In the race for AGI, framing the primary conflict as US vs. China is a mistake. The true "aliens" are the AIs, which are fundamentally different from any human culture. We have far more in common with our fellow humans, even rivals, and should prioritize cooperation with them over racing to build uncontrollable systems.

The US and USSR, despite being adversaries, collaborated to prevent nuclear proliferation to rogue actors. A similar model can be applied to AI. The US and China share an interest in preventing powerful open-weight models from being used for cyber-attacks or bio-terrorism by third parties, creating a foundation for a safety dialogue.

A pragmatic approach to AI safety is to make deals with any powerful agent, even non-conscious AIs. This "contractarian" philosophy treats deal-making not as a moral obligation but as a practical tool to avoid conflict, much like democracy prevents civil war between competing human groups.

For a blueprint on AI governance, look to Cold War-era geopolitics, not just tech history. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which established cooperation between the US and Soviet Union, shows that global compromise on new frontiers is possible even amidst intense rivalry. It provides a model for political, not just technical, solutions.

The same governments pushing AI competition for a strategic edge may be forced into cooperation. As AI democratizes access to catastrophic weapons (CBRN), the national security risk will become so great that even rival superpowers will have a mutual incentive to create verifiable safety treaties.

In geopolitical analysis, considering an opponent's perspective—like why Iran's leaders can't show weakness—is often wrongly labeled as sympathizing. This strategic empathy is vital for predicting actions, as adversaries act based on their own values and pressures, not ours.

Formal AI verification is difficult. The necessary trust can be built through "organic transparency"—the informal knowledge gained from deep economic, cultural, and scientific engagement. When business people and scientists from rival nations interact frequently, it creates a baseline understanding that makes formal governance agreements more achievable.

Despite intense technological competition, both the U.S. and China face a common threat from non-state actors like terrorist or criminal groups acquiring powerful AI models. This shared vulnerability presents a potential opportunity for cooperation on AI regulation and safeguards, even amid broader strategic rivalry.

Framing the US-China AI dynamic as a zero-sum race is inaccurate. The reality is a complex 'coopetition' where both sides compete, cooperate on research, and actively co-opt each other's open-weight models to accelerate their own development, creating deep interdependencies.