Top Chinese officials use the metaphor "if the braking system isn't under control, you can't really step on the accelerator with confidence." This reflects a core belief that robust safety measures enable, rather than hinder, the aggressive development and deployment of powerful AI systems, viewing the two as synergistic.

Contrary to fears that U.S. regulation cedes ground to China, the CCP has strong self-interested reasons to regulate AI. It is highly concerned with internal stability and control, cracking down on AI-driven social disruption and the risk of domestic cyberattacks, independent of Western policy.

The argument that the U.S. must race to build superintelligence before China is flawed. The Chinese Communist Party's primary goal is control. An uncontrollable AI poses a direct existential threat to their power, making them more likely to heavily regulate or halt its development rather than recklessly pursue it.

A US policy that slows down its own AI labs for safety is logically flawed and self-defeating unless it also effectively slows China's progress. Unilateral deceleration doesn't make the world safer; it simply cedes ground to a less safety-conscious competitor, increasing net risk.

Contrary to the argument that regulation stifles innovation, China has implemented extensive AI regulations over the past four years. During this same period, its AI technology has made significant inroads, challenging the notion that a laissez-faire approach is essential for competitiveness.

While the U.S. stalls on AI legislation, China is actively regulating it. This has led to significantly higher public trust and adoption in China (87% trust vs. 32% in the US), creating a more stable environment for AI development and deployment.

The argument for slowing down AI development for safety is consistently met with one rebuttal from US tech companies: 'because of China.' This fear of falling behind in a geopolitical race is the primary driver of speed, overriding concerns about social destabilization and risk.

A guiding philosophy in China's AI ecosystem is the "45-degree line," a concept where safety measures and standards should rise in direct proportion to AI capabilities. This pragmatic approach avoids over-investing in safety for non-existent capabilities while ensuring safeguards keep pace with advancements.

A common argument against an AI development pause is that China wouldn't agree. However, since China is currently behind in the AI race, a pause is strategically beneficial for them as it stops the leader from extending their lead. This counterintuitive point suggests a pause is more geopolitically feasible than often assumed.