The common Western argument that regulating AI is futile because "China will never slow down" is a misconception. China's government and research community actively engage with AI safety, even implementing policies that have slowed down their own companies in the name of safety.

The justification for accelerating AI development to beat China is logically flawed. It assumes the victor wields a controllable tool. In reality, both nations are racing to build the same uncontrollable AI, making the race itself, not the competitor, the primary existential threat.

The argument for rapidly advancing powerful AI is that only the leading labs can influence safety protocols. This 'stay in the lead to steer' philosophy creates a paradox: to mitigate AI risk, companies feel compelled to accelerate its development, potentially amplifying the very dangers they aim to control.

In the high-stakes race for AGI, nations and companies view safety protocols as a hindrance. Slowing down for safety could mean losing the race to a competitor like China, reframing caution as a luxury rather than a necessity in this competitive landscape.

The narrative of a direct US-China AI competition is largely an external viewpoint. According to reporting, Chinese AI developers don't orient their innovation around American benchmarks. Instead, they are driven by pragmatic, internal goals and their own vision for what AI should be, rather than simply trying to outcompete Western models.

Policymakers and industry leaders frame AI development as a critical race against China. However, this narrative lacks a defined finish line or purpose (

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 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 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.