China has accused Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei of advancing a Cold War-style strategy to limit its artificial intelligence development, after he called for a slower pace of progress in the technology and stronger US controls on exports of advanced chips.
In a lengthy essay published on Saturday, Amodei warned that a “Chinese lead in AI would pose grave danger for the United States and the world”. He proposed a framework for pacing the capabilities of frontier AI models, the most advanced systems, to give researchers more time to address what he described as rising safety risks.
Amodei urged the US to maintain restrictions on sales of cutting-edge AI chips and chipmaking equipment to China. He also called for stronger export controls and action against alleged model distillation by Chinese AI laboratories, a process of extracting capabilities from more advanced models.
His argument rests partly on the speed at which he believes AI systems could advance. Amodei predicted that a swarm of AI “agents” could be able to take over the internet in six to 12 months unless researchers agreed to slow down. At the same time, he said, “global pacing will require cooperation with China, the autocratic country with by far the most advanced AI capabilities”.
The essay drew support from OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and SpaceX founder Elon Musk. It also exposed the difficulty at the centre of Amodei’s proposal: a safety agreement would depend on participation by governments and companies with sharply different strategic interests. Speaking to CBS News on Sunday, Amodei said the “toughest dilemma” would arise if China and other adversarial nations chose to continue advancing AI at a faster pace.
China’s state-run Global Times responded with an editorial on Sunday that treated the proposal as an attempt to place technological and regulatory limits on Chinese rivals. The newspaper said the essay was “packed with containment provisions targeting China and is, in essence, a ‘Cold War playbook’ for the AI sector”.
The editorial said Amodei’s underlying aim was “to attempt to curb China’s AI development through technological barriers and regulatory monopolies, uphold Washington’s monopolistic hegemony in cutting-edge technology, and exclude China from the global AI governance system”. Xiang Ligang, a veteran telecom and tech policy observer quoted by the Global Times, said “Amodei’s proposals seek to portray China’s legitimate development in AI as a threat and further fuel confrontation between China and the US in the field”.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs adopted a similar line on Monday. At a regular press conference, spokesperson Guo Jiakun said: “Fearmongering, confrontation and vicious competition will only disrupt the process of global AI governance which serves no one’s interest.” Guo urged countries to “promote an open, inclusive and benevolent approach to AI”.
The Commerce Ministry also rejected US claims as groundless and accused Washington of seeking a “monopoly of the AI industry”. Experts said Amodei’s claims reflected commercial interests and competitive concerns that could turn AI safety into a geopolitical, zero-sum issue.
US agencies have offered a sharply different account of the competition over advanced models. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a joint cybersecurity advisory last week saying Chinese AI developers had made “aggressive, malicious” efforts to extract capabilities from advanced models, including Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s GPT.
The safety debate is also playing out inside the industry. Jacob Coxon, a researcher associated with Anthropic, said publicly that he was leaving the industry because he feared the company and its competitors were racing to build systems they would be unable to control.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are expected to discuss AI governance at a meeting planned on September 24. It remains unclear whether either side will seek voluntary restraints on AI development, whether the Trump administration will take up Amodei’s specific export-control proposals, or whether the meeting will produce any joint commitments on safety standards.
Comments (0)