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.

The argument that US AI regulation will cede leadership to China is flawed. China's AI progress often follows and copies US breakthroughs. By slowing the cutting edge in the US, we would also inherently slow the global pace of development, including in China.

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.

The rush to regulate AI in the US, driven by panic, is strategically dangerous. Because AI development is a global race, if the US slows down with poorly designed rules while China accelerates, it effectively cedes the most important technological advantage of the century.

Stopping frontier AI development in the US without a verifiable, lockstep agreement with China does not increase safety. Instead, it creates a critical vulnerability, ceding dominance in cyber warfare and national security to an adversary who will continue to advance their own AI capabilities.

Pausing frontier AI development is an asymmetric strategic concession by the U.S. It halts progress in a key area of American advantage while giving China time to close its own critical gaps, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing. This could reset the geopolitical race on less favorable terms for the U.S.

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 immense strategic advantage offered by AI ensures its development will continue, regardless of safety concerns from insiders. Much like the Manhattan Project, which proceeded despite catastrophic risk, the logic of "if we don't, China will" makes unilateral cessation of research impossible for any major power.