AI development follows the game theory of the nuclear arms race. If the U.S. slows down, it risks creating an asymmetric power dynamic where another nation like China could dominate. The goal is not to stop, but to achieve a global balance of power to ensure stability.

In the AI arms race, placing excessive constraints on domestic AI development while adversaries like China operate without them is a form of unilateral disarmament. This could leave the entire nation's digital infrastructure, from consumer data to government secrets, vulnerable to attack by more advanced, unrestricted foreign AIs.

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.

A pause on training new, more capable AI models could paradoxically increase risk. It would halt progress at the few, relatively safety-conscious frontier labs, allowing less scrupulous competitors to catch up. Meanwhile, compute stockpiling would continue, making any subsequent capability leap even faster and more dangerous.

A US policy that slows down its own AI labs for safety is logically flawed and self-defeating unless it also effectively slows China's progress. Unilateral deceleration doesn't make the world safer; it simply cedes ground to a less safety-conscious competitor, increasing net risk.

The US faces a paradox: restricting frontier AI models for domestic safety could push global customers and allies towards unregulated foreign alternatives, like China's. This effort to control AI risks forfeiting the long-term strategic advantage of having US technology become the global standard.

Contrary to their intent, U.S. export controls on AI chips have backfired. Instead of crippling China's AI development, the restrictions provided the necessary incentive for China to aggressively invest in and accelerate its own semiconductor industry, potentially eroding the U.S.'s long-term competitive advantage.

Self-imposed safety pauses and regulatory hurdles on US frontier models create a vacuum. Chinese open-weight models like GLM-5.2 are now as capable as the *currently available* US versions, eroding the American lead while its most advanced models are benched, effectively ceding ground in the global AI race.

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.