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.

The proposed data center moratorium, while intended to address safety, would create a strategic advantage for China and other nations if enacted unilaterally. An American slowdown without global agreement allows adversaries to catch up or surpass the US in AI, highlighting the prisoner's dilemma inherent in global AI regulation.

Top AI labs like Anthropic publicly state that slowing down AI development would benefit society. However, they are caught in a strategic trap: a unilateral pause is unviable. Without a global agreement, any lab that pauses simply allows less cautious competitors to seize the lead, potentially making the ecosystem less safe.

Tech leaders state they would support an AI development pause if competitors, especially China, also agreed. This is a strategic PR move, as they know a global consensus is unachievable. It allows them to appear responsible about AI safety without any actual risk of having to slow down progress.

Robert Wright argues the US, as the leading AI power, should redefine its national mission. Instead of a breakneck race with China, its goal should be to guide the world toward a stable, coordinated international framework for AI. This reframes leadership from dominance to stewardship for humanity's collective benefit.

Beyond simple security concerns, the US government is poised to use its control over frontier AI model deployment to pursue broader strategic interests. Access could be withheld from allies to gain leverage in unrelated negotiations, such as trade deals, turning AI into a tool of foreign policy.

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.

Paradoxically, progress in AI alignment has made a global slowdown agreement impossible. Each side now trusts its own 'aligned' AI more than it trusts the other nation to uphold a deal. The perceived risk of being surpassed by a defector now outweighs the perceived risk of one's own AI going rogue, making a competitive race the rational choice.

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.