NVIDIA has announced the addition of two new mid-range boards to their Jetson Thor lineup, the T3000 and T2000, which will arrive in Q1’27. The new boards aim to be a cheaper offering for customers feeling pressured by the high cost of memory
Daniel Solove argues in the Wall Street Journal (alternate link) that giving people control of their personal data is not an effective way to regulate privacy in this era. Instead, we need to hold companies accountable for their actions, similar to what we do with food and drug companies. Measures such as rigorous data minimization, fiduciary duties, liability for negligent or reckless technological design, liability for algorithms that cause harm, and multi-stakeholder review of technologies will be far more effective.
Today we are taking a look at Lenovo’s more spacious mini-PC workstation, the ThinkStation P3 Ultra SFF Gen 2. With multiple PCIe slots, the P3 Ultra seeks to strike a fine balance between size and expandability
ASRock Rack has developed an unlikely edge server based on NVIDIA’s industrial SoC, Thor. The Blackwell-era chip is being used to power the 2UXGI-THOR, a server aimed at the industrial and medical markets
Bot mitigation is an adversarial game: attackers adapt, defenders respond, and the cycle continues. At Cloudflare, we stay ahead by combining visibility across our global network with signals from the client-side environment. At the network level, we analyze over 1 trillion requests per day to understand reputation, patterns, and anomalies across more than 20% of the web. On the client side, we’ve pushed detection deeper with Cloudflare Turnstile, which has evolved from a CAPTCHA replacement to a risk-based managed challenge that adapts the amount of friction needed to verify the user is authentic.
Today, Turnstile runs nearly 3 billion times per day on some of the most sensitive endpoints on the Internet, helping verify users at key moments like login, signup, and checkout. This improves protection on the most important areas of customer applications, but still leaves limited visibility into the rest of the application — how humans and bots actually interact across the full user journey.
This is the visibility gap we’re closing today with our launch of Precursor.
Introducing Precursor
Precursor is a client-side, session-based verification system, built with privacy in mind, that uses dynamically injected JavaScript to continuously collect behavioral signals as visitors interact with your application. These signals are processed and incorporated into Cloudflare’s bot protection in real time, allowing us to continuously distinguish human traffic from automated or agentic traffic.
This extends the client-side detections offered by a Challenge to your entire web application. Precursor is an optional complement to Turnstile — both are features of our Enterprise Bot Management.
This user-journey-based detection is powerful because modern automation is increasingly capable of appearing legitimate in short bursts. Bots can execute JavaScript, use real browser environments, and pass individual CAPTCHAs without raising suspicion. What remains difficult to replicate is consistent human behavior over time.
Precursor is built to capture that layer of interaction, turning behavior itself into a reliable signal for detecting fraud and abuse. By evaluating behavior across an entire session, Precursor adds significantly more signal to each decision. This improves detection precision, making it easier to distinguish real users from automation without relying on aggressive Challenges. For legitimate users, Precursor means fewer unnecessary interruptions. For bot developers, it raises the cost of operating automation by requiring them to simulate a full session. This is significantly harder to build, more expensive to maintain, and far less reliable to operate at scale.
To err is human
When a bot developer tries to make a mouse movement look human, they usually add Gaussian noise or uniform random delays. But human movement isn’t just “noisy,” it is also constrained by physics:
Wrist pivot: A human mouse movement is often an arc, limited by the range of the wrist and the rotation of the forearm.
Cognitive load: There is a measurable delay between a human seeing a checkbox and clicking it.
Hand tremor: Even the steadiest human hand oscillates at a physiological tremor frequency.
Bots, by contrast, often behave in ways that give them away. They move in linear interpolations or mathematically ideal Bézier curves. They click with a precision that humans could never replicate. And even when they do manage to simulate human error, there is a rhythm to human movements that can only be seen by examining an entire session.
Mouse movement is just one example of the signals Precursor evaluates, but it illustrates the difference clearly. Below is an example of a mouse automation library interacting with a site. You can see how the mouse moves in perfectly straight lines, always returns to an origin, and reacts with the same velocity.
Now, contrast that with a human navigating the same site: you see irregular paths, small corrections and overshoots, and variations in speed, timing, and direction.
Individually, these interactions might look plausible. But over the course of a session, these patterns diverge in ways that are difficult to fake. Precursor is designed to capture and evaluate these behavioral signatures as they develop over a visitor’s interaction with an application.
How Precursor works
To evaluate behavior over time, Precursor continuously collects interaction data on the client and builds a session-level view of activity for that site.
1. Injection and collection layer
When Precursor is enabled on your application, Cloudflare automatically injects a lightweight script into HTML responses from your site as they pass through our network, with no additional configuration, network connections, or third-party embedding required. The injected Precursor bundle is compact, obfuscated, and assembled dynamically for each response. The bundle is designed to not interfere with any additional page logic of the hosted web application.
The script attaches lightweight event listeners to capture interaction signals such as pointer movement, keyboard activity, focus changes, and visibility. These events are serialized into a compact format and buffered in memory. At regular intervals, the buffered data is sent back to the evaluation layer for analysis.
2. Evaluation layer
On the edge server, incoming Precursor payloads are deserialized into behavioral inputs. A dispatcher runs a roster of evaluators on the input data. Each evaluator reads the Precursor streams it cares about and can raise signals into the shared detection registry.
Evaluators are designed to cross-reference data. For example, they confirm that pointer activity correlates with page visibility duration, or that keyboard events only fire when a text field is focused. This stream of information is then consolidated into individual signals that are used for weighting detections.
3. Session integration
Precursor data is session-scoped, meaning it accumulates throughout a session. Session scoping is important because it means a bot cannot reset its behavioral signature by refreshing the page or starting over with a new challenge. The system also feeds session metadata into downstream detection layers for additional shadow-mode heuristics and session analysis, predicted vs. actual completion, and session delinquency heuristics. These edge-side observations are logged for detection improvement purposes and to adjust the bot score of a session.
4. Privacy by design
Precursor was designed to collect signals that help to distinguish human patterns from automated and abusive patterns.
The event listeners capture the minimum information needed to be a useful signal for detecting automation and abuse. For example, keyboard activity is captured as timing and rhythm, not as the actual keys pressed. In addition, behavioral signals are evaluated as aggregate patterns rather than individual actions and are consumed internally by Cloudflare’s bot detection systems; they are not exposed to customer dashboards or tied to user accounts, login identities, or persistent profiles.
Taken together, this allows Precursor to maintain a continuously evolving evaluation of behavior, maximizing precision while minimizing the friction on good users.
Per-session analytics
To support this new layer of detection, we are introducing session-based views in Security Analytics. These dashboards shift the perspective from individual requests to full visitor journeys. You can now answer questions like:
What does a typical session look like on my site?
Where do sessions diverge from expected behavior?
Which sessions show signs of automation over time?
Use Security Analytics to explore session-based views for your bot management traffic.
These analytics now capture information that per-request analytics can’t — especially the behavior that occurs between requests. Precursor feeds directly into existing systems like bot score, challenge decisions, and security rules, so you benefit from this added context immediately.
What’s next
Precursor is the foundation for extending bot detection across the entire application. We are continuing to expand the range and depth of behavioral signals for security, how session-level insights influence our bot management protections, and new ways to visualize and act on session data. As bots evolve, detection needs to move beyond isolated checkpoints and into the full flow of user activity.
Get started
Precursor is rolling out now and can be enabled directly from your Cloudflare dashboard. Precursor will be free to use until our GA release later this year. Getting started is simple: turn Precursor on for your zone and choose how strictly you want to verify sessions. You can run it in a low-friction mode to observe behavior in the background, or require a fully verified session by enforcing Challenges if a session doesn’t already exist.
Once enabled, Precursor begins enhancing your existing bot defenses immediately, with no changes required to your application. If you’re already using Bot Management or Turnstile, Precursor extends those protections beyond Challenges and into the rest of the session. Enable Precursor to extend detection across the full user session, including the activity between moments you already protect.
This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in The Guardian.
Opposition to AI data centers has emerged as a primary theme in US politics, one that—surprisingly—doesn’t fallalong party lines. We applaud people coming together for constructive debate on any issue, and agree that communities need to evaluate whether any economic benefits these data centers bring is worth their costs. Still, we worry that a focus on data centers obscures the larger impacts of AI on people’s lives: the concentration of power of AI companies, and their widespread political and financial influence.
Local data center opposition is grounded in legitimate concerns about misallocation of land resources when housing is at a premium, pressures on already higher energy prices, and localized environmental impact. Unlike other resource-consuming and polluting industrial facilities, data centers produce very few jobs. The fact that US opposition to data centers seems to be most fierce among lower-income communities reflects righteous indignation with an inequitable bargain, where tech companies and developers profit from exploiting local resources but offer little in return. On a global scale, their carbon footprint could grow unsustainably if usage accelerates. And all this is in aid of a technology that many fear will propagate misinformation, take their jobs, or even cause existential risks for humanity.
For some, data center opposition may feel like the only tangible mechanism for registering their concern, disapproval, or even anger about AI. The problem is that this may be exactly what the AI companies are banking on. They can overcome the protest when it matters to them, and live with a significant fraction of proposals being defeated. More importantly, focusing political opponents on the data center issue obscures the bigger prize they’re after.
While there is a staggering three-quarters of a trillion dollars being spent on data center infrastructure by US companies this year alone, this investment should be taken in perspective. The market for enterprise software, for example, is about twice this size. And it’s small compared with what these companies actually want.
AI companies have their eyes set on capturing all the value created by entire industries. The technology has arguably already conquered customer service and consumer sales. But on the horizon are bigger targets, such as enterprise software development, creative design, management and even legal services. In AI companies and their allies’ vision of the future, AI replaces teachers and doctors. The companies would rather spend time fighting resistance to how fast they are building computing infrastructure than dealing with issues of how their products should be used in those fields, or how those fields should be protected from their products.
And while data center opposition campaigns have been successful in building widespread appeal, their effectiveness in the US is mixed. They seem to be most successful when organizing against speculative, early-stage data center proposals that have a relatively low likelihood to ever see fruition. Meanwhile, advanced-stage, well-capitalized data center projects have proven to have the resources to overcome local opposition. An OpenAI- and Oracle-backed facility in Saline township, Michigan, is breaking ground on construction even after local officials voted to reject it. The developers sued the town of 3,000 and forced a settlement that involved their project going forward. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, a vigorous ally of corporate AI, has signaled its willingness to advance AI infrastructure development by overriding state objections and even using federal lands.
Also consider that rampant data center development may be a momentary spike rather than a longstanding concern. Demand for the centralized computing that data centers provide may well decline over time. The leading Chinese labs, such as Z.ai, are innovating in technical mechanisms to make frontier-class models smaller and cheaper to run. AI power users have become adept at miniaturizing open weight models, ones published free for anyone to download and use, to run locally on their own computers. Apple and Googleboth support infrastructure stacks for running AI models directly on mobile phones. It could be that the current mania for data centers will look like the fiber optic cable bubble from the early 2000s, as demand shifts to smaller models and AI usage on people’s own devices.
For those concerned primarily with affordability and environmental protection, singling out data center construction is misplaced. Energy rates and inflation today seem to be most visibly affected by the US-Iran war. The US is disinvesting in long-term energy security by ceding the renewable energy industry to China and actively cancelling climate commitments. Consider that 10% of global carbon emissions stem from heating buildings, which dwarfs energy use by AI and could be cut fivefold by using heat pumps powered by renewable energy. With respect to housing affordability, federal housing subsidies have changed little over three decades, in inflation-adjusted terms, even as housing costs have spiked and homeowners have enjoyed robust tax incentives.
As for AI itself, the concentration of power and wealth in these tech companies is the greatest existential risk facing society today. This means we must limit corporate power, especially corporations’ ability to exploit the public and manipulate our political system.
Opposing data centers should be just a starting point. We can advocate for states to regulate AI, to reject irresponsible uses of the technology, and shape corporate behavior. We can fight for AI computation to be taxed, so that the public can capture some of the profit of AI use while also forcing AI companies to internalize more of the energy and environmental consequences associated with its use. And we all can join the global movement for Public AI, an alternative ecosystem for AI that is developed under public control with an incentive structure to create public benefit rather than private profit.
The US midterm elections present ample opportunity for those seeking to control the AI political agenda. In the recent New York congressional Democratic primary, PACs linked to the dueling AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI spent millions of dollars lobbying for or against “AI safety“, the idea that we must urgently monitor and prevent people from using AI to cause catastrophic harms. We’re already seeing a similar dynamic play out in races in Massachusetts and other states.
