Contrary to common Western assumptions, China's official AI blueprint focuses on practical applications like scientific discovery and industrial transformation, with no mention of AGI or superintelligence. This suggests a more grounded, cautious approach aimed at boosting the real economy rather than winning a speculative tech race.

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.

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.

While Western labs debate pacing, Chinese firm ZAI is fundraising $5B explicitly for a "fully self-training loop," and ByteDance researchers published a roadmap for recursive self-improvement (RSI). This highlights a critical geopolitical reality: any unilateral slowdown by the West could cede a decisive technological lead to China.

Contrary to fears that U.S. regulation creates a competitive disadvantage, China's track record, like crushing its AI companion sector over risk concerns, indicates Beijing will also implement strong AI safety rules. This creates potential for U.S.-China alignment on safety.

The AI competition is not a race to develop the most powerful technology, but a race to see which nation is better at steering and governing that power. Developing an uncontrollable 'AI bazooka' first is not a win; true advantage comes from creating systems that strengthen, rather than weaken, one's own society.

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.

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.