China's foreign ministry has rejected narratives framing its AI efforts as malicious competition and warned that confrontation disrupts global governance. Spokesperson Guo Jiakun urged open and inclusive development beneficial to all nations. The statement comes amid US calls for slower AI progress that would maintain American leadership. This article examines the bilateral tensions, domestic risk assessments in both countries, institutional initiatives and prospects for the upcoming summit between the two leaders.
Why does China reject accusations of malicious AI competition?
Beijing views descriptions of its AI activities as threats or confrontational as counterproductive to international cooperation. The foreign ministry spokesperson stated that such narratives only hinder progress on shared governance frameworks and serve no party's interest. Officials instead promote development that remains open, inclusive and oriented toward broad benefits rather than zero-sum gains.
These remarks respond directly to recent statements from US industry leaders advocating a deliberate slowdown in frontier model development. Chinese representatives argue that any coordinated pause must avoid embedding restrictions that would preserve one country's advantage while limiting another's legitimate progress. Guo Jiakun told reporters that narratives of threat, confrontation and malicious competition disrupt the process of global AI governance and are not in anyone's interest. All parties should work together to advance AI in a manner that is open, inclusive, beneficial to all, and oriented toward the good.
The comments follow calls by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei for a slowdown in AI development that would prevent China from pulling ahead. US President Donald Trump has said his priority is ensuring the US develops the technology faster than China. Tech stocks fell after the calls for slower development surfaced.
How central is AI to the current US-China strategic rivalry?
Artificial intelligence now forms a core dimension of competition between the world's two largest economies. Both sides seek technological edges that could translate into long-term economic and security advantages. US export controls on advanced semiconductors have not halted Chinese progress, which continues through open-source models and state support.
Most analysts still place the United States ahead in overall capability, yet Chinese firms are narrowing gaps despite funding challenges. Beijing's leadership, including Xi Jinping, has simultaneously highlighted the need to balance rapid development with security safeguards and ethical guidelines. State security officials have warned against foreign entities exploiting AI for intelligence purposes while calling for international dialogue on risk prevention.
State security minister Chen Yixin wrote that China must balance development and security, introduce and improve relevant laws and ethical guidelines, and strengthen prevention of risks to safeguard the interests of the people and national security. He warned of the dangers of hostile forces such as foreign intelligence using AI and called for international cooperation. There are strong signals that Washington and Beijing share an understanding of frontier risks, according to Kenton Thibaut of the Atlantic Council.
What institutional steps has China taken to shape global AI rules?
In July, China established the World AI Cooperation Organisation with the stated aim of influencing international governance standards. At the recent Brics summit, Xi Jinping proposed forming a community dedicated to open-source AI development accessible to participating nations.
These moves complement domestic efforts to draft laws and ethical frameworks that address both innovation and risk. Chinese officials maintain that cooperation remains possible on technical questions such as model evaluation and vulnerability detection, even where broader strategic trust is limited. China has technical reasons to work with the US because its developers would be able to see how their models are deployed outside China and detect vulnerabilities.
Why do experts consider formal US-China AI agreements unlikely?
Observers note that AI development touches core national security interests for both capitals. Assistant professor Chang Jun Yan at Singapore's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies described meaningful cooperation to slow capabilities as very unlikely under current conditions. An agreement between the US and China to regulate AI development is next to impossible.
Washington's priority, articulated by President Trump, centres on preserving a decisive lead because the winner in AI is seen as gaining decisive strategic position. Industry voices in the United States have echoed concerns about uncontrolled acceleration, yet political momentum favours competitive speed over mutual restraint. Former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon told the BBC that there needed to be some sort of coordinated slowdown with China if a race at an international scale is to be avoided.
What are the prospects for AI discussions at the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting?
Preparations for the White House summit include efforts to place AI on the bilateral agenda. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng, who oversees economic planning including AI policy, are expected to address the topic ahead of the leaders' talks. Vice-Premier He runs the agency that oversees the country's economic planning, including AI development.
Analysts caution that any concrete outcomes will face structural obstacles. Hong Kong-based investor Chasen Nevett observed that a durable Chinese lead in frontier systems would be interpreted in Washington not merely as losing a technology race but as ceding foundational infrastructure for the next industrial era. If China establishes a durable lead in frontier AI, this will not be viewed in Washington as losing a technology race but as losing part of the strategic infrastructure of the next industrial era.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly did China's foreign ministry say about AI competition?
Spokesperson Guo Jiakun stated that threat narratives, confrontation and malicious competition labels disrupt global AI governance and benefit no one. He called for collective advancement on open and inclusive terms.
Has China acknowledged risks from advanced AI?
Yes. Security minister Chen Yixin wrote that development must be balanced with security measures, including laws and ethical guidelines to protect national interests and guard against hostile actors.
Are US industry leaders calling for a slowdown?
Executives at Anthropic, OpenAI and Microsoft have urged stronger alignment and safety techniques to keep pace with capability gains. Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon warned of high extinction risks if development continues unchecked. Sam Altman wrote that ways are needed to ensure alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities. Satya Nadella said AI development cannot be controlled by a handful of entities.
Does the United States support international AI regulation?
President Trump has emphasised maintaining US leadership over regulatory harmonisation that might constrain American progress relative to China. Political signals prioritise speed in the bilateral contest.
Could open-source cooperation reduce tensions?
China's proposed Brics open-source community and the new World AI Cooperation Organisation represent attempts to build parallel governance structures. Their impact on US-China dynamics remains to be seen.
Key takeaways
China's foreign ministry explicitly rejected framing its AI efforts as malicious competition.
US export controls have not stopped Chinese AI advances through open-source routes.
National security priorities make formal slowdown agreements between Washington and Beijing improbable.
China has launched new multilateral bodies to influence global AI standards.
The upcoming Trump-Xi summit may discuss AI yet faces deep structural obstacles.
Both governments recognise frontier risks while competing intensely for leadership.
Outlook for US-China AI relations
The coming weeks will test whether technical exchanges on safety can proceed alongside strategic competition. Existing channels between treasury and planning officials offer one route, while summit preparations may clarify whether limited agenda items survive broader rivalry pressures. Observers expect continued parallel efforts: domestic acceleration in both countries and selective multilateral initiatives that avoid direct bilateral constraints.