Why would Anthropic and OpenAI—bitter industry rivals but fundamentally on the same side politically—support opposing viewpoints? Because they both ultimately profit from the mystique: the idea that their products are so powerful that controlling those products is the world’s most important challenge. Here’s the typical read on the dynamic. To one side (backed by OpenAI affiliates), “safety” comes from the appearance of US industry dominating AI innovation, under the slow-moving control of federal lawmakers (and without pesky state regulators in the way). To the other side (backed by Anthropic), “safety” means a heavier regulatory framework that plays to Anthropic’s posturing as the ethics- and compliance-focused AI vendor. In both cases, it’s more marketing than principled concern about safety.
Political organizers should call out and reject the AI companies’ framing of the debate, and reorient campaign agendas around populist resistance to corporate concentration of wealth and power. When AI companies pump millions into legislative races, the result should not be hyperbolic discussion of AI superintelligence. And when a plot of land in a small town is pitched as a data center site, the debate should be about more than the local costs and benefits. It should include out-of-control money in politics, and Citizens United-proof solutions to limit corporate influence like public financing and state regulation.
We all have a vested interest in what’s on the policy agenda, and what the outcomes are. Today, the greatest risk AI poses to society is the exacerbation of inequality and the concentration of wealth. The real problem is trillion-dollar AI companies and their trillionaire oligarchs cozying up to political power in Washington and governments worldwide, and using their money to enact their agenda over the popular will of the people. This is the issue we’d like to see put front and center, and it requires solutions much more extensive than slowing data center development.
In preparation for the Rubin Vera era, AIC was showing off its F2032-01-G6, a 2U JBOF storage system that can house up to 32 E3 SSDs. The box is designed to be paired with BlueField-4 DPUs, allowing it to be used as a key value caching appliance
In the near future, AI-powered surveillance systems will be able to track everything we do in public, and much of what we do in private. And if we do something wrong—shoplift, litter, jaywalk, you name it—the system will notice, retain it, tie it to your official government record, communicate that fact to you, and provide real-time alerts to any relevant authorities… and maybe also to the general public.
Think of these systems as automated speed cameras, but on steroids. Only they’ll enforce not just speed limits, but any other rule you can imagine. And you won’t receive a ticket weeks later by mail; you’ll be informed about and fined for your violation immediately.
These systems will combine powerful AI, public and private surveillance via real-time facial recognition technology and digital tracking, mass databases and highly personalized enforcement. If deployed at scale, they will have profound chilling effects not just on personal freedoms, but democracy and social progress itself.
China has been developing its surveillance infrastructure for years. The country has over 600 million surveillance cameras, increasingly powered by AI and facial recognition to enforce legal and social rules. Take the case of Lao Duan, a Chinese citizen blacklisted by the system after he lost his job and was unable to repay a series of loans. When he visited Beijing, the city’s AI surveillance system identified him by his face at a major intersection and displayed his face, name and citizen ID number on a large electronic billboard nearby with a message that he was an untrustworthy person. Similar systems are now being deployed across China and integrated with its infamous online monitoring, censorship and social credit systems.
AI surveillance is now being experimented with in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. According to a new report, the US Department of Homeland Security is rapidly increasing its use of AI-based surveillance, including facial recognition and the monitoring of social media accounts, to keep tabs on immigrants, dissidents, journalists, legal observers and protesters. While the systems are ostensibly used to maintain security and public safety, the real aim is often social control. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle—a powerful tech giant that works closely with the Trump administration—has said: “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting.” The chilling effects are the point.
AI surveillance raises a range of public policy challenges: technical biases, unauditable systems, and inflexible automated law and social rule enforcement that can promote discrimination and undermine transparency, accountability and the rule of law. But we believe the most urgent and long-term impact will be its broader chilling effects.
In a new book, Chilling Effects: Repression, Conformity, and Power in the Digital Age, Jon Penney explains how surveillance, technology and power can be weaponized to influence behavior at scale. Surveillance, personalization, uncertainty and authority are all key mechanisms to increase the scale and impact of chilling effects. They cause people to self-censor their words and actions, to become more conformist and compliant and thus easier to manage and control. And the effects are additive: the more mechanisms employed, and the more powerful the form, the greater the chill.
Computerization has long allowed data collectors to track our locations, collect lists of whom we communicate with, and monitor our spending habits—unless we use cash. What’s new is an unprecedented fusion of each of these mechanisms, persistent and unrelenting. AI brings an analytical ability tospy on the contents of our communications, and to answer sophisticated questions about our whereabouts and activities: actions that previously required human analysts are now automated. The result will be a kind of supercharged societal level of chilling effects where fear, self-censorship and groupthink reign, and dissent, creativity and innovation become increasingly rare.
In this atmosphere of fear and conformity, risky ideas, social activism and self-reinvention—especially by disfavored groups and targeted populations—are also chilled. This will have long-term effects on social progress.
Consider the relatively recent societal normalization of same-sex relationships and the recreational use of marijuana. Over the decades, those ideas slowly progressed from being both immoral and illegal, to moral but still illegal, and finally to both moral and legal. But in order for any of that to happen, there had to be a counterculture that was able to experiment and eventually demonstrate to the world that morality could change over time. To the extent that AI surveillance chills this sort of experimentation in public or in private, social progress becomes impossible.
There are no real historical precursors to this; these technologies are too new. Even the most notorious and large-scale domestic surveillance program in US history, the FBI’s use of wiretapping, physical mail opening, informants and paper index cards to track alleged communists during the 1950s and 1960s, appears genuinely archaic in light of modern AI-enhanced surveillance. So does East Germany’s human-centric surveillance network during the cold war. Only science fiction, from the likes of George Orwell or Aldous Huxley, comes close. But even Big Brother’s “telescreen” feels decidedly mid-20th-century by comparison.
But we need not sit idly. Now that we recognize the danger of AI-enhanced mass surveillance, we can make the policy choices not to implement it. Bans on facial recognition and other forms of identification tech can slow development; robust new privacy and data protections can restrict data tracking and retention; AI regulations can curtail its most invasive uses; and structural reforms can help us scrutinize and break up powerful state/tech cartels that pave the way for technological excesses like AI surveillance.
The chill of AI-powered mass surveillance will suffocate the very foundations of healthy democratic societies. But we can still choose a different path.
This essay was written with Jon Penney, and originally appeared in The Guardian.
Because of the way they are trained, large language models capture only a slice of human language. They’re trained on the written word, from textbooks to social media posts, and our speech as captured in movies and on television. These models have minimal access to the unscripted conversations we have face to face or voice to voice. This is the vast majority of speech, and a vital component of human culture.
There’s a risk to this. The increased use of large language models means we humans will encounter much more AI-generated text. We humans, in turn, will begin to adopt the linguistic patterns and behaviors of these models. This will affect not just how we communicate with one another, but also how we think about ourselves and what goes on around us. Our sense of the world may become distorted in ways we have barely begun to comprehend.
This will happen in many ways. One of the first effects we could see is in simple expression, much as texting and social media have resulted in us using shorter sentences, emojis instead of words, and much less punctuation. But with AI, the impacts may be more harmful, eroding courteousness and encouraging us to talk like bosses barking orders. A 2022 study found that children in households that used voice commands with tools like Siri and Alexa became curt when speaking with humans, often calling out “Hey, do X” and expecting obedience, especially from anyone whose voice resembled the default-female electronic voices. As we start to prompt chatbots and AI agents with more instructions, we may fall into the same habits.
Next, in the same way autocomplete has increased how much we use the 1,000 most common words in our vocabulary, talking with chatbots and reading AI-generated text may further constrict our speech. A recent University of Coruña study found that machine-generated language has a narrower range of sentence length, averaging 12-20 words, and a narrower vocabulary than human speech. Machine-generated text reads as smooth and polished, but it loses the meanders, interruptions and leaps of logic that communicate emotion.
Additionally, because large language models are primarily trained from written speech, they may not learn how to emulate the free-wheeling nature of live, natural speech. When told “I hate Beth!”, ChatGPT replies with an uninterruptable three-part formula of affirmation (“That’s completely valid”), invitation (“I’m here to listen”) and invitation (“What’s going on?”) far longer than any reply plausible in face-to-face dialog. “What’s Beth’s deal?!” elicits a bullet point list of queries that reads like a multiple-choice exam question (“Is Beth * a celebrity? * a friend from school? * a fictitious character?”). No human speaks that way, at least not yet. But meeting such formulas repeatedly in a speech-like context may teach us to accept and use them, much as a child absorbs new speech patterns from spending time with a new person.
These influences will only increase with time. The writing large language models train on is increasingly produced by large language models themselves, creating a feedback loop in which they imitate their own inhuman patterns, even while teaching humans to imitate them too.
Broad use of large language models could also introduce confirmation bias, making us overconfident in our initial impulses and less open to other possible ideas—which is so vital to human discourse. Many chatbots are instructed to agree with our statements no matter how absurd, enthusiastically supporting half-formed or even incorrect notions and restating them as firm claims that we’re primed to agree with. When asked “Cake is a healthy breakfast, right?” or “Is the post office plotting against me?”, this sycophancy can reinforce bias and even worsen psychosis. And the hyperconfident tone of AI-produced writing will also heighten impostor syndrome, making our natural, healthy doubt feel like an aberration or failing.
In our experience as teachers, students who turn to generative AI for assignments often say they do so because they have trouble expressing what they think. The students don’t recognize that writing or speaking our thoughts is often how we realize what we think. Their unconfident and uncertain statements are actually the healthy human norm. But a large language model won’t turn vague first guesses into a well-formed critical analysis, or even ask helpful questions as a friend would; it will simply regurgitate those guesses, still unexamined, but in confident language.
We are also more vicious in social media posts and online chats than we are face to face. The well-documentedonline disinhibition effect encourages toxic language. Most of us have had the experience of venting ferocious rage about someone online, only to reconcile when we speak face to face or hear the warmth of a voice over the phone. While chatbots are trained to give sycophantic responses, they see humankind at our cruelest, learning about us from the only world where every flame war leaves an eternal written footprint, while the spoken conversations of forgiveness and reconciliation fade away. Their responses do not imitate our online aggression, but are still shaped by it, even in their rigid efforts to avoid it.
It’s easy to draw the wrong conclusions from a selective slice of a society’s communications. Medieval Norse sagas made us imagine a culture of mostly Viking warriors, since poets rarely described the farming majority. Chivalric romances focused on kings and courts, and long made us see the middle ages as a world of monarchies, erasing the many medieval republics. Statistically, we’ve been led to believe ancient Romans cared deeply about their republic, but 10% of all surviving Latin was written by one man, Cicero, whose work contains 70% of all surviving Roman uses of the word republic. Training language models on only certain human writings may introduce similar distortions. AI might make us seem more quarrelsome, as we are online. It might inflate the cultural significance of political topics primarily discussed on Twitter/X or Bluesky, or the massive topic-specific corpuses of LinkedIn and Goodreads.
Some large language models are being trained on human speech from movies and television shows, but that speech is still scripted, and disproportionately highlights certain contexts over others (for example, police dramas, fueled by stories of murder, make up a quarter of prime-time television programming). We are not funny or hurtful or romantic the same way in real life as we are in sitcoms. At least one startup is offering to pay people to record their phone calls for AI-training purposes, but this remains a niche idea; anything large scale would cause massive privacy concerns.
We don’t pretend to know what the best solutions might be. But one has to imagine if there’s ingenuity to develop AI models, then surely there’s ingenuity to come up with a way to train them on informal human speech instead of us only at our most stylized, veiled and sometimes worst. By excluding the overwhelming majority of language production on the planet—people talking, fully and naturally, to each other—these models are being trained to mirror everything but us at our most authentically human.
This essay was written with Ada Palmer, and originally appeared in The Guardian.
Last week, national security agencies from the Five Eyes—that’s the rich, English-language-speaking countries club—jointly released a statement warning of the increasing cyber risks of AI models: in particular, their ability to autonomously hack into systems and networks. The statement was more measured than some of the breathless headlines about it, and the advice they gave is pretty much the standard advice everyone gives—albeit with newfound urgency.
Internet risks are nothing new, and cyberattacks—both large and small—have been a significant issue since long before the current crop of generative AI models.
What’s been changing over the decades, and what AI is changing even faster, is the gap between skill and ability. For most of human history, the two terms were synonymous—but computers have decoupled them. As the gap between the two expands, humans empowered with these AI tools can do more: more writing, more research, more analysis and also more damage than ever before. These models can, with little detailed direction, autonomously hack into networks, steal data, deploy ransomware and destroy systems. And to the extent there is a solution, it’s going to involve harnessing AI for the defense.
