China's leaders view the West's debate over AI's existential risks as a self-imposed weakness. By rejecting this "doomer mentality," China can maintain a laser focus on rapid AI deployment for economic and military superiority, while the US risks abdicating its lead due to internal panic and debate.

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.

The most realistic path for US-China AI talks involves creating protocols to prevent models falling into the hands of terrorists or criminal groups. Cooperation on preventing state-level cyberattacks is unlikely, as both sides assume the other's intelligence agencies will use AI for espionage.

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.

Chinese state media's critique of Anthropic reveals a strategic narrative: framing US-led AI safety and audit rules as a "double standard." China argues the U.S. is creating "cyberweapons" while attempting to restrict Chinese labs, turning safety discussions into a negotiation over technological and global influence.

The AI safety debate presents a false choice. The immediate, practical threat is not a theoretical superintelligence but a world where China leverages AI for military and economic dominance. The race is about ensuring that if controls are needed, they are aligned with Western values, not authoritarian ones.

China's national AI strategy is explicit. Stage one is using AI for Orwellian surveillance and population control within its borders. Stage two is to export this model of technological authoritarianism to other countries through initiatives like the "Digital Silk Road," posing a major geopolitical threat.