Instead of trying to anticipate every potential harm, AI regulation should mandate open, internationally consistent audit trails, similar to financial transaction logs. This shifts the focus from pre-approval to post-hoc accountability, allowing regulators and the public to address harms as they emerge.

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.

Chinese AI models are largely open source not for ideological reasons, but as a pragmatic branding strategy. Open-sourcing their models was necessary to build trust and credibility with Western developers who might otherwise be skeptical of closed, proprietary Chinese technology.

For a blueprint on AI governance, look to Cold War-era geopolitics, not just tech history. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which established cooperation between the US and Soviet Union, shows that global compromise on new frontiers is possible even amidst intense rivalry. It provides a model for political, not just technical, solutions.

The same governments pushing AI competition for a strategic edge may be forced into cooperation. As AI democratizes access to catastrophic weapons (CBRN), the national security risk will become so great that even rival superpowers will have a mutual incentive to create verifiable safety treaties.

Counterintuitively, a multilateral AGI project led by a coalition of democracies is preferable to a single nation developing it in secret. A coalition creates checks and balances, as member countries would insist on safeguards to prevent the AGI from being used to install an authoritarian leader in any one nation.

Reporting AI risks only to a small government body is insufficient because it fails to create 'common knowledge.' Public disclosure allows a wide range of experts, including skeptics, to analyze the data and potentially change their minds publicly. This broad, society-wide conversation is necessary to build the consensus needed for costly or drastic policy interventions.

Successful international AI agreements, particularly with rivals like China, depend on "cognitive empathy"—the rational understanding of an adversary's perspective, constraints, and motivations. This is not about feeling their pain, but about overcoming our own cognitive biases to play non-zero-sum games intelligently and avoid catastrophic escalations.

International AI treaties, particularly with nations like China, are unlikely to hold based on trust alone. A stable agreement requires a mutually-assured-destruction-style dynamic, meaning the U.S. must develop and signal credible offensive capabilities to deter cheating.