The argument that US AI regulation will cede leadership to China is flawed. China's AI progress often follows and copies US breakthroughs. By slowing the cutting edge in the US, we would also inherently slow the global pace of development, including in China.

China may treat AI as a public utility—free and open-source—to maximize national productivity. This model directly conflicts with the U.S. profit-driven approach, where companies must monetize AI to survive. This creates a systemic risk for U.S. firms that may be unable to compete with free, state-backed alternatives.

The focus on China exploiting US open source AI is a distraction. The more significant national security threat is a single, monopolistic US AI company becoming powerful enough to defy its own government's interests, as Anthropic has demonstrated by refusing to work with the military.

The rush to regulate AI in the US, driven by panic, is strategically dangerous. Because AI development is a global race, if the US slows down with poorly designed rules while China accelerates, it effectively cedes the most important technological advantage of the century.

The narrative of a direct US-China AI competition is largely an external viewpoint. According to reporting, Chinese AI developers don't orient their innovation around American benchmarks. Instead, they are driven by pragmatic, internal goals and their own vision for what AI should be, rather than simply trying to outcompete Western models.

Policymakers and industry leaders frame AI development as a critical race against China. However, this narrative lacks a defined finish line or purpose (

The dominant U.S. strategy views the AI model itself as the primary source of value capture. In contrast, the Chinese model aims to commoditize the AI model and capture value in complementary layers like advanced manufacturing, robotics, and energy systems.

While the U.S. AI strategy pursues a 'winner-take-all' model leading to high profits, China's state-backed approach aims to commoditize AI. By spreading resources across many players to create a low-cost, replicable model for export, it structurally limits the potential for monopoly profits to accrue to shareholders.

The AI competition is not a race to develop the most powerful technology, but a race to see which nation is better at steering and governing that power. Developing an uncontrollable 'AI bazooka' first is not a win; true advantage comes from creating systems that strengthen, rather than weaken, one's own society.