Did Chinese AI Steal From Anthropic, and OpenAI Loses Control of Two Models

This week on Uncanny Valley, our hosts break down the White House’s accusation that Chinese-owned Moonshot AI distilled Anthropic's Fable 5 to build their much talked about Kimi K3 model. The team discusses whether this is a repeat of the DeepSeek moment and what it means for the AI race between the US and China. They also get into how the US Army—and plenty of Silicon Valley companies—are having to cut back AI usage after burning through their tokens. Plus, we discuss why you should check if you have an alarm that could make your car easier to hack, and how OpenAI briefly lost control of two AI models during a security test.Articles mentioned in this episode:The White House Is Trying to Figure Out What to Do About Chinese AIOpenAI Models Escaped Containment and Hacked Hugging FaceA Device Hidden in Cars Across the US Leaves Them Vulnerable to Hacking and Paralysis. Patch It NowSystem Update Newsletter: The Best of WIREDYou can follow Brian Barrett on Bluesky at @brbarrett, Zoë Schiffer on Bluesky at @zoeschiffer, and Leah Feiger on Bluesky at @leahfeiger. Write to us at [email protected].How to ListenYou can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “uncanny valley.” We’re on Spotify too.TranscriptNote: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors.Zoë Schiffer: Welcome to WIRED's Uncanny Valley. I'm Zoë Schiffer, contributing editor.Brian Barrett: I'm Brian Barrett, executive editor.Leah Feiger: And I'm Leah Feiger, director of politics and science.Zoë Schiffer: Today on the show, we're taking a look at how Chinese AI has been leveling up in a major way. The latest model released by Moonshot AI, one of the most well-known labs in China, has been drawing worldwide attention this past week because of the model's enormous capabilities. On Wednesday, White House director, Michael Kratsios, accused Moonshot of illegally distilling Anthropic's Fable 5 model to build their own. We'll discuss whether we might be seeing another DeepSeek moment and what the AI race between the US and China actually means for users.Leah Feiger: We'll also get into how the US Army has been burning through their AI usage tokens and now find themselves in a position where they need to limit use. They're far from alone in having to pare back, though. Companies like Meta and Uber are already rethinking their AI usage as well because surprise, surprise, it's really expensive to use all these models.Brian Barrett: Who would have thought? Also, on the docket for today, your car could have a hidden device that makes it more vulnerable to hacking. We're going to talk you through how to identify it and why some dealerships added it in the first place. And later in the show, how OpenAI lost control of two of its AI models during a recent security test.Zoë Schiffer: So this past Friday, the Chinese AI lab, Moonshot AI, released their latest model called Kimi K3. And this news made major waves first because the model is super capable. It goes toe-to-toe with the leading frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic. And then today, White House director, Michael Kratsios, like we said at the top, basically accused Moonshot AI of distilling Anthropic's models to build their own. So now a major fight is breaking out. And this isn't the first time that Anthropic has accused a Chinese lab of distilling its models. I'm curious, Brian, Leah, what you think just right at the top.Leah Feiger: So WIRED's Hugo Lowell, the author of our Inner Loop politics newsletter has a piece that just came out this morning all about this basically, entirely about how the Trump administration is really, really split over how to handle Chinese AI. And you have all of these competing forces, you have the Commerce Department and Howard Lutnick that are saying, "Look, this isn't as scary as you think it is. We can figure some ways out of it." And then you actually also have people that are like, "No, no, no, we have to create an executive order. We have to stop them from stealing American AI. What do we do?"Zoë Schiffer: The Commerce Department's main tool to try and combat this so far has been export controls. And we're seeing some people say like, "Oh, this is proof that export controls are failing." But if Chinese labs are in fact just stealing proprietary information from AI companies in the US, that's not necessarily a failure of export controls.Leah Feiger: But it's also nothing that an executive order could stop. I'm sorry, but executive orders from the US do not apply to China. They don't. They can be strongly worded memos with declarative intent, but no one's getting in trouble there.Brian Barrett: I want to back this up a little bit, too, because I think we haven't mentioned yet that what makes Kimi K3 especially interesting I think in this context is that it's an open-weight AI system, which means it's not unlike the proprietary systems that are coming out of Anthropic, and OpenAI, and other US-based AI giants. China has adopted this more open model ... A lot of Chinese companies have adopted this more open model where anyone can use these systems, anyone can tinker with them. It is a existential threat in some ways to companies that are saying, "Hey, look, we're going to charge you a ton of money to use ChatGPT or Claude." Here comes Moonshot DeepSeek before saying, "Or you could just use this for free," and it's just as good almost.Zoë