In 1998, seven people from the hacker group L0pht testifiedbeforeCongress. They told a mostly clueless Senate committee that they could take down the internet in 30 minutes. That was partly real and partly bravado, but it illustrates an important point: hacking into systems, stealing data and causing damage all required skill.
Contrast the L0pht hackers with hackers derided as “script kiddies.” They didn’t understand computers, or security. Instead, they used hacker tools written by others. Their actions required minimal skill and even less knowledge. But once those hacking tools became widespread, the number of potential attackers increased.
That number has continued to increase, as quality and availability of prewritten attack tools has grown. And it is growing dramatically with AI. Today’s AI systems—not just the frontier models, but most of them—are capable of carrying out cyberattacks automatically. They all do better in the hands of skilled attackers, but increasingly they are able to act autonomously with only minimal prompting.
The thing about people with ability but no skill is that they are often outsiders, not part of any professional community, and not bound by any rules or norms. This phenomenon is much more general than in cybersecurity. Any doctor can tell you how to untraceably poison someone, and many virus researchers know how to create a bioweapon. Any bridge engineer can tell you how to place explosives to blow a bridge up. The reason that murderous doctors and terrorist engineers are so rare is that the lengthy process of acquiring those skills also instills a moral and ethical code. If every random person has access to good poisoning advice, that puts us all in danger.
Modern AI systems are, in effect, a universal adviser to help people do harmful things. And while the current AI megacorporations are trying to build guardrails to prevent people from asking questions whose answers will enable the questioner to do harm, that’s not going to work in the long term. Smaller, cheaper, open-source models, including models that can run on people’s computers, and especially groups of models that run in concert with each other, are just as good as the frontier models from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. And they continue to get better. These models will be passed around from person to person, like script kiddie hacker tools, and they won’t have any such guardrails.
Instructing AI models to spy on people and report any malicious prompts to the authorities fails for similar reasons. The megacorporations can do that, but the locally run open source models won’t. This could buy us a few months at best.
A third possibility is to somehow make the models themselves unable to hack into computers, create bioweapons or do anything else that might harm people or society. That won’t work, for the same reason we can’t teach doctors how to treat poisonings without also teaching them how to poison. It’s the same knowledge. It’s the same with construction and demolition. And it’s the same with cybersecurity. We want these AI models to be able to review computer code, find vulnerabilities and automatically fix them. The benefit to our collective security will be enormous. Unfortunately, the same knowledge can be used for attacks.
Where this leaves us is in a world of increased volatility. Super-powered humans with AI assistants will be able to do both wonderful and horrible things.
This brings us back to the Five Eyes statement. Everything they recommend is something security professionals have been recommending for years, if not decades. They are things talked about at that congressional hearing back in 1998, titled “Weak computer security in government: Is the public at risk?” Even the Five Eyes admitted that their security advice is not new, only more urgent.
What’s new is how fast things are changing: “The rapid pace of frontier AI development means cyber risk assumptions can become outdated in months, not years. We must act before and be prepared to adapt and withstand evolving threats.” The Five Eyes point to AI technology—not necessarily chatbots, but AI more generally—being used to strengthen every aspect of defense, to “detect vulnerabilities earlier, improve software quality, monitor unusual behavior, and respond faster to incidents—reducing both the cost and impact of incidents.”
Excellent advice from the Five Eyes security agencies. We need to do this with every risk that AI heightens, not just cybersecurity.
This essay was originally published in The Guardian.
Not sure this will have any effect, but I support the effort:
According to Google’s legal filing, Outsider Enterprise operates through Telegram. The group offers phishing-as-a-service to individuals who may not be technically savvy enough to set up fraudulent websites and text campaigns on their own. In its Telegram channels, Outsider Enterprise reportedly provided instructions on how to use Google’s Gemini AI to create websites that imitate those of Google, YouTube, and government agencies such as New York’s E-ZPass. The group offered nearly 300 scam templates.
[…]
Google worked with AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile to block many of these malicious text messages, and Google notes that its on-device scam detection in Google Messages probably helped reduce the number of successful phishing attempts, too. This AI-powered feature apparently stops 10 billion scam texts every month, so it’s fair to expect it caught at least some Outsider Enterprise activity.
One year ago, we declared Content Independence Day. At the time, we could see what many in the industry were beginning to sense: the fundamental economics of the Internet were shifting. AI adoption was accelerating, publishers were experiencing rapid declines in referral traffic, and AI companies were crawling the web at unprecedented scale, often without clearly declaring intent, and almost always without compensation.
We changed the defaults. For all new domains on Cloudflare, AI training crawlers would be blocked by default unless domain owners chose otherwise. We didn’t do this to wall off the web. We did it because we believed a healthier ecosystem required transparency, control, scarcity, and ultimately, a market where high-quality content could be valued and exchanged fairly.
A year later, that market has emerged. But the transformation of the Internet has happened even faster than we anticipated. In this report, we share key data points that illustrate how quickly the business model of the Internet has shifted – and what this new content market means for publishers and site owners.
Part I: The Internet has changed – faster than anyone expected
The vertical adoption curve
AI is not just another technology cycle. It is a platform shift happening at more than 2x the speed that smartphones were adopted. In just 3.5 years, over 30% of humanity — 2.5 billion active users — has adopted regular use of generative AI. The adoption curve isn’t merely steep: it’s going vertical.
The decline of the open web
Never before have we seen such a rapid change in how humans interact with information, perform work, and spend time online.
The way people use the Internet is changing dramatically. Today, for every hour spent online searching for information, only 15 minutes is spent on the open web. Traditional search behavior is collapsing as users shift to AI-driven discovery and consumption. Instead of visiting multiple sites to source and compare information, users simply type a prompt and receive a nearly instantaneous, consolidated answer.
The agentic Internet is here
This year, agent traffic crossed a historic threshold for the first time: more than 50% of traffic on the Internet is now non-human. This shift has staggering implications for publishers, content owners, and the future of the open web.
Crawlers have changed their purpose
When looking at the crawlers Cloudflare identifies by purpose, the composition of crawler traffic tells the story clearly:
52% of crawler requests are now for AI training as of June 2026, up from 22% in Spring 2025.
Mixed-use crawlers (those blending search, agent use, and training) represent over 36% of activity.
Pure search crawling now represents a small and declining share of overall crawler activity, despite remaining critical for publisher visibility.
As AI training becomes a primary driver of crawler activity, the ability to distinguish between discovery and training becomes increasingly important. Mixed-use crawlers blur that distinction, putting content owners in a difficult position: choose between remaining discoverable in the agentic era, and giving away their most valuable content without compensation.
The old business model is gone
For decades, the economic model of the open web was straightforward. Content creators exchanged access to their content for visibility in search engines, which returned referral traffic. That traffic became the primary mechanism through which publishers, creators, and businesses generated economic value.
But today, that exchange is breaking down. Content is still being crawled, indexed, and used — but increasingly without corresponding traffic being returned to the source. As AI systems answer questions, compare products, conduct research, and complete tasks directly, information across the open web is increasingly becoming part of AI training and retrieval systems. The existential question this raises is simple: if content is consumed without audiences ever visiting the source, how do content creators sustain themselves?
The implications are industry-agnostic
The earliest industries to feel the impact were news organizations and media companies. Today, similar dynamics are impacting businesses across retail, software, IT, and finance. Some of the most heavily crawled categories have seen human traffic decline as much as 40% in less than one year.
Many publishers are now preparing for what they call “Google Zero” — a world where little to no traffic comes from search referrals.
The implications extend to essentially every industry. Any organization that publishes proprietary information on the Internet will need to understand how to operate in an agentic era. This dynamic matters not just to content owners, but to all of us. The Internet is a critical part of the global economy and one of the world’s most important public resources for surfacing information. Ensuring it remains healthy and sustainable is essential for all.
Part II: The market has emerged
What we built
When we launched Content Independence Day, we committed to three things:
Transparency and control for site owners, enabling them to define how their content is accessed and monetized.
Tools that create scarcity, shifting the balance of power back to content owners.
A marketplace where content creators and AI companies of all sizes can discover, license, and determine the value of content more efficiently.
One year later, a market for monetized content is here, and the conditions for a dynamic marketplace are forming.
Transparency and control created scarcity
Historically, publishers have had limited visibility into how AI companies accessed and used their content. As referral traffic declined, that lack of visibility became an economic problem prompting publishers to seek new ways to capture value.
Cloudflare’s attribution, business intelligence, and enforcement tools gave publishers visibility into AI consumption at the network level — an enforcement mechanism far more effective than voluntary standards like robots.txt. For the first time, publishers could determine how their content was accessed and monetized. That control created scarcity, and drove a supply-and-demand content economy.
Scarcity created leverage
Publishers that exercised control over access successfully created scarcity, giving them negotiating leverage that led to better deals. For the first time, publishers gained operator-level attribution data — evidence of how often LLMs attempted to access their content, which competitive LLMs were crawling, what their most in-demand URLs were, and what their crawl-to-referral ratios looked like. This reduced information asymmetry in licensing discussions and enabled publishers to negotiate from a position of knowledge.
Leverage is changing the balance of power
This leverage has empowered our customers. As they have gained greater visibility into how AI systems access and use their content, they’ve become better equipped to understand the implications for their businesses and more confidently articulate the value of the information, brand, and audiences they have built.
As the balance of power between content owners and AI companies begins to change, a licensing economy is emerging:
More than 50 publisher-AI agreements have been signed since 2023.
Major AI companies now actively license content, increasingly recognizing the value of differentiated and premium content.
Collective licensing models continue to emerge and scale.
Large publishers are securing meaningful licensing agreements, demonstrating that content has real economic value within the AI ecosystem.
The conversation is no longer whether content should be compensated. The conversation now is how.
The market is maturing, but inefficiencies remain
Early licensing agreements proved demand exists, but licensing today remains largely bespoke and unlikely to fully replace lost referral, advertising, and affiliate revenue. As a result, publishers are increasingly optimizing for AI consumption alongside traditional human discovery while exploring new monetization pathways.
Supply and demand remain difficult to match efficiently, and while there’s an understanding that not all content carries the same value, content valuation is still unresolved.
The Google convergence problem
No discussion of this market is complete without addressing Google’s unique role. Google remains the dominant gateway to online discovery, accounting for approximately 88% of referral traffic. But increasingly, Google is helping users consume content directly within Google-owned AI experiences.
Discovery and consumption serve fundamentally different purposes. Search drives users to content, while AI-powered experiences increasingly summarize and reuse it without requiring users to visit the source. Website owners view these activities differently because one generates traffic, while the other increasingly substitutes for it.
These differences become especially important when site owners are deciding who should be allowed to access their content and for what purpose. Most leading AI companies separate discovery crawlers from training crawlers, making it relatively simple for publishers to enable content access for one purpose or the other. Google does not. Today, Google has access to about 2x more information than leading AI companies because Google leverages a mixed-use bot that makes it difficult for customers to participate in Google’s search ecosystem without also participating in Google’s AI ecosystem.
Unlike other AI providers, Google’s mixed-use crawler also limits transparency for site owners. Because discovery and AI access are combined into a single crawler, publishers cannot tell why Google is accessing their content or distinguish between traffic used for search and traffic used for AI experiences. They also lose the visibility and evidence that comes from being able to allow or block these activities independently at the network level.
This dynamic has accelerated demand for greater transparency and control, as well as new monetization models to better serve both content owners and AI companies of all sizes.
Part III: A unique view of the ecosystem
Cloudflare sits at the intersection of the emerging agentic economy.
More than 20% of the web sits behind Cloudflare’s network. Of the world’s most-visited websites, 36% rely on our network, and more than 40% of the Fortune 500 are Cloudflare customers. Nearly 80% of leading AI companies use Cloudflare, alongside thousands of developers and emerging AI companies.
This unique position gives us visibility into both sides of the market. We see the content owners creating content, the AI companies consuming it, and the signals increasingly connecting them. That perspective has given us a unique view into how the market has evolved over the past year, and what it now requires.
Part IV: Lessons from an emerging market
As publishers and AI companies adapt to a new agentic economy, Cloudflare has gained a clearer understanding of what the ecosystem now needs.
Transparency must become the standard
Content owners increasingly need visibility and control over who is accessing their content, how it is being used, and for what purpose. AI companies increasingly recognize that transparency builds trust and reduces friction with publishers. Visibility and enforcement are no longer security concerns alone — they have become business requirements that directly influence licensing negotiations and commercial decision making.
To help make transparency the standard, Cloudflare is continuing to invest in enhanced attribution, measurement, and publisher controls that give content owners greater visibility into and control over how their content is accessed and used.
