AI Disputes: Huawei and Alibaba’s Trust Challenges

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Prefer watching instead of reading? Watch the video here. Prefer reading instead? Scroll down for the full text. Prefer listening instead? Scroll up for the audio player.

P.S. The video and audio are in sync, so you can switch between them or control playback as needed. Enjoy Greyhound Standpoint insights in the format that suits you best. Join the conversation on social media using #GreyhoundStandpoint.

---

Huawei’s AI research division has rejected claims that its Pangu Pro large language model copied elements from an Alibaba model, marking a significant escalation in China’s AI ecosystem as tech giants abandon their collaborative approach in favor of bitter public disputes.

“What once was a state-aligned innovation drive is now being reshaped by market-led competition, where speed-to-scale often overrides transparency,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO at Greyhound Research.

Gogia warned that the infighting could have lasting consequences beyond China’s borders. “This episode underscores that Chinese vendors are now operating under public scrutiny, and any erosion of trust could have lasting geopolitical and commercial consequences,” he said. The controversy may force enterprise buyers, especially in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, to reevaluate partnerships with Chinese AI providers.

The allegations have also exposed what Gogia calls the “growing inadequacy of conventional IP frameworks when applied to LLMs.” Parameter-level fingerprinting techniques offer promise but remain scientifically contested and legally untested.

The latest controversy underscores the urgent need for industry-wide standards. “Without agreed-upon definitions of derivation — particularly in models trained on shared corpora — vendors face an unclear compliance landscape,” Gogia noted. “This ambiguity creates space for weaponized accusations and erodes open-source collaboration.”

As quoted in ComputerWorld.com, in an article authored by Gyana Swain published on July 7, 2025.

Beyond the Media Quote: Our View, In Full

Pressed for time? You can focus solely on the Greyhound Flashpoints that follow. Each one distills the full analysis into a sharp, executive-ready takeaway — combining our official Standpoint, validated through Pulse data from ongoing CXO trackers, and grounded in Fieldnotes from real-world advisory engagements.

Huawei–Alibaba LLM Dispute Signals Fracturing of China’s AI Alliance

Greyhound Flashpoint – The open confrontation between Huawei and Alibaba over alleged model copying marks an unprecedented rift in China’s AI ecosystem. Per Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025, 58% of Asia-based CIOs now perceive Chinese AI firms as more protectionist than collaborative—up from just 33% in 2023. This infighting not only disrupts national AI policy narratives around unity and self-reliance but also erodes buyer trust across emerging markets. In the global context, it compromises China’s ability to present a consolidated front against the U.S.–led AI ecosystem led by OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. As previously highlighted in our analysis “From RedNote to Red Flags”, the core challenge for Chinese AI vendors is no longer just performance, but the global trust deficit around provenance, contributor opacity, and licensing ambiguity. The Huawei–Alibaba dispute has now brought this to the forefront.

Greyhound Standpoint – According to Greyhound Research, the Huawei–Alibaba dispute signals both the maturity and fragility of China’s AI leadership. What once was a state-aligned innovation drive is now being reshaped by market-led competition, where speed-to-scale often overrides transparency. This validates earlier Greyhound findings that Chinese LLMs are entering what we call a “controlled trust decay” phase—where vendor-to-vendor transparency collapses just as model capability matures. While rivalry can drive breakthroughs, this episode underscores a more pressing reality—Chinese vendors are now operating under public scrutiny, and any erosion of trust, whether due to perceived IP violations or internal whistleblowing, could have lasting geopolitical and commercial consequences. Furthermore, allegations supported by open-source forensic analysis—however contested—set a new precedent for peer accountability in China’s domestic AI race. If left unresolved, such disputes may force enterprise buyers, especially across Southeast Asia and the Middle East, to reevaluate long-term alliances with Chinese AI providers.

Greyhound Pulse Insights – Greyhound CIO Pulse 2025 finds that 64% of CIOs in emerging Asia have delayed onboarding Chinese AI platforms due to rising concerns over model authenticity and lineage. Among those surveyed, 43% cite reputational risk tied to partner misconduct as a top-three reason for vendor de-selection. The fallout from this dispute is already visible: cross-platform deployments involving both Alibaba’s Qwen and Huawei’s Pangu have dropped by 39% year-over-year in Southeast Asia. This suggests CIOs are proactively ringfencing procurement to avoid potential ethical or legal entanglements. The Greyhound Controlled Open LLMs philosophy—recently applied to deployments of MiniMax M1 and DeepSeek—calls for mandatory provenance metadata and licensing declarations at deployment. These are now emerging as baseline criteria in regional procurements.

