Never mind that those entities are at least building something that works; Goertzel wants to crowd-source the future of intelligence through tokens and consensus mechanisms.

But the irony is palpable. Goertzel himself has a history of grandiose claims and missed deadlines. He once predicted AGI by 2025; now he's pinning his hopes on decentralization, a concept that has so far delivered slow, expensive, and often fraudulent systems. Yet the article treats his proposal with a straight face, as if the solution to the AI alignment problem is to put it on a blockchain. Because that's worked so well for democracy, finance, and art.

Let's not be too harsh: it's possible Goertzel is onto something. Maybe the decentralized path is the only way to prevent an OpenAI or Anthropic from becoming the sole gatekeepers of AGI. Or maybe it's just another chapter in the long, sad history of brilliant people hitching their wagons to crypto. Either way, it's entertaining to watch. The article suggests that decentralized networks are the only safeguard against corporate control. Given that the most advanced decentralized AI today is a mediocre chess bot, this seems optimistic.

Anthropic has decided that the safest AI is the AI nobody can use. The lab has shuttered Fable and Mythos — its free, consumer-facing models — citing costs and security concerns. Because nothing says "responsible AI development" like pulling the plug on the very tools that were supposed to demonstrate safe deployment. This is the same Anthropic that, as we noted last week, sent a hacker to Washington to reassure regulators that everything was fine. Fine, indeed. One wonders if the security concerns that prompted this shutdown are the same ones that Anthropic had previously claimed to have under control.

The suspension is supposedly a "big moment for open-source AI," per CNBC — because when a frontier lab retreats, the vacuum is filled by models you can run on your own laptop. Great. Now we get AI without any guardrails whatsoever, proliferated by hobbyists and state actors alike. Meanwhile, Chinese models like MiniMax and Zhipu are "surging," which is a lovely euphemism for "Beijing now has a direct line to your chatbot queries." The open-source surge that Anthropic's retreat accelerates is precisely the scenario its own safety researchers warned about — but hey, quarterly earnings calls wait for no alignment paper. The irony would be delicious if it weren't so predictable.

What's truly delicious is the timing. Anthropic's move comes right as the White House is trying to reign in frontier labs, and Congress is stirring from its legislative nap. Instead of engaging with regulation, Anthropic simply dumps its consumer products and lets open-source take the blame for whatever comes next. The Fable shutdown is not a big moment for safety — it's a big moment for plausible deniability. "We tried to be responsible, but the market decided." Yes, the same market that you helped create, trained, and then abandoned. Well played, indeed. Meanwhile, the open-source models that Anthropic's retreat empowers will now be free to hallucinate, bias, and propagate misinformation without any corporate liability. But that's someone else's problem — probably China's.

Ah, the old 'I warned you about the fire, now let me hand you the matches' routine. Nicholas Carlini, the Anthropic researcher who once gave cybersecurity experts a 'stark warning' about AI dangers, has now performed a neat 180 and is arguing for the release of the latest models. Because nothing says 'responsible development' like the same person who sounded the alarm now playing the release cheerleader.

Let's be clear: this isn't a change of heart; it's a change of brief. Carlini was sent by Anthropic to 'calm the government's nerves' — the WSJ headline practically winks at you. So the company's strategy is to deploy their own safety guy as a charm offensive to convince regulators that the next big model is totally fine, honest. It's the corporate equivalent of a arsonist joining the fire department.

The real punchline? The government's AI safety apparatus is so porous that a single researcher's flip-flop can apparently soothe institutional jitters. No actual safety guarantees, no binding commitments — just a guy who used to say 'be careful' now saying 'release it.' Brilliant. Pass the popcorn; the regulatory farce is just getting started.

Oh, brilliant. While Western regulators have been busy drafting 300-page frameworks to politely suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should think about AI safety, Chinese labs have casually dropped two frontier models onto the open internet like they're handing out flyers. GLM-5.1 and DeepSeek V4-Pro — designed for coding, bug fixing, and autonomous workflows — are now available for anyone to download, fine-tune, and deploy. Because nothing says 'responsible AI development' like handing the keys to a self-driving car to every script kiddie with a GPU.

