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.

Chinese AI models appear close to the frontier primarily because they are trained on the outputs of leading U.S. models. This creates a dependency loop: they can only catch up by using the latest from the West, ensuring they remain followers rather than innovators who can achieve a true breakthrough.

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.

Facing compute and capital shortages, Chinese AI labs don't pioneer frontier research. They wait for Western labs to publish breakthroughs, likening it to 'knowing the answer to the homework,' then work backwards to replicate them, focusing resources on efficient post-training.

A significant portion of China's AI progress is "parasitic," relying on copying or reverse-engineering breakthroughs from leading US labs. Therefore, a unilateral US slowdown on R&D could be the most effective way to slow down Chinese AI development, contrary to the logic of a competitive race.

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.

Calls for a moratorium on AI development out of fear are misguided and dangerous. Such a move wouldn't stop progress globally; it would simply guarantee that China gains a decisive economic and military advantage. The correct response is rapid, intelligent regulation, not complete cessation.

The proposal for US AI labs to slow down development is undermined by the fear that China won't reciprocate. Chinese labs are effective at incremental progress on existing paradigms, creating a classic security dilemma where any US pause could cede the technological frontier.

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.