While currently promoting open-source AI, the Chinese Communist Party will inevitably lock down powerful models once they are capable of sophisticated cyber operations. The risk of domestic groups, like Tibetan separatists, using these tools to challenge state control like the Great Firewall is a threat the CCP will not tolerate.

China's seemingly contradictory AI policy—promoting both openness and strict control—stems from its view of AI as a "normal technology" akin to the internet. Unlike some in the West who see it as an existential risk, Beijing sees a technology that should be diffused as widely as possible for economic gain, while managing its risks with conventional tools like robust cybersecurity.

While aware of existential risks, China's primary AI safety focus is on immediate threats like cybersecurity and maintaining state control. The government worries about agents 'escaping sandboxes' and losing control within its borders, prioritizing this over the more abstract risk of rogue superintelligence that dominates Western discussions.

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.

Unlike the Western debate focused on existential risk, China's primary AI concerns are geopolitical and domestic. Officials view US AI firms as potential tools for espionage and data theft, focusing regulation on societal control and data security. This fundamental difference in priorities is crucial for understanding international AI negotiations.

Contrary to common belief, authoritarian states like China may be more resilient to AI disruption. They can control AI's diffusion, using it for state stability and deploying it through state-aligned corporations. In contrast, open societies like the U.S. face greater instability from the uncontrollable, widespread proliferation of powerful AI capabilities among the citizenry.

Unlike American AI leaders who openly speculate about unsolved existential risks, Chinese officials only name risks they can also claim to be managing, like regime stability. For the CCP, publicly naming a risk is an assertion of control and capability, not an admission of uncertainty.

China's ruling against replacing humans with AI is a strategic move by the CCP to maintain social stability and power. Facing massive youth unemployment and demographic decline, the government is prioritizing control over economic efficiency to prevent unrest, not genuinely protecting workers.