Greyhound Fieldnotes – Per a recent Greyhound Fieldnote from an enterprise CXO roundtable in Kuala Lumpur (financial services and healthcare sector), participants unanimously agreed that while Chinese AI models remain cost-competitive, their perceived opacity has grown untenable. One CIO recounted a halted POC with a mainland vendor after discovering reused code containing an unverified copyright string. Another CTO flagged that internal audit teams now require forensic lineage validation before any new AI deployment—citing the Huawei–Alibaba case as “proof that blind trust is no longer viable.” As discussed in our note on MiniMax M1, enterprises in the Middle East and Southeast Asia have begun shifting to what we call “sandbox deployments” of Chinese LLMs—used for experimentation but not exposed to customer-facing functions due to reputational risk. These on-the-ground reactions indicate a clear shift: enterprises in regulated sectors are tightening due diligence to protect against the reputational and regulatory spillover of such public disputes.

Huawei Controversy Sparks Urgent Debate on AI Model Provenance and IP Protection

Greyhound Flashpoint – The Huawei–Alibaba model fingerprinting scandal has intensified scrutiny over how LLMs are derived, documented, and defended. Per Greyhound CTO Pulse 2025, 53% of global CTOs now regard AI provenance risk as a top-five governance concern—up from 17% in 2022, with increased concern flagged in our note on sovereign LLMs for India and sandboxed use of Chinese models in high-risk sectors. With allegations centering on parameter-level fingerprinting, this episode has exposed gaps in both forensic tooling and legal infrastructure. The stakes are no longer just reputational. As open-source and proprietary architectures blur, the industry faces a pivotal challenge: develop shared frameworks for attribution or risk undermining the trust that fuels responsible AI adoption.

Greyhound Standpoint – According to Greyhound Research, the current dispute illustrates the growing inadequacy of conventional IP frameworks when applied to LLMs. Fingerprinting techniques that examine parameter distributions offer promise but remain scientifically contested and legally untested. Without agreed-upon definitions of derivation—particularly in models trained on shared corpora or modified post hoc—vendors and developers alike face an unclear compliance landscape. This ambiguity creates space for weaponised accusations, erodes open-source collaboration, and weakens global alignment on AI safety and attribution. At Greyhound, we have consistently advocated for a “Controlled Open LLMs” approach—balancing the agility of open models with the institutional rigour of regulated deployment. The Pangu-Qwen incident shows why this framing must now become default enterprise practice.

Greyhound Pulse Insights – The Greyhound CTO Pulse 2025 study shows that 61% of AI leaders are actively exploring model fingerprinting or watermarking tools as part of their compliance toolkit—driven largely by high-profile disputes such as this. Among APAC CTOs, 47% now mandate documentation of model lineage—including base models, license types, and modification history—for any externally sourced LLM. More notably, 36% are pursuing contractual indemnity clauses that hold vendors accountable for unverified derivations or forensic red flags. Our latest tracking shows that in regions like India, the UAE, and Singapore, CIOs and CTOs are now explicitly flagging models sourced from Chinese vendors for additional governance layers, including sandboxing, origin disclosure, and SLA-backed indemnity. These shifts mark the early formation of AI provenance governance—a domain previously relegated to academic corners but now moving into boardroom compliance frameworks.

Greyhound Fieldnotes – Per a recent Greyhound Fieldnote from a digital infrastructure client in the Middle East, a pan-regional LLM deployment was paused after the legal team identified fingerprinting overlap between the proposed model and another open-source stack under restrictive licensing. Despite vendor assurances, the client opted for a smaller, verifiable open model coupled with in-house fine-tuning to maintain defensibility. In another case referenced in our Controlled Open LLMs series, a Southeast Asian telecom operator shifted away from a DeepSeek-based stack after risk officers failed to verify training lineage—even though the model’s open-source status was initially considered an advantage. A third case from a media-tech firm in Europe saw internal risk committees decline a multimillion-dollar AI partnership when GitHub metadata flagged inconsistencies in model authorship and component sourcing. These examples underscore a critical evolution: IP clarity and technical attribution are now baseline expectations—not aspirational ideals—in enterprise-grade AI decision-making.

Copyright Policy. All content contained on the Greyhound Research website is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of Greyhound Research or, in the case of third-party materials, the prior written consent of the copyright owner of that content. You may not alter, delete, obscure, or conceal any trademark, copyright, or other notice appearing in any Greyhound Research content. We request our readers not to copy Greyhound Research content and not republish or redistribute them (in whole or partially) via emails or republishing them in any media, including websites, newsletters, or intranets. We understand that you may want to share this content with others, so we’ve added tools under each content piece that allow you to share the content. If you have any questions, please get in touch with our Community Relations Team at connect@thofgr.com.