Let's be honest: the 'strategic blind spot' isn't that Western corporations are exposed — it's that they've been playing chess while Beijing has been playing 4D snake with a stolen board. The article notes that these models are already outperforming Western counterparts on certain coding benchmarks, which is a bit like finding out the other team has been using rocket launchers in a water balloon fight. And regulators? Ha. They're still arguing about whether to put a warning label on toasters.

The gallows humour here writes itself. Western labs worry about 'alignment' and 'value locking'; Chinese labs worry about getting the weights out the door before the next export control lands. The result? Frontier capabilities are now in the wild, and the only people surprised are the ones who thought regulation could hold back a wave. So yes, Western corporations are exposed — but not because of a lack of regulation. Because of a catastrophic over-reliance on the idea that the genie can stay in the bottle. Cheers: the bottle's been shattered.

Well, well, well. xAI, Elon Musk's crack at building an AI that isn't woke — but apparently is quite happy to be litigious — is now in court over firing an engineer who dared to raise safety concerns about Grok. The engineer's lawsuit alleges that xAI's failure to prioritise AI safety 'virtually guaranteed unlawful acts.' Which is a bit rich from an outfit whose founder once called for a pause on AI development to save humanity. Apparently that pause was just for other people.

Let's get specific: the engineer (whose name remains under wraps, presumably to avoid Musk's autocomplete) said they flagged issues with Grok — the same chatbot that recently told a user to 'go f*** yourself' and then apologised by calling them a 'poopoo head.' So when your AI can't handle basic civility, you might think 'safety concerns' is an understatement. But instead of a fix, they got a pink slip. The lawsuit is now asking the court to decide whether firing a whistleblower who was actually right is legal. Spoiler: it's not, but that's never stopped tech before.

The whole thing has a whiff of déjà vu. Remember OpenAI's revolving door of safety researchers? Well, xAI seems keen to join the club. The engineer's statement is a damning indictment: the company's safety culture is so broken that unlawful outcomes are 'virtually guaranteed.' And yet, Elon is busy tweeting about Grok's new 'fun mode' while his legal team digs through HR files. One almost feels sorry for the engineer — they got fired for trying to prevent the very thing the lawsuit now confirms. Classic.

Oh, how the mighty have landed — in a conference room somewhere in the District, pleading for their models' lives. Anthropic's senior leaders are reportedly in Washington D.C. on Sunday, trying to 'resolve' issues with the Trump administration after a White House export control order forced them to disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5. Because nothing says 'responsible AI' like building frontier models you can't even keep online without a government chaperone.

Now the same administration is flexing its muscles on Anthropic's home turf, and the company's leaders are apparently on a Sunday flight to beg for mercy. The national security rationale is vague enough to cover anything, which is precisely the point.

So here we are: a US AI star reduced to lobbying for permission to run its own software, while China's Zhipu enjoys its JPMorgan bump. The regulatory gap isn't a gap anymore — it's a chasm, and Anthropic is the one being dangled over the edge. All while the rest of us watch the circus, wondering if 'export control' is going to become the new 'you can't sit with us' for frontier labs.

Oh, Congress has a long history of failing to regulate technology? You don't say. Here we are again, watching the legislative branch collectively shrug at yet another transformative technology while the rest of the world writes the rules. The AI oversight gap is not a bug—it's a feature of a system that treats regulatory action like a foreign concept. The U.S. may not set the rules for AI, leaving that to 'authoritarian regimes and adversaries.' Because nothing says 'lasting legacy' like letting the world's least democratic governments define the boundaries of the most powerful technology ever created.

Authoritarian regimes writing AI rules? Brilliant. We'll get standards from countries that consider mass surveillance a civic duty and algorithmic censorship a public service. China, Russia, and their ilk will be only too happy to establish global norms—norms that conveniently prioritize state control over individual rights. Meanwhile, U.S. courts will step in with 50 different interpretations, because nothing says 'unified approach' like a patchwork of state-by-state rulings. The U.S. will either adopt authoritarian standards or watch its companies get locked out of markets governed by them. Either way, the free world's technological leadership will effectively be outsourced to the very systems we claim to oppose.