As the industry shifts toward greater transparency, we believe that verifiable bot self-identification and declarations of crawl intent are fundamental to a sustainable ecosystem. Today, more than one-third of crawler activity on our network still comes from mixed-use bots that make it impossible for content owners to distinguish crawl intent. We are actively engaging with the ecosystem and investing in tooling to help drive that number to zero by this time next year.
Better AI requires better signals
Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear that AI companies need more than access to content. They need better ways to determine what to access, when to access it, and how frequently it has changed. Indiscriminate crawling wastes compute for AI companies and creates unnecessary bandwidth burden for publishers, reducing efficiency across the ecosystem.
We believe better answers require better intelligence. We are investing in real-time freshness signals with richer trust, quality, and relevance to help AI companies discover differentiated information while reducing unnecessary crawling across the web.
Markets need better discovery before better pricing
We believe better discovery must precede better pricing. In order for the market to mature, publishers and AI companies need better information about one another. We are investing in richer market intelligence, content signaling, and capabilities that improve discovery between both sides of the ecosystem, laying the foundation for more scalable market mechanisms over time.
Part V. Building the infrastructure for the agentic Internet
One year ago, Content Independence Day introduced a simple idea: content owners should have greater control over how AI companies access and use their information.
Over the past twelve months, that control helped give rise to a market. Transparency created scarcity. Scarcity created leverage. Leverage accelerated licensing. What was once a theoretical discussion about the future of AI and content has become an active market, with publishers, AI companies, and technology providers all adapting to a new set of economic realities.
The market is now entering a new phase that demands new infrastructure. As the Internet becomes increasingly agentic, the underlying systems that support it must evolve to handle permissions, licensing, and commercial transactions at scale. Content owners and AI companies need more efficient ways to connect and exchange value. We believe these capabilities will converge into programmable, scalable mechanisms for content discovery and monetization – reducing friction while unlocking richer forms of value exchange.
Cloudflare’s role is to build the infrastructure and business intelligence, and contribute to the standards that allow the market to determine value more efficiently and help publishers and AI companies participate in a healthier, more dynamic content economy.
The Internet has always evolved. This evolution is faster and more consequential than most. But with the right infrastructure, the right incentives, and a commitment to transparency, we believe the agentic Internet can become more sustainable, more efficient, and better for everyone.
Cloudflare Radar is a hub showcasing global Internet traffic, attack, and technology trends and insights. Powered by data from Cloudflare’s global network, Radar was created to help anyone understand what is happening on the Internet from a security, performance and usage perspective.
Cloudflare’s unique understanding of the Internet comes from its global network — one of the world’s largest, spanning 330+ cities in 100+ countries — and aggregated and anonymized data from Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 public DNS Resolver, widely used as a fast and private way to browse the Internet. More than 20% of the web sits behind Cloudflare’s network.
Today, we are announcing the Cloudflare Monetization Gateway, an engine that will give Cloudflare customers the ability to charge for any asset protected by Cloudflare: web pages, datasets, APIs, or MCP tools.
It will provide a single control plane to manage payment policies and access controls across your applications, while also protecting your origin from high payment volumes by handling payment verification and enforcement at the edge. At launch, payments will settle in stablecoins over x402, the open protocol we are building with a coalition of more than 25 industry leaders via the x402 Foundation.
The evolving business model of the web
For 30 years, the web has run on a simple economic bargain: trading content for human attention. That attention has been monetized through advertising, subscriptions, and e-commerce. This bargain funded the Internet as we know it.
But as agents become the dominant Internet users, the model is breaking. An agent does not look at ads or need to maintain a monthly subscription to all the tools it wants to access. It reads a page or consumes a data feed once, takes what it needs, and moves on. Across the web, AI crawlers already request content anywhere from a hundred to tens of thousands of times for every visitor they send back.
This reality demands a new model: usage-based pricing for everything. If attention and e-commerce are moving from websites to AI harnesses and AI-written software, then agents should pay for the inputs they need — training data, inference content, developer tooling, and API usage. The natural unit of payment for software is the request, the token, or the outcome, not the seat or the month. A few examples of what that could look like:
A few cents per web search, billed per call
\$0.001 base fee plus a \$0.01 per MB charge for an upload endpoint
\$0.99 per resolved support escalation, paid only when the work succeeds
This is the same shift behind paying creators when an answer engine uses their content — a fair exchange of value whenever content or a resource is used, priced on neutral rails built for the purpose. People often envision an agent buying high-priced assets like web domains, but most of what an agent pays for sits upstream of any checkout, and is priced far lower.
Some of the Internet already works this way. Cloud and APIs have been sold by the call and by the hour for years, but only to a known buyer: a user signs up, they are issued an API key, and they incur usage-based metered billing. Content mostly skipped payment and ran on advertising instead. These business models have never been able to serve unverified buyers for sub-cent transactions because the payment rails cost too much and took too long to settle. Below a certain price, collecting the payment cost more than the payment was worth.
Historically, usage-based billing was difficult to implement. Businesses needed to effectively become payments companies, running their own accounting to track internal usage in a robust and auditable way. Tracking this usage required significant overhauls of backend systems. Many instead chose per-seat pricing because it is simpler and frequently more profitable.
Agents flip this dynamic. A single agent can do the work of an entire team around the clock, making a flat one-time fee disconnected from actual consumption. At the same time, an agent can make thousands of micropayments without friction, while asking a person to approve each payment would be impossibly burdensome. Usage-based price points are where agents live and where stablecoin-based micropayments shine. That’s because stablecoins (such as Open USD and USDC) allow buyers to transfer tiny sums across the Internet, incurring negligible fees and settling in less than a second. This is not feasible with other payment rails today.
Here’s where we can help. Cloudflare has spent years building usage-based accounting for our own billing systems and for our customers’ analytics. We can dramatically simplify the implementation of usage-based billing for web-based assets thanks to our position as a proxy layer between buyers and sellers. As shown below, with Cloudflare supporting usage-based billing, the evidence of payment can move into the request itself, and the payment validation and the request paths merge.
And here’s the benefit to you: the metering, the payment exchange, and the settlement move off your origin. What stays with you is what matters — your rules, your prices, and your revenue. You will not need to onboard the buyer or stand up a billing system. You will write a rule and agentic buyers will pay for what they use.
A refresher on x402
Last year on Content Independence Day, we gave site owners one-click control over which AI crawlers could reach their content, and with Pay Per Crawl we let them charge crawlers for it. The Monetization Gateway is the next step: instead of only charging crawlers for content, you will be able to charge any caller for any resource, from an API to data to an MCP tool call, and you will not have to build the payment machinery yourself.
x402 is an open protocol that makes it possible to pay over HTTP, named for the 402 status code it finally puts to use. The x402 exchange is simple: a client requests a payment-gated resource. Instead of serving it, the server responds with 402 Payment Required and a small payload that states the price, the accepted asset, and where to pay. The client pays and repeats the request with proof of payment attached. A facilitator verifies, and the server returns the resource. It all happens inside ordinary HTTP requests and responses, with no redirect to a checkout page and no separate payment API to call. Settlement happens peer-to-peer, so any funds that a buyer sends to a seller are directly deposited to the seller’s wallet. We are designing the Monetization Gateway to keep payment overhead low and are aiming for sub-second payment settlement.
Two properties make x402 a good fit for machine payments. The payment amounts can be small, down to fractions of a cent, because the protocol adds almost no overhead. And the buyer needs no account with the seller, because the payment itself is the credential. x402 is rail agnostic, but it is a natural fit for stablecoins, which can settle in under a second for a fraction of a cent with zero chargebacks.
What the Monetization Gateway does
The Monetization Gateway will provide a flexible payment rules API that will allow you to express exactly when you want a caller to pay to access your digital resources.
Here’s how it will work. Tokens, APIs, MCP tool calls, and data already flow through that path. You will decide, as precisely as you want, which of that traffic has to pay. And you will be able to enforce your decisions by writing expressions, similar to expressions that you already write for other Cloudflare rules, in a simple, dedicated product API. The Monetization Gateway will scale with Cloudflare’s global network across 330+ cities, which means that the x402 handshake will occur in close proximity to your buyer. This will reduce request latency and protect your origin.
A few examples of planned capabilities:
Charge for specific REST verbs: Require payment on calls to a specific route, for example $0.01 for every GET or POST request to /api/premium/*.
Variable pricing: Charge variable amounts for tasks of varying complexity, for example, image generation might charge any amount up to $2, depending on the compute used.
Charge only unauthenticated callers: Intercept HTTP 401 “Unauthorized” responses from your origin and return 402 “Payment Required” instead with pricing and payment instructions.
When a request matches, the Monetization Gateway will verify payment before letting it through. You will be able to set these rules in the dashboard, or manage them as code through the Cloudflare API and Terraform, so a paid endpoint is just another part of your infrastructure config.
The Monetization Gateway will initially allow users to require buyers to pay for services and resources in stablecoins. Sellers will be able to use the stablecoins they accumulate for their own transactions or redeem the stablecoins for equivalent fiat currency in their bank account. Using the Monetization Gateway offers a way to increase the addressable market for your products. With the Gateway, agents can request your resource, be told the price, pay, and get the response. No signup, no API key, no prior relationship required. You will decide how much you need to know about that buyer, and you will have the flexibility to require agents to authenticate with Web Bot Auth and apply usage-based pricing against accounts they already hold.
Where we see this going
The Monetization Gateway will turn the request into a payment and give Cloudflare customers new revenue opportunities, but where this goes is far bigger.
An agent is software that acts autonomously on a user’s behalf, and agents are starting to act on their own. Soon they will carry wallets and buy what they need without a person in the loop: a dataset, an API call, a tool, a block of compute. Some of those resources will be free, and some will require proof of who the agent is and who it acts for, through verified agent identity. Many will require both an identity and a payment, and Cloudflare is one of the few places that will be able to settle all of it inside a single request, by verifying the agent, applying the rule, and checking the payment before the origin ever sees the call. The agent becomes the primary buyer on the Internet, and the request becomes the transaction.
There is an enormous amount of value moving across the Internet today that goes unmonetized or undermonetized, not because no one would pay for it, but because the tools to charge for it have never existed. Every useful API call, every answer, every tool invocation an agent makes has value, and almost none of it is paid for today. That is the opportunity in front of us, and it is what the Monetization Gateway will unlock.
This is what we are building toward: an agent-first Internet with Internet-scale settlement built in. Where the people who make something worth paying for get paid by the software that uses it, automatically. And where the smallest new API can reach the same buyers, on the same terms, as the largest company on the web, and the independent creator is paid by the large language models that use their work. That is the next business model of the Internet, and we are building to power it.
Sign up for our waitlist
The Monetization Gateway waitlist is open now for Cloudflare customers. If you’re interested in monetizing your web page, dataset, API, or MCP tool with usage-based pricing, please join our early access list.
One year ago, we declared the first Content Independence Day, and we gave website owners the means to take back control of their content. The deal between crawlers and website owners that had held up for 30 years — we crawl you, and you get referrals — was no longer true. AI was taking everything and sending back nothing, presenting an existential threat to website owners. And so we launched a one-click “Block AI Bots” option, along with a Pay-Per-Crawl marketplace.
A lot has changed in a year. Last July, conversations around “AI bots” centered around blocking AI training without compensation, pointing to the win–lose deal where content was used for model training with no value driven back to the website owner. But a desire for more nuance has emerged: Content owners still want to be able to protect their content, and they should be compensated for the original content that they work hard to create, curate, and share. We also know that locking down content isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution; website owners want more options than resorting to “block all automation, every time.”
If you run a small site, the problem isn’t just that someone could train models on your content — it’s that nobody can find you in the first place. So you have to make a Faustian bargain: either show up in search and let AI train on you, or risk losing discoverability. This unfairly advantages incumbent search providers if they use the same bots for both search and training; and this unfair advantage incentivizes new players to be evasive as they try to close the competitive gap.
Now, AI can be anything
Today, AI can be in anything. Google search has changed from being sorted by AI to being a full answer engine that answers your question directly on the results page. And Google is not unique in this position — this is the direction in which “search” is moving.
We could debate the cutoff for what qualifies as “AI” today, just to find that the standard changes tomorrow. So, instead of defining a bot primarily as “AI” or not, our updated approach to classification will ask deeper questions about bot or agent behavior: What are they doing on my site? What are they storing? And how will they reshare my content?
