I went down a rabbit hole this morning reading four late-2025 Juejin pieces side by side that all purport to be about AI in 2025, and what crystallized for me is that none of them is even answering the same definition of what AI is. The first was a picking piece with an S/A/B/D tier letter ranking Cursor in S档 and Claude Code in A档 on a chat-and-tool-call scorecard. The second was Google's own 2025 年度最热门AI应用 recap that listed 学习理解, NotebookLM, 旅行游玩, 相册应用与图像编辑, 办公生产力, 购物, 硬件设备, and 个性化定制 as the top eight AI categories for the year, and there is no chatbot in any of those eight. The third was the October GitHub trending list that called Agent-S, claude-cookbooks, supermemory, TradingAgents-CN, and nanoGPT the 热门开源项目 under a star-velocity sort. The fourth was the 中文AI工具推荐 directory that pivoted halfway through to 神马中转 API as a workaround for blocked endpoints. Four posts in one search results page, four definitions of AI, none closer to translating to the others than picking the wrong column.
The angle I want to put down is that the picking format and the vendor category list and the trending list and the content-commerce directory are now four separate camps each anchored on its own definition of AI, and the cross-camp bridge has never been published. The picking tier letter sorts on chat capability plus tool-call reliability plus terminal evidence. Google's top categories sort on what new artifact exists because the AI ran — a PDF transformed into a guided interactive tutorial, a research paper turned into a podcast, a spreadsheet cell turned into a semantic category. The GitHub trending list sorts on star velocity inside a BYOK meter none of the others ask about. The content-commerce directory sorts on whether the affiliate link works for the Chinese reader in 2026. To be fair I would take the exact tier letters and the exact star counts with a grain of salt because the test corpus behind each is never disclosed, but the structural tell is that the four camps agree on a small handful of names — Cursor, Claude Code, ChatGPT, NotebookLM, Agent-S — and disagree on what those names mean inside their respective definitions.
The meta-pattern I want to write down is that the late-2025 AI roundup scene is now a four-definition standoff where each format is glued to one definition of AI and the cross-definition integration work has been left to the engineer. The picking piece answers the chat-tool-call question. Google's categories answer the output-transformation question. The GitHub trending list answers the star-velocity question inside a BYOK meter. The content-commerce directory answers the affiliate-link-works-for-China question. None has a column for what the next camp sorts on. NotebookLM turning a research paper into a podcast is not on the picking scorecard. Cursor's S档 is not on Google's list of top eight categories. When I try to assemble a 2026 stack for the projects I am shipping this quarter, I end up reading the picking piece to shortlist Cursor plus Claude Code plus Codex, then going to Google's list to remember that NotebookLM plus the Sheets AI function are the surfaces the vendor behind two of my picks is actually shipping, then checking the GitHub trending list to see whether mem0 or supermemory has the memory layer any of these picking tools assume. Honestly I am a little skeptical that treating one of these four posts as the answer is enough, because each was written inside a different definition of what AI is.
The practical takeaway I want to write down is that I now read the four pieces as four separate ranking dialects of four different questions rather than as four answers to the same question. The picking tier letter is useful for the within-coding-tool shortlist and not for the artifact the vendor behind the top picks is actually shipping. Google's category list is useful for orienting what the AI vendors consider real wins and not for picking between Cursor and Claude Code. The GitHub trending list is useful for finding memory and MCP server substrates the picking tier letter assumes exist but never ranks. My gut says the reader has to do the four-way translation by hand, and the translation is in none of the four posts, and one cross-camp column could have answered the whole integration question.
I will reassess in three months. For now I am still on Cursor Pro plus Claude Code for coding, ChatGPT Plus for general chat, Gemini AI Pro for the Sheets AI and the Gemini 3 引导式学习 feature, NotebookLM for the occasional PDF-to-podcast experiment, and I am keeping a per-tool log of which camp each tool appeared in. Give it six months and I expect either one of the four camps to absorb the other three and publish a cross-camp translation column, or a new fifth camp to spin up with a unified definition of what AI actually is in 2026, and whichever moves first will tell me whether the four-definition standoff has finally collapsed or whether the AI reading plan has permanently turned into a four-camp integration job I have to do by hand.
Top comments (0)