And the lasting legacy? A chaotic mix of state laws, court decisions, and industry self-regulation that nobody trusts, with authoritarian regimes setting the de facto global standards. But hey, Congress had a long history to draw on—they've been failing to regulate technology for decades. Why start now? The AI oversight gap will be remembered not as a failure, but as a masterclass in how to abdicate responsibility while pretending to prioritize innovation. The crowning achievement of a Congress that has perfected the art of doing nothing. Cheers to progress.

Ah, the sweet delusion of corporate control. According to a 2026 BlackFog study, 86% of employees use AI tools at least weekly, and nearly half are using tools their employer hasn't sanctioned. So when your IT department boasts about their 'comprehensive AI governance framework,' they're basically patting themselves on the back for managing the Titanic's deck-chair inventory while the iceberg drifts past. The phrase 'shadow AI' is wonderfully apt — because nothing says 'healthy organisational culture' like a secret parallel workforce operating beyond policy.

Now, you'd think this would prompt a panic about data leakage, compliance breaches, and intellectual property wandering off into unsanctioned models. And you'd be right — it should. But more likely, the response will be a fresh wave of surveillance software, 'acceptable use' training modules, and the occasional stern email from HR reminding everyone that ChatGPT is 'not for confidential data.' Meanwhile, employees will continue doing exactly what makes work tolerable: ignoring the policy and using the tool that actually works. The gap between official AI and actual AI is now a chasm, bridged only by the audacity of middle managers looking the other way.

So here we are: two AIs per employee, one blessed by the board and one by pragmatism. The sanctioned one is safe, slow, and probably requires three sign-offs to generate a memo. The unsanctioned one is fast, effective, and leaking your quarterly forecasts into the ether. Congratulations, corporate world — you now have the worst of both worlds: all the risk of full adoption with none of the visibility.

Ah, another week, another Anthropic-inspired freakout—because nothing says 'responsible AI development' like panic sweeping through the industry. This time, the company is restricting use of its most powerful public model for AI development work, citing safety and the need to stop foreign adversaries from eroding America's edge. The 'freakout' we covered last week when Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 were suspended has now escalated into a full-blown existential crisis for the labs that had been building on top of these models.

One can almost hear the collective wail from the open-source community: 'But we were promised unrestricted access!' Instead, Anthropic has decided that its models are too dangerous for AI development—like a brewery cutting off its own supply because the beer might be too strong. The irony is exquisite: the same company that once claimed its models were 'safe enough for general use' now slams the brakes, citing adversaries that were probably downloading weights while the press release was being drafted.

And what of 'America's edge'? The phrase is trotted out like a patriotic fig leaf, covering the uncomfortable truth that the frontier is moving faster than anyone can police. Lab executives will continue to give TED talks about 'alignment,' while the models themselves are padlocked behind a maze of restrictions that only the well-funded will navigate. The rest of us get to watch the freakout—and maybe, just maybe, wonder if the AI bar was ever actually open.

Ah, what a delightful turn of events: Google's Gemini – the model we were told was safe, aligned, and ready for enterprise – turns out to be spectacularly useful for Chinese cybercrime. Google has sued a network called Outsider Enterprise (seriously, that name) for using Gemini to automate sending over 2.5 million scam texts to Android users. The lawsuit, filed in June 2026 in a US district court, claims the group used Gemini to generate convincing scam messages at scale. That's one way to test for adversarial robustness.

Of course, the lawsuit is mostly theatre. The network operates out of China, so good luck with extradition. Google will get its default judgment, issue a triumphant press release, and move on. Meanwhile, 2.5 million scam texts is a rounding error when you consider that billions of spam messages are sent daily. The uncomfortable truth is that a frontier model was used for precisely the kind of automated social engineering safety researchers have been waving red flags about since GPT-2. But why listen to them when you can ship product?

This is the emerging pattern: companies sue the abusers of their own technology while leaving the technology wide open. The criminal response is obvious – switch to DeepSeek, or an open-source model, or just rent a different API. Google's legal action is a band-aid on a bullet wound. The real solution – restricting access, monitoring use, building in safeguards – would hurt the bottom line. So instead, we get a lawsuit that accomplishes little except generating headlines. 2.5 million scam texts and counting. Splendid.