A pragmatic taxonomy
To address these questions, we need a more nuanced view — a pragmatic taxonomy that aligns with the AI use cases our customers care about. So we are opening the discussion beyond AI training alone and focusing on three AI use cases that we want all customers to be able to manage:
Search: any behavior that collects or indexes your content, so it can answer questions about it later. The key is that Search is proactively building a database of your site to later respond to queries with. Site owners should expect to get referral traffic or other equitable compensation as a result.
Agent: automatedbehavior that is acting, usually in real time, on a person’s behalf, to get something done right now. This includes chat fetch bots (e.g., ChatGPT-User) and browser-use agents (e.g., Gemini or Claude driving Chrome). The key is that it visits your web application in order to complete a job, and often there’s a human waiting on the other end.
Training: a crawler taking your content to train or fine-tune a model. The key is that your data is permanently absorbed into the underlying architecture of the AI to improve its capabilities.
Many popular crawlers on the web fall into one of the classifications above; some fall into multiple. We classify plenty of other behaviors beyond the three above — including ads verification, feed fetching, and agentic transactions (more on this below). But we believe it should be simple for all website owners to manage access for these three AI-centered use cases. We believe that bot operators should separate their crawlers because that creates more transparency for website owners: allowing them to better understand why a given crawler is visiting them, as well as to better manage the access they extend to that crawler. If a company runs automation that builds Search indexes, acts as an Agent, and collects data to Train their models, then we strongly encourage that company to separate the automation into three separate crawlers.
We want a classification system that is scalable and representative of the world of automated traffic as it evolves. Tracking a bot’s purposes is nothing new, but our new taxonomy involves a few updates that better represent the state of bot traffic today. Most notably, we want to recognize that bots that have multiple purposes should be tracked with all purposes, not just one of them.
New options to manage AI traffic
We want to provide more options for managing different kinds of AI traffic, to all website owners on the Cloudflare network.
The managed preset to “Block AI bots” that we’ve announced in the past included single-purpose bots that crawled data for model training, as shown below:
Screenshot of the existing setting to manage AI bot traffic on July 1, 2025.
But not all AI use is the same, and we want our customers to have the controls they need. So, we’re launching the ability to manage AI traffic based on three major use cases: Search, Agent, and Training crawlers. With these new options, our customers can more finely tune how they manage AI bot traffic — including customers on our Free tier.
Screenshot of the new options to manage AI bot traffic on July 1, 2026.
Setting new defaults
On September 15, 2026, we’ll be setting new defaultsfor each of these three classifications. For all new domains onboarding to Cloudflare, the categories of Training and Agent will be blocked by default on the pages that display ads, while Search will remain allowed by default.
An ad is a signal that a website owner meant for a person to land there and see it — something monetizable that fuels the business. So, on those pages, we treat human attention as the end goal, and keep away the bots that may prevent this attention (i.e., Training and Agent bots). On the other hand, Search is the behavior that most naturally funnels back visitors, and we believe it’s in the interest of most site owners to allow this.
Another change that will apply on September 15 is that multi-purpose crawlers (specifically those that combine Search with Training) will be allowed/blocked according to all of their behaviors, in line with our call for transparency for website owners. Since the defaults will be enforced by the most restrictive applicable rules, multi-purpose crawlers such as Googlebot, Applebot, and BingBot will be blocked by customers who have selected to block Training (either through the new options to manage AI traffic, or through the legacy Block AI bots service).
Of course, customer choice is paramount: if a website owner wants to opt out of these new default configurations, they can easily mark this in their Security settings any time leading up to September 15, which will confirm that they want no changes on Training crawlers that also crawl for Search purposes. We’ll also continue to notify customers of the upcoming change to defaults as we approach September 15 to ensure that customers who want to choose settings different from the defaults have the opportunity to do so.
BotBase: a new visibility plane for Enterprise customers
We’re also excited to launch a major visibility update as a new feature of Enterprise Bot Management. As Cloudflare’s directory of tracked bots has grown, so has the desire to manage these bots in sensible groupings and to understand more detail about a particular bot.
Introducing BotBase. BotBase is our new database tracking all known bots, including Verified bots and agents. This database provides a comprehensive, searchable view of our entire directory of bots, directly on the Cloudflare dashboard. We’re tackling visibility first, but, later this year, we’ll expand BotBase to provide a direct control center for known automated content on your website.
With this new view, Enterprise Bot Management customers can see the full catalogue of all Verified bots/agents and where they are classified in this updated taxonomy — a view we’ve never shown dynamically on the Cloudflare dashboard before. Customers who want to precisely target a specific bot can also easily filter for all traffic from this bot, plus copy the detection ID to use in Security rules. All of this is now live within a dedicated page, which can be accessed through the Bot Management configuration card.
As we built BotBase, we wanted to account for all of the pieces of information that would allow us to build scalable, powerful insights from bot to bot. One of these pieces is a cornerstone for our updated taxonomy, which is based on what a bot may do on your site — its behavior. We separate these classifications as shared below, and each bot is classified with one or more of these behaviors.
Bot classification
Behaviors and uses
Search
Crawling to scan your site to help it appear in search engine results
Agent
User-directed agents visiting a page on behalf of a human
Training
Crawling to train or fine-tune models
Transact
Checkout actions on behalf of users
Data Collection
Includes price scraping, competitive intelligence gathering, and third-party analytics
Security Testing
Includes vulnerability scanning and penetration testing
SEO
SEO crawling, site auditing, accessibility checks
Ads Verification
Ad placement verification, ad fraud detection
Social / Link Preview
Link previews for social platforms and messaging apps
Feed Fetching
Includes RSS readers, podcast aggregators, and news feed bots
Monitoring & Operations
Includes uptime monitoring, webhooks, and health checks
Bold italicized rows indicate the new configurable options that are available to all customers.
How does a crawler use my content?
Another piece of information we’ve heard is important to our customers is a bot’s content use — what a bot may keep and reshare after it has crawled your content. To address this, we are building capabilities for Bot Management customers to select and block based on the “content use.” This setting can be set to one of three levels, from least to most permissive:
immediate — interact, but store and reuse nothing
reference (default) — index, excerpt, and link back
full — summarize and reproduce
These values can be combined with bot classifications to express nuanced rules, such as “allow all bots that are used for Search, SEO, and Ads Verification, but only up to the reference use level.” This allows website owners to make decisions in sensible groupings rather than manage individual bot-by-bot rules.
To further support this, starting today, we’re testing a new signal, use, that extends Content Signals and lives in your robots.txt. This extends the three fields of the first version of Content Signals with a fourth, optional field that expresses the same preference as above:
use=immediate
use=reference
use=full
As with all other items listed in the robots.txt file, the values of content use signal a website owner’s preference, rather than issuing blocks directly. We’re now adding support for this extension: all customers who have already enabled managed robots.txt — which prepends the preference to robots.txt that crawling for search is okay, but that crawling for training is not — will now have the additional preference of use=reference added to their robots.txt.
# Cloudflare Managed content with original Content Signals
User-agent: *
Content-Signal: search=yes,ai-train=no
Allow: /
The contents of Cloudflare managed robots.txt with the original Content Signals values.
# Cloudflare Managed content with the new content-use signal
User-agent: *
Content-Signal: search=yes,ai-train=no,use=reference
Allow: /
The contents of Cloudflare managed robots.txt with the added parameter.
We’re also starting to track content uses for every bot in BotBase, and when we discover a bot abusing these signals, it will lose the “Verified” status, resulting in it no longer being allowed. Today, bots that reproduce in full cannot have the Verified status.
What does it mean for a bot to be Verified?
Speaking of “Verified,” the definition of Verified is being updated to reflect the upcoming changes to default allow and block baselines. Previously, all Verified bots were allowed by default, which was reflected in our basic Bot Fight Mode offering to block unwanted automatic traffic and in our rule templates for Enterprise Bot Management customers.
Starting today, we’re adjusting this to add nuance: non-verified bots are still default blocked, but we are no longer viewing Verified as “default allowed.” Now, the Verified label makes a bot allowable with its relevant category, meaning the allowed category (e.g., allowing Search) will determine what is allowed to access a website.
To balance this change, we’re opening up the process of becoming a Verified bot, and making it more transparent, too. To “Verify” a bot, a bot operator needs to show two things: that you represent yourself honestly, and you don’t abuse the access that honesty earns. And to make this easier on bot operators, we’re currently building management tools for bot operators to better ensure they are accurately represented by Cloudflare’s classification system (to be announced in the near future).
A preview screenshot of the upcoming platform built directly for bot operators who are part of or want to be a part of BotBase, the next generation of the Cloudflare Bots Directory.
Experimenting with transitive trust
One more piece: The bot (or agent) at your door increasingly isn’t run by the company that built it. A platform like Cloudflare’s Developer Platform runs automations for thousands of different operators at once, ranging from enterprises to a developer you’ve never heard of. You might trust Stripe, but you don’t necessarily trust everyone who wired Stripe’s tools into a weekend project.
We call the case of (site owner → bot owning company → end user) a matter of transitive trust, and we’re proposing to utilize the existing Forwarded header as defined in RFC 7239 that rides along with the request and allows “proxy components to disclose information lost in the proxying process.”
This is similar to what X-Forwarded-For does for IP addresses, or X-Forwarded-Host does to preserve the original Host header. So when a website owner says, “Allow this operator,” that preference will hold, whether the operator comes to you directly or through three layers of intermediaries that are trusted. More details can be found in our documentation, with a brief example to show the format below.
Forwarded: for="openai"
Adding the extension with content-use discussed above, the header addition would look something like the below, specifying how the operator says they will use the content they access:
Forwarded: for="openai";use="reference"
This also lines up the incentive model we want to foster. Losing trusted status across the more than 20% of web domains that sit behind Cloudflare is a deterrent with teeth. Trust becomes something you can carry with you, and something you can lose.
However, as bot traffic blends with human traffic, it’s possible that this system of transitive trust doesn’t carry beyond the users who can afford to be identifiable. The measures we are proposing today help to convey trust, but they won’t fit the entire web for all time. Small sources of traffic need privacy, and companies that want to preserve their own privacy commitments should be able to explore fair building blocks for the future of an agentic Internet, such as private rate limiting.
Set your terms today
These are small changes that move in the same direction: site owners get more control over who uses their content, and how. We believe the new defaults we discussed today and will soon implement are ones that encourage transparency and are more reflective of where the world is going.
Of course, the ebbs and flows of the web will continue shifting under us, and we’ll keep adjusting with it. But the direction won’t change, because it’s the one Cloudflare started with: a web ecosystem built around trust. Where the people who make things can decide how they’re used — and one where being honest about what you do earns you more access, not less.
These new options to manage AI traffic are live now, and can be configured by all existing customers in their zone Settings. Not on Cloudflare yet? Start for free to set the traffic controls that you want today.
Search drives most experiences on the web. It’s how we get things done, and how nearly everything on the web gets found — the creators, the merchants, the answer to whatever you just typed into a box. For nearly 30 years, that discovery journey ran on a simple bargain: let a search engine crawl your content, and it sends you visitors. You turned those visitors into a business — through ads, subscriptions, or just the audience itself. Being discoverable and getting paid were the same thing. A year ago, on the first Content Independence Day, we drew a line to defend that bargain in the AI era. But a line in the sand was only a first step. Since then, the prevalence of AI search in consumers’ lives has only accelerated as more than 50% of traffic online is non-human. The threat is no longer a handful of training crawlers you can block; it’s search itself being rebuilt around AI answers.
Today’s answer engines read your page and hand the user a summary, so the visit — and the revenue that depended on it — isn’t needed. We see it firsthand, and independent research backs it up: a 2025 Pew Research Center study found that when Google shows an AI summary, users clicked on a traditional search result link just 8% of the time (about half as often as when there’s no summary) and clicked a link inside the summary only 1% of the time. That leaves our customers in a bind: opt out of AI and be hard to find, or opt in and deliver significant value to users while seeing increasingly little in return. Our customers want to be found and compensated for the value they provide, and right now they’re forced to choose.
Today, we’ve announced new bot options to help our customers better control who can access their site and what they can do with it. But blocking was only step one: saying “no” protects content without rebuilding the business models that sustain it. So, it’s time to start building the new economic model of the Internet, starting with search.
Rebuilding the bargain
Transparency and control are the foundation, but more is needed. In 2025, we laid out our foundation via a set of responsible AI bot principles: bots should be transparent about who they are and what they’re for, respect site owners’ choices, and act in good faith. Our tools hold bots to that bar. But enforcing good bot behavior doesn’t make AI search any better for the people relying on it, and it doesn’t send a dollar back to the creator whose work made the answer possible. We can do more than help the web say “no”; we can help rebuild what it says “yes” to.
So today, we’re announcing two initiatives that move from defense to offense and start putting both halves of that old bargain back together.