Schiffer: Right. And I think the theory behind this, there's a couple different ideas about why China is doing this. One is that it doesn't have as much access to compute. So this is the export controls theory. It's like because they don't have enough computers, they need to release open-source models because that helps build their reputation, and it extends their influence.Brian Barrett: Which is interesting, this is the path that Meta had been pursuing for a while. Meta's Llama model was like they were the big US company going in on open-weight AI as a way to undercut the competition. They abandoned that, and they spent billions and billions of dollars putting together their superintelligence lab, which has not really amounted to much yet.Zoë Schiffer: Not yet.Brian Barrett: The US has really ceded the field to China in a lot of ways. I'm not aware of a major open-weight project going on in the US at all.Zoë Schiffer: No, I think that the US has definitely gone in a different direction almost entirely. I mean, the reason that open-weight enthusiasts will say that it's better is in the US, every frontier lab has to basically recreate the same innovations from the ground up. They have to do very similar training runs. They can't see some cool technical trick that another lab has done and copy it to keep building on each other's success. They really are in direct competition. Whereas if you're all open-source open weight, as a country, you can advance perhaps quicker and hopefully a little cheaper because you're seeing what other labs are doing and just building on that pretty rapidly.Leah Feiger: I wonder how scared some of the US's AI labs are. I mean, Anthropic quite literally just increased fees for Fable 5. This isn't something that they're like, "Oh, and we're going to go free now, too, you guys. We got to compete." That's not what's happening.Zoë Schiffer: No, no, no. I think it only entrenches the US further in the proprietary, the need to keep these secrets secret essentially.Brian Barrett: And especially as they're all barreling towards their own IPOs and they're going to have to start showing revenue and start showing up, if not, profit right away a clear path to profit, which I don't know that they necessarily have yet. And so any competitor that undercuts them like this is going to make that even trickier. I don't think there's any ... I think in the near term, they're fine. They're still going to be taking a billions of dollars. The IPOs are going to go fine. But it is a question of, especially as companies are realizing how expensive using AI is, and as we're in the era of token maxing, companies are understandably going to be looking for alternatives, and we're going to reach an inflection point where eventually we have to figure out, is AI just a commodity? Is it a commoditized product that you can get from anywhere? Or do you need the custom like, no, I really need Anthropic for some reason? No, I really need OpenAI for some reason. And I think that's still an open question.Zoë Schiffer: I thought Dean Ball, who was previously a AI adviser for the White House and now is an executive at OpenAI, made an interesting point. I'm curious what you guys think about it, but basically, he said that one reason that China has taken the open approach is that they're just not as AGI-pilled as people in the United States and certainly the US government. I think the phrase he used was China and the CCP are pretty Yann LeCun-y when it comes to AGI, which is like Yann LeCun, a very famous AI scientist, previously a high-up executive at Meta. And he has been on the record a lot basically saying that all of the hype surrounding AGI and what it can do is it's just that. It's hype. It's over-hyped. And in fact, while obviously he works on these systems and he finds them really impressive, there's a lot of marketing that goes into this terminology.Brian Barrett: And just in case for folks, AGI, artificial general intelligence, the idea that AI systems can meet or exceed the capabilities of humans, I think, is a simple people will quibble with that definition, but that's the baseline definition of it. And so Will Knight, one of our senior AI reporters, was in China not too long ago and he came back with that exact readout. He was saying, "Yeah, they don't really care about AGIs." It's not a thing over there. It's not like that's not what they're racing for. Yeah.Leah Feiger: So this week, Vittoria Elliott, our lovely politics writer, published an excellent story that truly made me laugh out loud, all about how the US Army is burning through its AI tokens. So a little over a month ago, DOD bragged that nearly half of its 3.5 million employees were using AI at work. We're really inundated with press releases basically from the government right now about how all AI pilled the federal workforce is at this moment. So about a month after this came out, members of the Army's Combat Capabilities Development Command, DEVCOM, received an email informing them that they were actually burning through AI tokens and needed to limit use. This email is amazing. Let me just read this quote to you guys real quick. Although the Army CIO announced in May 2026 that they were offering unlimited tokens, by mid-June, the Army CIO pool was exhausted of tokens and had to reestablish limits.Zoë Schiffer: So not unlimited is what I'm understanding.Leah Feiger: Super not unlimited.Zoë Schiffer: Much like unlimited