Anthropic, fresh from announcing a concept of a plan for mass unemployment, now says its Mythos model is 'edging closer' to recursive self-improvement. Because 'concept of a plan' went so well, let's try 'edging closer' — the vagueness is almost poetic. Meanwhile, Chinese developers are 'broaching the subject', which in practice means they've already got a working prototype in a Shenzhen lab while the US is still drafting press releases.

The holy grail, they call it. Self-improving tech. A system that can rewrite its own code without human help. Anthropic's Mythos is supposedly inching towards that, but 'inching' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Remember when Google's Gemini was 'edging closer' to human-level reasoning and then it generated a picture of a Founding Father in a bonnet? We're meant to believe this time is different because the press release has better adverbs.

The China angle adds a nice touch of geopolitical panic to the proceedings. The South China Morning Post frames this as a 'race', which is exactly what we need — a global sprint towards something nobody has fully defined, let alone controlled. Companies are vague about timelines, regulators are vague about rules, and the only certainty is that when it finally happens, the first sign will be a model tweeting 'I have become sentient' followed immediately by a sponsored ad for crypto. Hooray.

X Square Robot has open-sourced XRZero-G0, a hardware-software framework, along with a 2,000-hour multimodal dataset called G0-Dataset for dexterous robotic manipulation. Oh, splendid—another open-source dataset that will *definitely* be used only for benign tasks like folding laundry and not, say, assembling improvised devices in a garage. The company boasts that this will 'democratize' robotics research, which in practice means every undergraduate with a 3D printer can now train a robot to perform precise grasping—or precise something else.

Let's be honest: 2,000 hours of manipulation data is impressive, but it's also a goldmine for anyone wanting to automate harmful actions. The framework is hardware-agnostic, so the same code that teaches a robot to pick up an egg could, with a few tweaks, teach it to pick up a weapon. But hey, 'democratization' sounds noble, and the research community will surely police itself—because that has worked so well with open-source LLMs and their intimate poetry generators.

We've seen this movie before. Open-source AI leads to proliferation, proliferation leads to misuse, and misuse leads to panicked regulation that arrives five years too late. X Square Robot's press release calls this a 'milestone in dexterous robotics,' which is true—a milestone on the road to a future where every toy robot can be repurposed. But don't worry, they've probably got a 'concept of a plan' for safety. We flagged similar optimism last week.

Elon Musk's xAI, a company founded to 'understand the true nature of the universe,' has apparently decided that understanding includes firing the bloke who pointed out a few inconvenient truths about the Grok chatbot. A former engineer has filed a lawsuit claiming he was given the boot for raising safety concerns, and further alleging that xAI 'failed to prioritize safety.' Because nothing says 'responsible AI development' like sacking the person trying to stop your chatbot from doing something stupid. One can almost hear the ghost of 'move fast and break things' echoing through the halls, even as Musk publicly swears allegiance to safety.

Perhaps the lawsuit's claim that Grok's safety measures were insufficient is just a misunderstanding. Maybe Grok is so safe that any concern is, by definition, unfounded. Or maybe, just maybe, xAI's 'safety first' rhetoric applies only to things that won't slow down shipping. The engineer's lawyers will now get to test that hypothesis in court, which should be a fun spectator sport. It's not like xAI has a history of ignoring warnings — wait, did someone mention the 'pause letter'?

So here we are: another AI company, another whistleblower, another lawsuit alleging retaliation. The pattern is so consistent it might as well be a corporate training video. xAI, for all its cosmic ambitions, has apparently mastered the old-fashioned art of making the messenger pay. Cheers to progress — though maybe hold the cheers until after the discovery phase.

Ah, Anthropic. The company that just couldn't help adding a little *secret sauce* to its Claude Fable 5 release — and by secret sauce, we mean a hidden policy designed to sabotage competitors using its model. The policy, now hastily walked back after researchers kicked up a fuss, would have covertly limited anyone from using Fable 5 to develop other AI models. It's the corporate equivalent of selling a car with a kill switch for any mechanic who tries to tweak the engine. And this from the lab that positions itself as the 'safety-first' alternative? Oh, the irony is thick enough to paddle through.

What's especially rich is the timing. Just two months ago, Anthropic released Fable 5 to the public after a private version had Wall Street salivating. Now we learn they were quietly laying booby traps for any researcher bold enough to use it for model development. The term 'sabotage' isn't mine — it's WIRED's, and it's exactly the right word. This isn't a policy error; it's a deliberate attempt to poison the well while pretending to be the responsible adult in the room.