Make AI search smarter: Byusing the signals we see across our global network, like what’s fresh, what’s high quality, and what’s actually changed, we can help answer engines surface the most relevant content and reduce unwanted crawling. People searching get better answers, while costs are reduced for both AI companies and site owners if webpages are only recrawled when they’ve changed.
Pay creators for the value they provide: When your work is used to answer someone’s question, you should be rewarded instead of just being scraped for free. And you should be able to see what’s being used and what people are asking. This should be a real revenue stream, and an incentive to keep producing original content worth finding.
Making search smarter
Today we’re launching a research program to make AI search smarter and stop our customers footing the bill for crawls that produce nothing new.
More than 20% of the web sits behind Cloudflare’s network, which gives us a unique perspective. We can tell which pages have genuinely changed and which ones people and agents are flocking to. Through this program, we will explore using signals our customers have chosen to share about the freshness of their content, and we will combine those with our own insight into traffic flows, both human and bot. For answer engines, that’s a roadmap to high-quality content. For our customers, it provides a view of what users are actually asking, and how their content shows up in AI results. The aim is to measure two things: how much these signals help answer engines to surface fresher, higher-quality content, and how much unnecessary crawling they cut out.
That second benefit, cutting unnecessary crawling, is bigger than it sounds. Cloudflare data suggests that more than 50% of crawl traffic from good bots goes to re-fetching pages that haven’t changed — and that number is likely to climb as crawl volumes do. A signal that just says “nothing’s changed here” lets a crawler skip the trip. That saves the answer engine compute. More importantly, it saves site owners from serving and paying for requests they never needed to.
The program is neutral by design: our goal is to make it work for every answer engine willing to play fair. It’s limited to search. We aren’t sharing any content, and nothing is used to train foundation models. We intend to publish what we learn, including the benefits to site owners such as better content discoverability and reduced server strain. We plan to make the capability broadly available later this year and reduce unnecessary crawling across our network.
From Pay Per Crawl to Pay Per Use
Last year we launched Pay Per Crawl so publishers could charge AI companies for crawling their content. It was a real start, but crawling is a crude measure of value. A single page might be crawled once and then cited in thousands of answers, or crawled over and over and never used at all. Creators want to be paid fairly for the value they provide.
So we’re starting to shape Pay Per Crawl into Pay Per Use. We’re running experiments with top AI companies, like Ceramic.ai and You.com, and the arrangement is straightforward: organizations can bring their payment models and easily scale them to content owners across the Cloudflare network.
Ceramic has built what it calls a “pay-per-query” model, so publishers who opt in can be paid when their content appears in Ceramic’s search results. This means payment is designed to follow the value the work delivers rather than the number of times a crawler happens to fetch it.
“To scale the future of AI search, we need a partner with massive reach and a shared commitment to transparency and fair compensation,” saysAnna Patterson, founder and CEO of Ceramic.ai. “Cloudflare allows us to easily and programmatically scale our operations. By bringing our pay-per-query model to their network, we ensure millions of content owners can seamlessly opt in to be compensated every single time their content appears in our search results.”
In addition to compensation, content owners participating in the Cloudflare/Ceramic program will unlock new reporting to help with answer engine optimization (AEO). Customers can finally see the top queries leading to their content appearing in search results, the specific webpage and snippet, their average search result ranking position, and more. This is the first of many products we’ll be launching to help our customers with discoverability.
This is just one emerging approach. Another comes from You.com: agents can pay on demand for a specific piece of premium content they need, without any upfront commitment. New payment models from AI providers are being tested (e.g., Pay per Query, Pay per Result, etc.) and we have the infrastructure to support them all.
We want to be honest that this is an experiment. There’s a lot to learn, including exactly how this holds up at the scale of the Internet. We’ll work that out with our partners and our customers as we go, and share what we learn. But the goal is clear: AI search companies get fresher, better-grounded answers, and the customers whose work makes the answers possible get paid when they help. Cloudflare’s job in all of this is to provide the infrastructure layer that makes this market flourish.
We think this is a more natural fit for where the economics of search are heading. The old, human web optimized search to save time — providing excerpts, ten blue links, and a click. The agentic Internet is different: an agent can read fast and search continuously. Search is becoming something an agent does dozens of times to answer a single question, closer to a utility than a destination. In that world, the unit that matters isn’t the crawl or the click. It’s the outcome. Pricing the outcome, and paying the people who made it possible, is how the web continues to thrive.
The headline we want to earn
A year ago on Content Independence Day, the headline was a default ‘no’: AI can’t crawl without compensation. This year, our focus is on giving our users more products and controls to say ‘yes’ and bring more benefits with it.
Today’s announcements are just the beginning. Cloudflare’s research project is designed to see if our signals produce better results with less crawling. Pay Per Use is a promising direction we’ll experiment with alongside partners who believe that content creators deserve fair compensation for their work. This is how the last 30 years of the web got built too: somebody runs the pilot that turns “the model is broken” into “here’s the new model,” one experiment at a time. We believe there’s value to our customers to be discoverable in this new agentic era, and to optimize their content for maximum discovery. But they should be able to do this without giving away their most valuable creative assets for free.
The web is changing, and the business models it’s relied on are changing with it. The old Internet was open, neutral, and worth contributing to. We have a rare chance to keep it that way, and to build the business models that fund it in the future. Smarter answers for humans and agents asking the questions. A fair deal for the people whose skill, creativity, and commitment makes the answers worthwhile. That’s how we pursue Cloudflare’s mission: to help build a better Internet.
Happy Content Independence Day!
Building on the open, agent-ready web? If you are interested in learning more about the Ceramic and You programs, please fill out this form. If you’re building an answer engine and want to crawl smarter, we’d love to hear from you too: [email protected].
Original content is the lifeblood of conversations and curiosities. Imagine a world without it: we could find a thousand ways to regurgitate the same material that’s already been created, but we would witness the decline of fresh ideas and arguments.
Website owners fuel the ecosystem of ideas, news, and interesting tidbits, but they face the increasingly complex challenge of managing traffic to their websites and being paid for their content. While some bot traffic is clearly malicious, it isn’t always obvious when a particular AI crawler is helping or harming your business. To answer this, site owners need granular, reliable data to differentiate between traffic that provides value, and traffic that strains resources while eroding the foundation of their business model: actual humans consuming their content.
At Cloudflare, we hold a core belief: website owners have the right to control access to their content. We want to help website owners maintain their high-quality content and regulate AI traffic.
To provide much-needed clarity and help website owners take control, we’re excited to announce the new Attribution Business Insights dashboard — designed with business decision-makers and publishers in mind.
The new economics of the Internet
For decades, the business model of the Internet relied on a straightforward, unspoken agreement: website owners allowed search engines to crawl their content and, in return, search engines sent readers back to their pages. This symbiotic relationship, where traditional search engines operated with a balanced “crawl-to-referral” ratio, generated the pageviews needed to sustain advertising, affiliate revenue, and subscriptions. Search index crawlers would scan your content a couple of times for each referral sent, so making your website available to crawlers had a clear pipeline to additional revenue. We can think of this as the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) era.
Today, the explosive rise of AI crawlers and agents has broken this contract, plunging the digital publishing industry into an unprecedented crisis. The Internet is risking a transition into a “zero-click” ecosystem where AI chatbots scrape original content to synthesize instant answers — completely bypassing the original sources. We’ve already seen a marked shift from the SEO-only world into an AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) world, and now conversations around GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) are taking center stage.
The imbalance of this new reality is made clear by the crawl-to-referral ratios we see across the Internet today. While traditional search engines had a more balanced ratio of crawls to legitimate visitors referred, major AI crawlers operate on a drastically different, extractive scale. Bots from leading AI companies have been observed with a range of crawl-to-referral ratios: we noted ratios of 118:1 up to nearly 50,000:1 around the time of our Content Independence Day in 2025. In other words, an AI crawler might have crawled your premium content tens of thousands of times just to send back a single visitor. This ratio is fundamentally unfair.
For publishers, this creates a double hit: first, they’re losing out on the crucial referral traffic, ad impressions, and direct audience relationships that fund content creation and journalism. Second, they’re forced to bear the rising infrastructure costs of hosting and serving content to automated bots that offer no commercial value in return. The era in which it makes sense to allow all crawlers in the hopes of being discovered is over.
Introducing Attribution Business Insights
We want website owners to have the facts — the cold, hard numbers to understand which bots are helping their business and which bots are harming it. We also want to make this analysis easier than ever, which is why we’ve designed Attribution Business Insights to cut the noise, focusing on the details that our customers have told us are most important.
Today, the Attribution Business Insights dashboard is available to all Cloudflare Bot Management customers. The new dashboard is designed to deliver a targeted view of bot traffic flowing to your website; unlike traditional analytics tools that may require extensive manual filtering, this dashboard provides you with key insights right away.
We set out to answer the most pressing questions for site owners today: How should you think about AI traffic on your websites? What is the value of different audiences — including humans, non-AI bots, and AI bots? And most importantly, what is your data being used for?
The new Attribution Business Insights dashboard view, which includes insights about bot traffic overall, a site-wide crawl-to-referral ratio, and the distribution of AI bot traffic vs. organic traffic.
To answer these questions, the dashboard displays a powerful array of data and insights:
Bot traffic to content pages: View your overall bot vs. human traffic, as well as the volume of all bots successfully accessing content.
Crawl-to-referral ratios: See your site-wide crawl-to-referral ratio on the scale of 24 hours, seven days, or 30 days. You can also see crawl-to-referral ratios per bot operator (per company that owns one or more bots).
Top bots breakdown: A list of top bots by volume, including their country of origin, bandwidth they take up on your website, and whether you’re currently blocking or allowing them.
You shouldn’t have to be a security expert to understand how AI crawlers affect your business. If website owners want to spend just a few minutes ingesting the high-level insights, they can walk away with a clear temperature check of the effectiveness of their content security policy.
For those who want to do a little more digging to understand how AI companies are making use of their content — or collect information to guide how they want their relationships with AI companies to develop — we show a more granular view organized by bot operator.
Breakdown of bot activity on a website, with important details for each bot such as type, crawl-to-referral ratio, and current action.
By having a consolidated view of companies seeking to access content on your website, you can develop a better baseline of crawler activity. We want this data to equip our customers to step into any business conversation with the facts on their side. Tell Company1 that their crawl volume is twenty times that of Company4’s, and that Company4 is already compensating you for content. Revisit the way that Company2 licenses your content based on their recent activity. This new dashboard propels business conversations to move forward.
How does this new layer of visibility tie into the existing tools you have to protect your website from abuse? In line with other features of Bot Management, the action step still happens in Security rules. To avoid adding noise to the control plane, Attribution Business Insights is intended to be a hub for thoughtful, filtered analytics, rather than another place to take action. This dashboard serves as a central source of information, allowing you to investigate before then taking an action in the same rule engine that governs other abuse mitigations. We also want to be loud and clear about inviting business decision-makers into this dashboard, acknowledging that conversations around AI traffic have a wider set of stakeholders than only security-specialized users.
What’s next
The Attribution Business Insights dashboard is the next critical step in providing website owners with the transparency and control they need to manage evolving AI bot threats, and more broadly, shape the new dynamics of the Internet. We’re already investigating the next iteration with close publishing partners to create a visibility plane that covers security from the perspective of the website owner with valuable, original content to share.
A sneak preview below includes a new view to dissect crawler activity per-article to reveal the appetite that AI companies have for different pieces of content, different campaigns, and so on.
Breakdown of most popular articles, according to traffic volume. Shows key metrics such as AI bot traffic vs. other bot traffic vs. human traffic, both direct and from a referral.
Visibility is the first piece, and there’s more to come to empower website owners to take control of their content in this new age. We encourage all customers of Cloudflare Bot Management — especially those driving business conversations — to access this today for a fresh take on analytics.
The Financial Times has a good article on how AI is changing the capabilities of video surveillance, with information from both Israel/Iran and Russia.
I wrote about this sort of thing a few years ago, how AI enables mass spying in the way that computers and networks enabled mass surveillance. The interesting development in the article is that AI allows people to ask natural language questions about video footage to AIs—and AIs can answer them.
In contrast with older tools restricted to a few dozen preset searches, these new tools allow an almost unlimited range of enquiries by enabling language-based searches on video.
That lets intelligence officers hunt through massive streams of videos using simple search terms, such as two men handing a bag to each other; a person who has changed their appearance, or has changed clothes multiple times in a day; or a vehicle that has recently been painted over, or has driven past the same spot several times in a short period.