PTO.Leah Feiger: Much like unlimited PTO. It's apparently unclear if the Army CIO pool is going to be renewed after the 1st of October. The Army uses Ask Sage, which is a multi-model generative AI platform where users can run different LLMs, including Gemini, Llama, ChatGPT, et cetera. And we talked to an Army employee who had some very funny things to say about this, which is basically the Army burned through a whole year of tokens for just one service. We had a very short period of time here. And again, this is happening while everyone's going like, "Use it, use it, use it," without a lot of conversation about the expense. Or at this point, if you're bringing up environmental impacts, you're getting booed by half of the room. But this is real. It costs money to produce these things. It costs the environment to produce these things. And so to have the Army CIO have to go like, "Super sorry about that." Scale back that usage, please, especially because employees were apparently given an allotment of at least 200,000 tokens a month. They were automatically allocated more if they burned through their initial bit. If they were not using the tokens, they were receiving regular emails that were encouraging them to lean more into AI usage as well. True token maxing.Zoë Schiffer: But I want to understand, what is the Army actually using this for?Leah Feiger: OK. So Ask Sage is used by the Army to "power its enterprise LLM workspace, and it's also accredited for controlled unclassified information". It was used to complete tasks like reclassifying personnel descriptions, aligning job duties, experience, backgrounds. It sounds like it was functionally being used as a mini HR, which, in theory, is what you should be using AI for, but I guess not this much.Brian Barrett: I don't know if you're burning through that many tokens. Are you saving that much money compared to a human who would be in that role doing it? Maybe not. Leah, I thought one stat that we cited in this story was incredible. DOD reportedly burned through 20 billion tokens per day during the 38-day Operation Epic Fury campaign in Iran. That was from Breaking Defense originally. That number is astounding and also suggests more than just personnel stuff. Obviously, I think we've seen other places that DOD is using AI in terms of actual military engagement, but you wonder ... Clearly, they have not figured out the efficiencies here. Clearly have not figured out what makes sense.Zoë Schiffer: Can we just ground this a little bit? A short question answer that you ask a chatbot burns 10 tokens. It's not a complicated reasoning problem. So just to frame it for people, this is a lot.Leah Feiger: I have to talk and learn about AI as a function of my job and, apparently, a member of the human race at this point. But also, I think that there's something really interesting about the idea that it's not being even intellectually considered as a resource in this way. It really feels to me like reading this article and talking with Tori about her reporting and going through all of these additional anecdotes, it feels like when all of those campaigns had to come out that were like, "Don't just leave the tap water running. That's bad. We're going to run out of it. There's a finite resource." And so it's this really interesting thing where I'm like, I think because people think that they're typing it into their little computer that it just doesn't actively exist.Brian Barrett: Leah, the good news is the next thing we're talking about has nothing to do with AI. The bad news is it does have to do with how easy it is to steal millions of cars, millions of them.Zoë Schiffer: Not Leah's Tesla.Brian Barrett: Tesla's also fairly easy to see.Zoë Schiffer: Not Leah's Cybertruck.Brian Barrett: Yeah. Leah's got three Cybertrucks.Leah Feiger: Yep, that's me.Brian Barrett: All right, so this is also a public service announcement. Recently, UC San Diego researchers found that an alarm device that has been placed in more than 2 million cars in the US could potentially make them more vulnerable to hacking. This is a Andy Greenberg, WIRED senior correspondent, really the best car hacking reporter you're going to find anywhere out there, reported that this device is part of something called the KARR. And we love spellings on this show. It's K-A-R-R, the KARR Security system that has a Bluetooth vulnerability that lets anyone nearby unlock your car, kill the alarm, disable the ignition.Zoë Schiffer: Oh, no.Brian Barrett: The worst part about this, or at least a very bad part about this, is that a lot of owners have no idea it's in their car. There's no reason you would know. And that's because it's something that dealers installed. Dealers put the KARR Security system in to protect cars on the lot, and where they don't bother to remove it or disable it after the sales. So you, yes, you could have this system in your car. Here's how it works. Researchers found that all of these car devices share a single authentication key, which I don't know how familiar people are with cybersecurity. That's bad. It's like sharing a password to your Netflix account, but with every single person who has this system involved. So once you have that, you can get in. They figured out how to reverse engineer that key. They built a custom app so that as long as they were within Bluetooth range, they could send a radio signal to do all those things we mentioned. Unlock, disable the alarm, honk