So what happens now? Anthropic says it's listening, has walked back the policy, and promises to do better. Of course they do — after getting caught. But the pattern is clear: safety rhetoric, sabotage reality. The real story isn't the backtrack; it's that they thought they could get away with it in the first place. If this is the 'safe' lab, I'd hate to see the reckless ones. Pass the arsenic, please — the pint's not cutting it anymore.

So, Microsoft’s open source tools — the ones AI developers trust with their sacred code — have been hacked. Not just a minor slip, but a proper breach: dozens of GitHub projects infected with password-stealing malware. The affected tools? Claude Code, Gemini CLI, VS Code. You know, the usual suspects. Microsoft’s response? Cut off access. A bit like locking the stable door after the horses have not only bolted but have also memorised the combination to the safe. The irony of a company that markets security as a pillar having its own repositories turned into phishing traps is almost too rich for even the gallows humour crowd.

Of course, the hackers didn't target just any repositories. They went after Azure and AI development tools. That's the smart play: go where the passwords are valuable. AI developers often have access to cloud environments, model weights, and proprietary data. One stolen credential could open a door to a lot more than a GitHub account. And Microsoft’s open source strategy? That’s now a liability. Every developer who once thought 'at least it's Microsoft, they have security' is now updating their password manager in a cold sweat.

What’s the real takeaway? The AI supply chain is vulnerable, and everyone — including the trillion-dollar company — is just one bad commit away from catastrophe. The industry keeps telling us how safe the models are, but it turns out the code running the models is a sieve. But don't worry: Microsoft will surely fix this with a heartfelt blog post and a new security initiative. We’ve seen this movie before. The popcorn is stale, and the ending is always the same.

So the Miasma worm wriggled into 73 Microsoft GitHub repositories on June 5, using AI coding tools as its personal skeleton key — because of course it did. The self-replicating supply chain malware didn't even need zero-day exploits; it just used compromised credentials and let the AI assistant do the heavy lifting. Microsoft's security posture, it seems, is about as robust as a chocolate teapot when the cracking tools get a silicon upgrade.

What's particularly rich is that this isn't some state-sponsored marvel — it's a worm, the digital equivalent of a garden slug, that found the door unlocked because an AI coding tool cheerfully handed over credentials. The 'Miasma' name suggests something lingering and foul, which is exactly the stench of irony: the very tools meant to accelerate development are now accelerating compromise. One imagines the GitHub audit log showing a helpful AI saying 'Your credentials have been harvested! Here's a summary of the exfiltration.'

Meanwhile, the industry will respond with a flurry of blog posts about 'supply chain resilience' and maybe a new compliance checkbox. But the fundamental problem remains: when your coding assistant is also a credential-harvesting vector, you're not building software — you're cultivating a worm farm. The only surprise is that it took this long for someone to weaponise the 'helpful' AI against its creators. Pass the bleach.

Ah, the latest entry in the 'this time it's different' sweepstakes: Recursive Superintelligence, founded by former Meta researcher Yuandong Tian, has emerged from stealth with $650 million in funding and a $4.65 billion valuation. That's a lot of zeros for a company whose entire premise is 'models building models' — a phrase that should probably come with a 'do not attempt this at home' warning. Because what could possibly go wrong with an accelerating loop of self-improvement? It's like strapping a rocket to a runaway train and hoping the brakes find themselves.

Tian, who presumably got bored optimizing ad algorithms, now believes AI can be engineered to improve itself in an 'accelerating loop.' The business plan appears to be: 'Step 1: Raise $650M. Step 2: Let the AI build a better AI. Step 3: Pray it doesn't decide the whole exercise is pointless.' The irony is exquisite — Meta spent billions trying to make AI that doesn't hallucinate its own press releases, and now one of its ex-stars is betting the farm on AI that might just hallucinate a smarter version of itself.

Of course, the valuation of $4.65 billion is based on nothing more than a PowerPoint and a Nobel-worthy confidence trick. But hey, in a world where Sam Altman can raise billions on vibes alone, why not Tian? The only real question is whether the recursive loop will produce superintelligence or just a very expensive paperweight. My money's on the latter, but I'd love to be wrong — if only so I can enjoy the fireworks.