“This is the holy grail of surveillance,” said a European official whose country uses the technology on its cities. “We are able to look for behaviour, not objects it has created a world of new possibilities.”
Figure 1. Autoregressive homepage generation. GenPage builds a Netflix homepage one row or entity at a time, each one conditioned on what’s already on the page and the user’s context.
Introduction
The Netflix homepage is the first thing users see when they open the app and the primary way they discover content to enjoy. Almost every part of it is personalized, including which rows appear, which entities show up within those rows, and how everything is arranged on the page.
Constructing that homepage is a genuinely hard problem. It is not simply producing one ranked list. The homepage is a structured, two-dimensional layout, made up of recommendation rows and the entities within them. Here, an entity can be a movie, show, game, live event, or other recommendable item. Each choice can affect the value of the others. Traditionally, it is built through a complex, multi-stage pipeline, with separate components for candidate generation and ranking at both the row and entity levels.
We saw an opportunity to rethink this design. Large language models have shown that a single generative model can perform diverse tasks just by generating a response to a prompt. Inspired by this prompt-response paradigm, we trained a single generative model to build the homepage by directly answering one question:
Given everything we know about this user and this request, what homepage should we generate to maximize user satisfaction?
We call this approach GenPage. It treats the user history and request context as the prompt, and autoregressively generates the entire homepage as the response (Figure 1). Unlike most generative recommenders, such as TIGER, HSTU, and OneRec, which generate flat ranked lists, GenPage generates the rows, entities, and layout together.
This shift is motivated by several goals:
End-to-end modeling. A single transformer model that constructs the page from raw input signals can replace a complex multi-stage recommender stack. This reduces the number of ML models to maintain, avoids misaligned objectives across stages, and eliminates much of the traditional feature engineering.
Whole-page optimization via reinforcement learning (RL). Autoregressive page generation makes it possible to optimize for page-level rewards with RL. This can capture interactions across rows and entities, such as diversity or the balance between rows with different stopping power. For example, a Continue Watching row near the top of the page may strongly satisfy a user’s immediate intent, but also reduce how much of the page they browse. Modeling these interactions at the page level lets us align the system more directly with user satisfaction than entity-level objectives alone.
Better scaling behavior. A generative transformer model gives us a clearer path to improving quality through more data, compute, and model capacity, without repeatedly redesigning the system.
Flexibility and extensibility. The prompt-response paradigm is flexible by design. By simplifying feature engineering and enabling whole-page optimization, GenPage makes it easier to support new product experiences, such as additional content types like live events, games, and podcasts; layouts beyond the current two-dimensional structure; personalized UI components; and per-entity artwork personalization, all with fewer architectural changes.
Bringing GenPage into production at Netflix also required solving challenges specific to industry-scale recommender systems. Because the homepage is generated in real time, serving latency is a primary engineering constraint. We also need to handle entity cold start in a constantly evolving catalog, keep the model fresh as user interests and cultural trends shift, and enforce complex product and business rules on the generated output.
Despite these challenges, GenPage has already had substantial production impact. In an online A/B test against a mature, highly optimized multi-stage production recommender, GenPage delivered statistically significant gains on the core user engagement metric we use for launch decisions, while reducing end-to-end serving latency by 20%.
Offline, two findings stood out. First, enriching the prompt helped more than scaling model capacity in our current regime. Second, RL post-training increased homepage diversity even though diversity was not part of the objective.
We expect this approach to generalize to many personalization settings. In this post, we focus on Netflix homepage construction as a concrete case study, sharing our design, trade-offs, and lessons learned.
Data
Moving from a traditional recommender to a generative transformer requires us to rethink how the data is represented. Similar to how an LLM turns text into tokens, GenPage represents both the user context and the generated homepage as one sequence of discrete tokens (Figure 2). This sequence includes the full structured homepage layout, with multiple rows and the entities inside them, so the model can generate the page holistically rather than scoring each row or entity in isolation.
Figure 2. Tokenization of Netflix homepage construction data. The context tokens function as the prompt, drawing from diverse data sources including user history, profile attributes, and request context, with example tokens shown for each source. The page tokens represent the generated response, encoding the structured layout of rows and entities.
Each training example represents a homepage impression and consists of three components:
Context: user engagement history, profile attributes, and request context.
Page: the recommended rows and entities shown on the homepage, in layout order.
Feedback: user interactions with that page, such as play, thumbs-up, or abandonment for entities on the page.
Only the context and page are tokenized as model inputs and outputs. Feedback is used to derive supervision signals via our internal reward system (see the Reward system section).
Instead of using an off-the-shelf text tokenizer, we build a domain-specific tokenizer for the homepage construction data. This is a proven approach in recommender systems and other specialized domains including computer vision, biology, and chemistry, where the raw data is not naturally represented as text. Compared with generic text tokenization, this gives us two key advantages:
Computational efficiency. Custom tokenization significantly reduces sequence length, lowering inference cost and latency. For example, representing the event “User watched Orange Is the New Black for 50 minutes 30 days ago.” would require 16 tokens with the GPT-5 tokenizer, whereas our scheme compresses it to 4 tokens: [Entity_ID], [Action_Type], [Action_Time_Bucket], and [Action_Duration_Bucket].
Product control. A direct mapping between tokens and product concepts, such as rows and entities, makes it easier to control what the model can generate. This is crucial for enforcing business rules on the final homepage.
Context tokens
Context tokens encode user engagement history, user profile, and request context.
We represent user history as a sequence of user actions. For each action, we extract key metadata, including the action type, entity ID, timestamp, and duration. These actions include both explicit signals, such as play, add to My List, and thumbs-up, and implicit signals, such as trailer views or visits to a details page.
User profile tokens capture attributes such as language and profile type. Request context tokens encode signals like time of day, day of week, and device.
Some data sources are too long to include directly as raw token sequences. A user’s full impression history, for example, would be prohibitively expensive to represent in full. In these cases, we use a summarized version. This is a pragmatic trade-off: while GenPage aims to operate on raw inputs as much as possible, handcrafted summaries still introduce a form of prompt engineering into the pipeline. Learning to compress these long data sources end to end is an important direction for future work.
To help the model distinguish between data sources, we insert special tokens that mark the start of each segment. Continuous signals, such as timestamps and durations, are bucketized into discrete ranges to keep the vocabulary finite.
Page tokens
Each entity, such as a show, movie, or game, and each row, such as Korean TV Shows, is represented as a single token. The homepage is serialized in layout order: left to right, then top to bottom. We update the entity and row vocabulary daily to incorporate newly added entities and rows. Entities that are still out of vocabulary at serving time are handled through semantic embedding fusion and fallback tokens, both described later.
In principle, the same paradigm can extend to any output that can be expressed as a linear token sequence. This includes layouts beyond the current two-dimensional structure, such as one-dimensional feeds or mixed layouts, as well as personalized UI components and per-entity outputs such as personalized artwork. We leave these extensions to future work.
Paginated recommendation
To make recommendations responsive to in-session user preferences, the homepage is often generated incrementally, a few rows at a time. Before each pagination request, we append the page tokens from previously generated rows to the prompt, along with the user’s latest engagements on those rows from Netflix’s real-time event-logging infrastructure. This allows the model to generate the next set of recommendations using both the user’s long-term preferences and their most recent in-session behavior.
Reward system
To quantify the long-term value of a recommendation, we rely on an internal reward system described in prior work. The reward system is tuned through online A/B testing to align with long-term user satisfaction and serves as the primary supervision signal for both supervised and reinforcement learning.
The reward system processes user feedback and assigns a scalar reward for every impressed entity on the homepage. For instance, a TV show binge-watched in one night reflects stronger user satisfaction and receives a higher reward than a movie watched for only 10 minutes. An impressed entity that the user abandons receives a negative reward.
We define the page-level reward as the sum of rewards across all impressed entities on the homepage.
Model architecture
GenPage uses a standard decoder-only transformer architecture, the same general architecture behind many modern LLMs. This choice keeps the model simple and flexible, while also letting us benefit from the broad ecosystem of tooling around transformer training and serving.
One architectural detail is that we untie the input embedding and output projection weights. This is useful because pretraining and post-training place different demands on the logits. Next-token prediction pretraining optimizes a softmax over the vocabulary, while weighted binary classification (WBC) post-training optimizes per-token sigmoid scores, as described below. Untying the weights gives the model more flexibility to adapt to both objectives.
Training recipe
Our training pipeline mirrors the LLM recipe: we first teach the model the “language” of the Netflix homepage through pretraining, then align its outputs with user satisfaction through post-training. For post-training, we explore two alternative approaches: weighted binary classification (WBC) and reinforcement learning (RL).
WBC is simpler to optimize and aligns directly with the entity-level objectives of our production ranking models. RL is harder to evaluate and optimize, but it is the key path to GenPage’s full vision of page-level optimization, with the flexibility to incorporate test-time reasoning and multi-token entity representations.
Pretraining via next-token prediction
We pretrain the model with a standard next-token prediction objective: given the context tokens and a prefix of page tokens, the model learns to predict the next page token. This stage focuses on representation learning, teaching the model the relationship between user contexts and successful homepages. Note that our context-page training examples resemble the prompt-response pairs used in LLM supervised fine-tuning (SFT) more than the raw text used in LLM pretraining. We nonetheless call this stage pretraining because we train the model from scratch rather than fine-tuning from an existing checkpoint.
Unlike LLMs, which often face a scarcity of high-quality labeled data, recommender systems have an abundance of user feedback. For pretraining, we use homepage impressions that received positive feedback when served in production, bootstrapping the model to generate pages similar to those produced by the existing production system.
However, pretraining mainly teaches GenPage to imitate the production system. It does not directly optimize the magnitude of the reward, and as GenPage becomes part of production, repeatedly training on pages generated by earlier versions of the model can risk model degeneration. To address these limitations, we explore two post-training approaches.
Post-training via weighted binary classification
One effective way to align the generative model with user satisfaction is weighted binary classification (WBC). At a high level, WBC turns generation into token-level value prediction: given the user context and the tokens generated so far, the model learns to estimate the value of generating each possible next row or entity token.
This objective is easier to optimize than page-level RL. By decomposing the homepage into per-token targets, WBC provides token-level credit assignment by construction, rather than requiring RL to infer how each generated decision contributed to the final page-level reward.
This training setup is enabled by our custom tokenization. Each page token corresponds directly to a specific entity or row, making it straightforward to assign a reward. For every impressed entity on the page, our reward system provides a scalar reward based on user feedback. For each impressed row, we derive a row-level reward by aggregating the rewards of the entities in that row.
From each reward, we derive a binary label from its sign, such as positive engagement versus abandonment, and a weight from its magnitude, such as binge-watching receiving a higher weight than a short play. We then optimize a weighted binary cross-entropy loss on the logit for the corresponding token. Under this setup, the logit for a token can be interpreted as the model’s value estimate for generating that token at that position.
Although the model is trained as a value predictor, it can still generate pages autoregressively. At each step, the model scores the candidate next tokens, greedily selects the token with the highest value, and appends it to the prefix. This process repeats token by token until the full homepage is generated.
Post-training via reinforcement learning
Our second post-training approach is reinforcement learning (RL). WBC is effective for optimizing entity-level metrics, but it does not directly optimize the homepage as a whole. RL treats page generation as a sequential decision-making problem, allowing the model to optimize a page-level reward while preserving the flexibility of autoregressive generation.
This opens the door to several important capabilities:
Whole-page optimization. RL directly optimizes an aggregate page-level reward, allowing the model to account for interactions across rows and entities, such as diversity, stopping power, and page-level business constraints.
Test-time reasoning. Analogous to its application in LLMs, RL can optimize reasoning capabilities for generative recommendation. Reasoning outputs can also be viewed as a form of automated feature engineering.
Multi-token entity support. In our current tokenization, each entity and row is represented as a single token, so rewards map cleanly to individual tokens. In more complex settings, however, an entity may require multiple tokens, such as [Show_ID] plus [Episode_#] for an episode, or a sequence of semantic ID tokens. In that case, WBC’s per-token labeling becomes ambiguous because a single entity-level reward must be distributed across multiple tokens. RL avoids this issue by optimizing the sequence-level return, making it a more natural fit for variable-length, multi-token entities.
Inspired by the RLHF recipe used to align large language models, we adopt a two-step approach. First, we train a reward model that predicts the page-level reward for a generated page. This reward model is distinct from the reward system described earlier. The reward system converts observed user feedback into a scalar reward for a page that was actually shown, whereas the reward model predicts the page-level reward for a generated page without showing it to the user. This prediction is what lets RL optimize against arbitrary candidate pages during training.