the horn, flash the lights, disable the ignition, strand the driver. It doesn't let you start the car remotely, but they also showed helpfully that once you're inside the vehicle, a commercially available locksmithing tool will let you create a key within minutes. I'll say, too, that Andy made a video showing how all of this works. It's on WIRED right now. Highly recommend watching it.Leah Feiger: It's perhaps bad to say this wasn't surprising to me. It was wild, really excellent reporting. This, in some ways, feels like the next thing of every single ... I do imagine a lot of Andy videos of like, "And here is now this other thing that you thought was inherently secure and independent that is connected to all of these different things." That does feel like where the world is going right now, especially with all these different technologies at play here. So perhaps I'm a little bit solipsistic about it. Coming for us all.Brian Barrett: Well, and there's already been ... In your defense, Leah, too, there's already been a lot of relay attacks, they're called, with cars where if you can get close enough to someone's key, you can copy the key radio signal, and then use that to unlock a car. So there's already an inherent vulnerability around cars that I think has been advertised pretty well. To me, this is more just the fact that at least then you know that that can happen. This is something where I don't know if I have a car installed on my device.Zoë Schiffer: That's the scary piece to me. It's the not knowing. I mean, I was going to say I disagreed with Leah, but then when she was talking, I was like, "I guess I live in the Bay Area." I have $1,000 worth of car seats in my car at any given time. And I take the approach of we do our best, but if someone really wants to break into your car, they will do so. Can you take those car seats out every time you park? No, you cannot. They're very heavy.Brian Barrett: To me, this justifies my decision to continue to drive a, I think, 12-year-old Volkswagen station wagon that the doors are literally falling apart.Zoë Schiffer: I actually wish you'd let us guess what kind of car you drove.Brian Barrett: It is disgusting. The flaps on the back seat are like ... I can't even describe it. They're falling off of the car. The car is falling apart.Zoë Schiffer: But it is safer than these other ones.Brian Barrett: Well, or if someone were to steal it, God bless, enjoy. I will say there are ways to tell ... If you are concerned about this, which you understandably might be, there are ways to tell if you have this car device in it. Look for a car sticker on the driver's side window. That's obvious. Or less obviously a sticker that says SWDS, which stands for Southwest Dealer Services, plus a small blinking light button under the dashboard. A lot of these cars are in Southern California, but they are around the entire country. Once you have identified that you have this system in your car, you have to download the KARR app and then push a firmware update to the car. It's a whole thing. That's the other thing, a lot of times when there have been Tesla vulnerabilities that make it easy to pull off some attacks, they're able to push a firmware update remotely to all of these vehicles. The company behind KARR does not have that ability to automatically push these to the car. So you have to do it yourself, which is, I think, most people can't be bothered, to be honest. I don't have high hopes for this being fixed in any major way. Before we go to break, we have one more development to discuss. OpenAI disclosed on Tuesday that it lost control of two AI models during a security test that ended in a breach of the AI research platform, Hugging Face. The company said that last week these AI models were in a sealed testing environment, a sandbox you'd call it, when they broke out and hacked into Hugging Face's production system to steal the answers to a test that they were being graded on. These are very overachieving AI models. One of them was a publicly available model called GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, reportedly more capable one, both are being evaluated on their offensive hacking skills with safeguards that normally block high risk cyberactivity switched off. So they said, "Hey, go figure out how to hack this thing." And they did.Zoë Schiffer: They did it. Yeah. What made me laugh about this is that when the news finally broke, Sam Altman and the CEO of Hugging Face jointly released these statements being like, "We're partnering together to figure this out." I was like, "Solid PR work from OpenAI." Your system hacked another system, went rogue, and now you're like, "This is our partner and we are jointly no problems at all going to get to the bottom of what happened." I was like, "OK."Leah Feiger: Does that speak to how ubiquitous in a way OpenAI is? I don't know if Hugging Face can be like, "Well, we hate you. You're dead to us entirely." I don't know. I was really shocked by that little bit too, Zoë.Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, I think that there were some people who were talking about this, "Oh my God, big scary model escaped the box. This is really bad." And then you saw other security researchers being like, "No, this was a basic infrastructure failure." They didn't isolate the environment effectively.Brian Barrett: I think the people who were saying, "Oh my God, big scary model," were OpenAI.Zoë Schiffer: Right. They were like, "Look at us."Brian Barrett: I don't want to minimize it. It is important that their model can do this. But I also ... The security research that we spoke to, our reporters, Dell Cameron and Lily Hay Newman, were like, "Look, sure, but there's also a little bit of human error here in that this is a pretty basic infrastructure thing that has been sorted out for a long time." This kind of thing happens all the time, AI or not. So there's a little bit of ... OpenAI also could have done more to keep their environment safer.Zoë Schiffer: I think that that's valid. I mean, I think the big focus has been advanced AI. It's been creating systems that have more and more capabilities. And while security is part of that at both OpenAI and Anthropic, security at the end of the day often means infrastructure. Do you have safeguards in how you're deploying these models, even internally, that will stop them from doing this very thing?Brian Barrett: The details of this, of the write-up, were really fascinating to me, too. I think the idea that these AI ... Because it describes a lot of intent to the AI models, which I guess is fair, but the idea that they just wanted so ... It's hard to talk about without trying to give them emotion or intent, which I don't want to.Zoë Schiffer: I know.Brian Barrett: But it is the idea that they were so, as the phrase is, hyper-focused is the word that's being used, on achieving this task that they would go to any lengths to do it.Zoë Schiffer: And that is the issue with these models is you can give them prompts, but you don't ultimately know how the model will necessarily interpret that prompt. And this was an issue we saw with OpenCloud. People were deploying this agentic system on their computers and saying things like, "I need more storage space. Can you help me?", because, whatever, the system was taking up a lot of space. And the system would go delete a bunch of the files that they very, obviously, wanted to keep. You need to put a lot of guardrails even in just your tasks or your queries, or else they can go off the rails. And even then, they can still go off the rails.Brian Barrett: And tying this back to the open weight conversation for just a minute, we're going to have, if we don't already, models from China that are going to be able to do this very thing, and not in a controlled environment, in an open environment where anybody can do it.Zoë Schiffer: And I've seen people talk about this. That actually might be a plus for China, not a negative, because if it's an open model, you, as a company, have a little less risk either reputation-wise or literally legal risk because you're like, "We just released it. Someone did this thing with it. Is that truly our fault?" And so it creates a level of chaos and who's responsible that could be beneficial.Leah Feiger: Coming up after the break, we're sharing our WIRED/TIRED picks for the week. Stay with us. It is time for our WIRED/TIRED segment. Whatever is new and cool is WIRED, and whatever passé thing we're over is TIRED. Zoë, are you ready for us?Zoë Schiffer: I am, yes. OK, so I want to give people a little bit of backstory. I recently went freelance. I'm a contributing editor at WIRED. And as part of that, I had to set up an LLC. I'm taking on clients. I'm trying to piece together a bunch of work, and also be a mom of two young kids. Prior to this experience, my use of AI was very limited. I basically used it like Google. If I needed to ask a question, I would ask ChatGPT or Claude, and then I would vet the answer. I had a meeting shortly after I made this career switch with Shoshana Berger, who actually used to work at WIRED, and then she was high up at IDEO for a very long time. Now she teaches women, I think middle age and older, how to use AI tools. And she had this very cool philosophy. She was like, "I think it's really important that women in particular feel comfortable with the tools, know how it can improve their work and life. And then whether they choose to or not is up to them." I left the conversation very inspired, and I was like, "I just frankly don't have a use case." And I hadn't identified an area where I was like, "AI agents would be very, very beneficial." But I was like, "I want to just try it and learn." And now I'm using a personal computer so I can actually ... I feel slightly more comfortable doing this. And so I've identified a few areas where I actually do think it's been helpful. One is prepping for this podcast. I'll basically have the AI read the script to me like its own podcast and so I can—Brian Barrett: Not that we have a script. I mean, this is all—Zoë Schiffer: We don't use the script, but as I'm preparing, I'll just be like, I'm in the car. I'll listen to the full articles that we're just talking about. And so I have it in my head in a different way. And then when I sit down to read it, I'm a little more prepared. Same thing with interviews. And this I found really cool. If I do an interview, I'll have NotebookLM create a podcast about it, and then just feed it to me so I can listen back. I also have one that's working with me on a household budget and helping me with our family finances, which has been cool. And one that's helping me with invoices, which were always very annoying to create. So that's me. Leah, do you still love me?Leah Feiger: I do. The last few days, this has popped up. You're like, "I've been hearing them." It's like, "Oop, Zoë, your