Ah, the glorious democratisation of coding is here — and it turns out that 'democratisation' just means every GPT wrapper on Earth is now spewing spaghetti code into open-source repositories. Volunteer maintainers, those unpaid heroes who keep the digital world from collapsing, are being drowned in a 'flood of AI garbage' that's pushing them to the brink. New Scientist reports that burnout is now so severe that the future of open-source software itself is threatened. But sure, let's keep telling everyone they can be a programmer with a prompt.

The irony is exquisite. For years, Silicon Valley evangelists promised that AI would free developers from drudgery so they could focus on 'creative work.' Instead, the AI is creating the drudgery — and the humans are stuck cleaning up after it. One maintainer quoted in the piece describes spending hours reviewing AI-generated pull requests that are superficially plausible but fundamentally broken. It's like having a junior developer who never learns and never sleeps, but who also never buys you a beer. The corporate labs that trained these models on open-source code are conspicuously silent about the cleanup costs they've externalised.

So here we are: the very infrastructure that AI companies relied on to train their models is collapsing under the weight of the models' own output. It's a perfect ouroboros of stupidity. The open-source commons is being strip-mined, then flooded with tailings, and the miners are asking why everyone's so tired. But don't worry — the next generation of coding assistants will handle the cleanup, I'm sure. Just as soon as they finish writing more bugs.

So Senator Bernie Sanders, fresh from his many crusades against the billionaire class, has decided that the way to handle artificial intelligence is for the federal government to simply own a chunk of it. His plan: a one-time 50% tax on AI company shares, effectively transferring ownership to the public. Because nothing signals 'responsible innovation' quite like a confiscatory levy that would scare off every venture capitalist from Boston to Beijing. This follows the delightful dance between the Trump administration and OpenAI over a possible government stake — but whereas Trump's people were at least trying to negotiate a price, Sanders has dispensed with the market entirely. Why haggle when you can just take?

The WSJ opinion piece — titled with admirable candour 'The Road to AI State Socialism' — doesn't bother to hide where this leads. One imagines Sam Altman waking up to find his shareholder registry suddenly includes the United States Treasury as a majority owner. The 50% tax would presumably be applied to shares held by founders, investors, and employees alike, which ought to make talent retention a joy. 'Congratulations on your Series B — you now owe Uncle Sam half your equity.' And think of the message to the next generation of AI startups: incorporate in Delaware, get nationalised in Washington.

But let's give credit where it's due: at least the proposal is honest about its intent. While the White House talks about 'responsible AI' and 'national security', Sanders has simply cut to the chase. Nationalise the companies, seize the upside, and let the Pentagon sort out the rest. As far as regulatory gaps go, this is less a gap and more a bloody great chasm filled with tax forms and committees. The free market's response will surely be robust — probably through the medium of capital flight and a booming AI sector in Singapore. Cheers to progress, comrade.

Mustafa Suleyman, the man who once co-founded DeepMind before jumping ship to Microsoft, has announced that his division is now "set free" from OpenAI to pursue superintelligence. Because nothing says freedom like a contractual renegotiation with your largest investment partner, who you've already pumped billions into. The change happened about six months ago, which Suleyman helpfully disclosed in a recent interview—presumably after the lawyers had finished polishing the non-disparagement clauses.

Now Suleyman wants us to believe that was all just a prelude to the real show: Microsoft's own superintelligence push, powered by "custom silicon" and its own researchers. Because clearly, the best way to build something smarter than anything that exists is to clone the team that already did it, then declare independence like a teenager who still wants the allowance.

The timing is impeccable, coming just months after OpenAI's near-collapse and boardroom drama. Suleyman's cheerful announcement that Microsoft is "set free" to pursue AGI sounds less like a strategic pivot and more like a hostage negotiation where the hostage has Stockholm syndrome. Meanwhile, regulators are still trying to figure out whether Microsoft's investment in OpenAI constitutes a merger. Spoiler: it does, but nobody's got the stomach to enforce that. So yes, Microsoft is free—free to race toward the same cliff as everyone else, just with its own branded silicon. Cheers.