While U.S. advocates for AI cooperation with China often feel they are in a marginalized minority fighting a hawkish narrative, their counterparts in China feel their position is mainstream. Chinese academia, industry, and think tanks broadly view international governance collaboration as a priority, not just an acceptable option.
Related Insights
Success for Chinese AI companies like Z.AI depends on a recursive validation loop. Gaining traction and positive mentions from US tech leaders and media is crucial not just for global recognition, but for building credibility and winning enterprise customers within China itself, who closely monitor Western sentiment.
Contrary to common Western assumptions, China's official AI blueprint focuses on practical applications like scientific discovery and industrial transformation, with no mention of AGI or superintelligence. This suggests a more grounded, cautious approach aimed at boosting the real economy rather than winning a speculative tech race.
The US AI strategy is dominated by a race to build a foundational "god in a box" Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). In contrast, China's state-directed approach currently prioritizes practical, narrow AI applications in manufacturing, agriculture, and healthcare to drive immediate economic productivity.
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.
Unlike the Western discourse, which is often framed as a race to achieve AGI by a certain date, the Chinese AI community has significantly less discussion of specific AGI timelines or a clear "finish line." The focus is on technological self-sufficiency, practical applications, and commercial success.
In China, academics have significant influence on policymaking, partly due to a cultural tradition that highly values scholars. Experts deeply concerned about existential AI risks have briefed the highest levels of government, suggesting that policy may be less susceptible to capture by commercial tech interests compared to the West.
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.
Unable to compete globally on inference-as-a-service due to US chip sanctions, China has pivoted to releasing top-tier open-source models. This serves as a powerful soft power play, appealing to other nations and building a technological sphere of influence independent of the US.
For Chinese policymakers, AI is more than a productivity tool; it represents a crucial opportunity to escape the middle-income trap. They are betting that leadership in AI can fuel the innovation needed to transition from a labor-intensive economy to a developed one, avoiding the stagnation that has plagued other emerging markets.
While the U.S. leads in closed, proprietary AI models like OpenAI's, Chinese companies now dominate the leaderboards for open-source models. Because they are cheaper and easier to deploy, these Chinese models are seeing rapid global uptake, challenging the U.S.'s perceived lead in AI through wider diffusion and application.