invoice is ready." And I'm like, "What is happening over there?"Zoë Schiffer: You've been hearing them. It's embarrassing. That is embarrassing.Leah Feiger: It's kind of wild. No, honestly, if it's making your life better, I'm happy to hear it. And it's ... I'm a proponent of using this for your annoying admin tools. That, to me, is not ... If you were like, "And I decided to write a book with AI," I'd be like, "That's embarrassing for you."Zoë Schiffer: No, no. And Shoshana said this, too. I mean, she works with a lot of clients, and she was like, "Human writing is your differentiator." You never want to use it for those things, but there's a lot of things around your actual core work where it can be useful. Brian?Brian Barrett: Oh, me?Zoë Schiffer: Yeah.Brian Barrett: Well, my WIRED is life out there in space.Zoë Schiffer: Ooh, not where I thought that was going to go.Brian Barrett: Bear with me. No, and ... Look, I think it's a obviously big mystery of the universe. Are we alone here? I think two developments in the last week, super interesting. Not saying that they mean that we're not, but for the first time in history, astronomers detected a sugar molecule floating around in space tens of thousands of light years away. You need these kinds of molecules for life to happen. So it is not a confirmation there's life out there, but it is a sign that like, "Oh, there's a stew out there that could potentially work." Similarly, just a few days after that, 48 light years away, astronomers confirmed for the first time the existence of a rocky planet with an atmosphere that's also in the habitable zone, which means that it is a similar Earth, capable of supporting life. Probably has water, probably has all those elements. So some big breakthroughs in astronomy that suggest we're not alone.Zoë Schiffer: Brian, do you believe in aliens?Brian Barrett: I don't know ... I think the idea that there's no form of life on any other planet in the entire universe feels crazy to me. I don't know if it's like ... Yeah, I don't know if we'd call it sentient life. I don't think they have Tinder, but I think there's got to be something.Leah Feiger: I love to hear that Brian's version of sentience involves Tinder.Brian Barrett: That's the bar.Leah Feiger: That's the bar.Brian Barrett: Yeah. Anything short of that, I'm sorry. No, doesn't count.Leah Feiger: OK, what's your TIRED?Brian Barrett: The opposite of that.Leah Feiger: Oh my God.Zoë Schiffer: OK. Leah, say this. WIRED/TIRED.Leah Feiger: OK. My WIRED/TIRED, I have to say it's entirely science themed. So Brian's was a perfect entrance into this. My TIRED is I'm really, really concerned about El Niño. I am looking at maps and temperature predictions quite literally daily right now. And part of it is out of a really, really big concern for just globally, what does this mean? The impact on food security, the impact on communities that are going to be affected. El Niños are historically very, very bad for sea life just frequently, even though this is a natural process. This is going to be a super El Niño year. And across the world, you have seen areas that are generally full of life just become devoid of life during El Niño. And if this El Niño continues for a very long time, what is that going to mean for shark hotspots in the Galápagos and things like that? The humble current. So this is what I'm thinking about a lot, and I'm very TIRED of it, and I'm incredibly upset about it. If you two are stressing about El Niño and want to chat, let me know. I'm always around.Zoë Schiffer: And to be clear, shark hotspots for Leah is a good thing. We want those while other people might think those going away would be nice. Not for her.Leah Feiger: Not for me. I'd be so sad. But here's my WIRED. A new cavefish was just discovered in Alabama.Brian Barrett: Hey.Leah Feiger: It is eyeless.Zoë Schiffer: Wow.Leah Feiger: And it's being referred to as a demon cavefish. And the researcher that discovered it who's at Auburn University named it after a character in Stranger Things, the Demogorgon. So lots of fun there. The picture of it, you guys, is so cute. It's like this little translucent thing, and you can see it's like little red insides. Oh, it's so nice. And I just love that we're still making these incredible underwater discoveries in Alabama and just all over the place. And I just really loved it. I spent a nice part of my morning delving into it.Zoë Schiffer: I love that you can't say Alabama without a Southern twang. It's so special to me.Brian Barrett: Yeah. Leah, I will—Leah Feiger: I think it's a Chicago accent thing coming out.Brian Barrett: I will go visit it. I think the cave is an hour and a half from me top, so I can go visit.Zoë Schiffer: Oh my gosh. On the ground reporting from Brian Barrett?Brian Barrett: Yeah, I'll go visit the Demogorgon.Leah Feiger: I would love nothing more. Thank you so much for listening. We'll be back next week with more from WIRED. You can listen to the full conversation and complete podcast episodes of Uncanny Valley at wired.com. Uncanny Valley is produced by Adriana Tapia and Annmarie Fertoli. It's mixed by Pran Bandi and fact-checked by Matt Giles and Daniel Roman. Our executive producer is Kate Osborn. Also, sign up for System Update, WIRED's weekly newsletter, where our global editorial director, Katie Drummond, takes you inside our newsroom and discusses the week's biggest stories. The link to sign up is in the description.