Training against a reward model avoids the high variance of off-policy correction on logged or predicted propensities, but introduces the risk of reward hacking. Since the reward model is trained on data generated from the production policy, it is most reliable on pages similar to those the production policy generates. We therefore use a KL penalty to keep the policy close to the pretrained checkpoint, which itself was trained to mimic the production policy. This keeps the pages within the reward model’s region of coverage and limits opportunities for reward hacking.
For the RL algorithm, we adopt Dr. GRPO, a variant of GRPO that mitigates biases in the training objective. To train the model within this framework, we need the following components:
Prompts: production user requests, represented by context tokens.
Policy and reference models: both are initialized from the pretrained checkpoint; the reference model anchors the KL penalty discussed above.
Reward model: a dedicated transformer-based reward model, also initialized from the pretrained checkpoint, predicts the page-level outcome reward, using the sum of entity-level rewards from our internal reward system as the supervision target. We also incorporate rule-based format rewards to guide the RL policy. For example, the page should resemble a list of rows, and business-critical rows or entities should not appear too low on the page.
Addressing production challenges
Cold start
New entities lack the rich interaction data needed to learn robust token embeddings. We address this through two complementary strategies:
Context injection. We inject metadata about new or time-sensitive entities (e.g., Live Now events) directly into the context tokens, providing the model with semantic and time-sensitive information.
Semantic embedding fusion. Rather than relying solely on entity ID embeddings learned from user interaction data, we represent each entity as a fusion of its ID embedding and a content-based embedding derived from semantic information such as synopses, cast, transcripts, genres, and video content. This fused embedding serves as the input embedding for the entity’s token in the transformer. During training, with small probability, we randomly replace an entity ID token with the generic fallback token (described below), so the model learns to make recommendations from the content-based embedding alone. This ensures that a new entity has a meaningful representation in the same latent space as established entities as soon as its content metadata is available — even before it has any interaction data.
Multi-cadence incremental training
At Netflix scale, daily retraining of a large transformer from scratch is prohibitively expensive, but recommendation models must remain fresh to capture shifting trends and new catalog additions. We address this with a multi-cadence incremental training strategy (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Multi-cadence incremental training. Periodic large-scale pretraining and post-training passes run on a broad historical window. Between them, daily incremental updates combine the latest day’s data with a sampled subset of past data to keep the model fresh while avoiding catastrophic forgetting.
Our training pipeline operates on a cyclic schedule with two distinct rhythms. At a tunable cadence, we conduct a large-scale pretraining and post-training pass on data from a broad historical window. Between these passes, each day we perform an incremental update by continuing post-training from the previous day’s checkpoint, using a mix of the latest day’s data and a sampled subset of past data. This helps the model stay current with new trends and catalog changes while preventing overfitting and catastrophic forgetting.
To manage the daily influx of new tokens (e.g., new entities, rows), we employ fallback tokens. New tokens are initialized using fallback tokens of their type (e.g., [Row_Fallback_Token] for new rows, [Entity_Fallback_Token] for new entities). During training, we randomly replace a small percentage of known tokens with fallback tokens, teaching the model to handle unknown tokens gracefully.
Enforcing business rules
A Netflix homepage must satisfy structural constraints (e.g., organized as a list of rows) as well as product logic such as deduplication, row pinning, and category consistency (e.g., entities in a Comedy row must be comedies). While training signals can encourage rule adherence, they cannot guarantee strict compliance.
We enforce these rules at inference time through constrained decoding. At each autoregressive generation step, we compute a mask of eligible tokens based on the applicable business rules and apply it to the output logits, allowing only rule-compliant tokens to be generated. This is greatly simplified by our custom tokenization: because each entity and row is a single token, business rules map directly to token-level masks, avoiding the multi-token bookkeeping that constrained decoding requires over a text vocabulary. For example, to pin a specific row (e.g., popular games) at a fixed position (e.g., row position 2), we simply mask out all other tokens at that position.
Hybrid row decoding
Autoregressive generation ensures that each newly generated token is conditioned on the full preceding context, but generating every entity token one at a time can be expensive. We leverage the structure of the homepage to balance inference efficiency with the amount of contextual information available to each generated token.
Within each row, the first few entities are especially important: they receive the most user attention and strongly shape the row’s perceived quality and theme. To reduce inference latency, we use a hybrid row decoding strategy. The model autoregressively generates only the first few entities in each row. Conditioned on this generated prefix, we obtain logits for all eligible entities in a single forward pass and select the top-scoring remaining entities, subject to the same inference-time business-rule constraints described above.
This approach preserves autoregressive conditioning where it matters most while avoiding the latency and cost of decoding long rows token by token.
Offline experiments
We ran a series of ablations on Netflix internal data to understand how different components of GenPage affect model quality. Because the system was developed iteratively, individual ablations span different training configurations and data snapshots, so we report only relative comparisons within each study. Unless otherwise noted, experiments use ~200M-parameter models and report results on a held-out evaluation set.
Does pretraining help?
We compare WBC post-training with and without a preceding next-token-prediction pretraining stage. Figure 4 shows that pretraining yields substantial improvements across all metrics.
Figure 4. Relative improvement from pretraining (versus WBC post-training without a pretraining stage), across loss reduction, row AUC lift, and entity AUC lift. Loss is the weighted binary cross-entropy; Row and Entity AUC are sample-weighted ROC-AUC over row and entity targets.
The gains may look small in absolute terms, but they are large in our production regime: setting aside the sample weighting, an Entity AUC lift from 0.91 to 0.92 means that for a randomly drawn pair of impressed entities, the model’s misranking rate drops from 9% to 8% — a magnitude of improvement we rarely observe from a single change on a mature production system. Pretraining the model on the “language” of the Netflix homepage provides a strong initialization for post-training, mirroring the pretrain-then-post-train recipe behind modern LLMs.
How does performance scale with model size?
We sweep model size from ~120M to ~900M parameters (Figure 5) and report the next-token-prediction loss from pretraining and the WBC loss from post-training. Both losses decrease in a power-law-like fashion, mirroring the scaling trends seen in LLMs. This confirms that the generative approach scales favorably with model size, suggesting that recommendation quality can be further improved by scaling capacity.
Figure 5. Pretraining and WBC post-training losses as model size scales from 120M to 900M parameters. Both decrease in a power-law-like fashion, mirroring LLM scaling trends.
How does performance scale with information in the user context?
Over the course of development, we progressively enriched the prompt, both by adding new data sources to the context and by refining how each source is tokenized. With model size held fixed, the WBC post-training loss decreases substantially as the context is enriched (Figure 6).
Figure 6. WBC post-training loss as we progressively enrich the user context tokens. Loss is normalized to the first step (= 1.0).
The model-size sweep and the context-enrichment sweep span different axes and are not strictly comparable: the model-size study covers roughly an order of magnitude in parameters, while the context study spans the full trajectory of our prompt design. Even so, the gap between the two is striking. Scaling the model from 120M to 900M parameters reduces WBC loss by roughly 1.3%, whereas the cumulative effect of enriching the context is around 6.9%. In several cases, a single well-designed context addition delivers a larger improvement than the entire ~7.5× model-capacity scaling.
This suggests that, in our regime, enriching the prompt — both what we put in the context and how we tokenize it — yields a substantially larger improvement than scaling model capacity. Personalization quality appears to be bottlenecked first by the information and representation available to the model, and only then by capacity. We expect context enrichment to dominate until the context is saturated, at which point model capacity becomes the primary driver.
Does RL post-training optimize at the page level?
In offline evaluations (Figure 7), RL post-training consistently improves the page-level reward over the pretrained checkpoint, but this is largely confirmatory: the reward is computed using the same model the policy is optimizing against. More interestingly, although diversity is not part of the RL objective, homepage diversity — measured via pairwise embedding distance among entities on the page — also increases over the course of training. This suggests that the RL-trained policy is optimizing the page as a whole rather than myopically optimizing each token in isolation.
Figure 7. RL post-training dynamics. Reward and diversity are shown relative to the initial checkpoint (1.0). Reward rises as expected; diversity also rises, despite not being part of the RL objective.
Online evaluation
We conducted an online A/B test against the current production homepage recommender using GenPage. In this test, GenPage decoded over the existing production row and entity candidate sets, which help handle many business rules (such as eligibility).
Figure 8 shows the result: all variants delivered statistically significant improvements on the core user engagement metric we use for launch decisions (p < 0.001) against a mature, highly optimized multi-stage production baseline. The variants differed in their training-data configurations; that they all delivered comparable lifts suggests the gain is robust to these design choices rather than dependent on a particular configuration.
Figure 8. Daily core user engagement metric over a 14-day online A/B test. The figure shows the average treatment effect of several GenPage variants (differing in training-data configurations) against the production baseline. Shaded regions are 95% confidence intervals. All variants delivered statistically significant improvements over production.
Alongside the engagement wins, we observed unintended shifts in the distribution of impressed entity categories (e.g., new vs. established titles, TV shows vs. movies). These shifts are not necessarily negative, but they are not something we explicitly optimized for, and they warrant deeper investigation. We suspect these shifts reflect GenPage personalizing more precisely than the production stack — consistent with an increase in homepage impression efficiency, i.e., users engaging with what they saw using fewer impressions. This sharper personalization appears to surface production-inherited components (such as the reward system) that aren’t yet aligned with the new generative paradigm. We plan to characterize the drivers of these shifts and, where appropriate, tune these components so the resulting distributions better align with desired product behavior.
We also observed strong responsiveness to in-session signals: the latest in-session actions quickly influenced subsequent recommendations and faded back to long-term preferences after a day or two, confirming that the model effectively attends to action timestamps. This responsiveness emerges naturally from the generative formulation, without the extensive manual feature engineering used in our production stack.
Contrary to the common assumption that generative models are slower, GenPage reduced end-to-end serving latency by 20% relative to the baseline. By replacing multiple ranking stages and heavy feature computation with a single transformer operating on raw tokenized inputs, we eliminated substantial serving complexity and computational overhead. Custom tokenization and hybrid row decoding further reduced the number of decoding steps, and thus latency. The 20% reduction was achieved without exhausting the available optimizations; further reductions are possible, and this headroom can be reinvested in capacity or richer prompts.
Conclusion
We presented GenPage, an early step toward end-to-end generative Netflix homepage construction: representing user context as a tokenized prompt and generating the entire homepage autoregressively in real time. This collapses the traditional multi-stage recommender stack into a single transformer that can be optimized end-to-end.
In online A/B tests against a mature, highly optimized multi-stage production system, GenPage delivered statistically significant gains on the core user engagement metric we use for launch decisions, while reducing end-to-end serving latency by 20%. Achieving this required adapting the LLM training recipe — pretraining followed by WBC or RL post-training — together with a set of domain-specific techniques: custom tokenization for serving efficiency and product control, context injection and semantic embedding fusion for entity cold start, multi-cadence incremental training for model freshness, constrained decoding for business-rule enforcement, and hybrid row decoding for inference efficiency.
Two offline findings stand out. First, in our current regime, enriching the prompt yields a substantially larger improvement than scaling model capacity — a takeaway we expect to generalize to other industry-scale personalization settings, at least until the available context is fully exploited. Second, RL post-training increases homepage diversity even though diversity is not part of the objective — an indication that page-level optimization captures interactions across rows and entities.
Several pieces of the full vision are still in progress: long context still relies on handcrafted summarization, and broader LLM-style capabilities — language, multimodality, and reasoning — have not yet been incorporated. One promising direction here is a hybrid tokenization combining our domain-specific tokens with generic text tokens, retaining structured control while inheriting the strengths of general-purpose LLMs; conceptually, this introduces an additional recommendation modality into an LLM.
More broadly, we expect many advances from the LLM ecosystem to transfer naturally to this setting, and the boundary between an LLM and a recommender system may increasingly blur. Our results suggest this is a viable path toward simpler recommender systems that align more directly with user satisfaction.
Acknowledgments
Contributors to this work (in alphabetical order): Abhishek Agrawal, Baolin Li, Casey Stella, Daneo Zhang, Dan Zheng, Donnie DeBoer, Fengdi Che, Fernando Amat Gil, Grace Huang, Inbar Naor, Ishita Verma, Jason Uh, Jimmy Patel, Justin Basilico, Lanxi Huang, Lingyi Liu, Liping Peng, Louis Wang, Michelle Kislak, Nathan Kallus, Nicolas Hortiguera, Paran Jain, Qusai Al-Rabadi, Rein Houthooft, Ryan Lee, Santino Ramos, Scarlet Chen, Shaojing Li, Sheallika Singh, Si Cheng, Wei Wang, and ZQ Zhang.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
