China fires back at U.S. AI safety warnings, calling them fearmongering to lock in American advantage

China's response to U.S. AI safety warnings was swift and sharp. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun in Beijing called for 'open, inclusive, beneficial, and ethical' AI development, warning that 'fearmongering, confrontation, and vicious competition' would undermine global AI governance and serve no one's interests. This statement directly targets AI risk warnings issued by Anthropic CEO Amodei and others.

China's state-run Global Times further accused Amodei of launching a 'silent AI cold war' aimed at containing China's technological progress. Amodei had previously called for action against 'distillation'—the practice of using the outputs of U.S. AI models to train competing systems. China's response indicates that it views U.S. safety concerns as a competitive strategy rather than mere risk management.

In contrast to U.S. warnings, China's Minister of State Security Chen Yixin warned that 'hostile forces' could misuse AI through deepfakes and cyberattacks, specifically naming Anthropic's Mythos and OpenAI's GPT-5.5-Cyber models, claiming they can discover vulnerabilities and create malware. However, Chen did not call for slowing AI development; instead, he advocated strengthening advanced chip research, accelerating AI infrastructure construction, and implementing stricter regulation.

This stance reflects China's strategic consideration of AI development: combining security concerns with accelerated development, rather than restricting progress on security grounds. Tsinghua researcher Sun Chenghao noted that Beijing fears Washington might use safety or national security as a pretext to justify broader technological restrictions. Chinese officials may view calls to slow development as a means to lock in existing U.S. advantages.

The U.S. is not unified in its attitude toward the pace of AI development. President Trump has clearly stated his opposition to voluntarily slowing AI development, especially in the context of competition with China. He believes the worst-case scenarios described by tech leaders will not occur. This position contrasts with previous calls by tech leaders such as Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk to slow advanced AI development.

Altman once explained that 'slowing down' does not mean 'stopping': 'Progress is rapid and will continue to be. But it should be slower than it otherwise might be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring come with significant costs.' This division complicates U.S. AI policy signals, especially when the government itself opposes slowing down.

This debate takes place on the eve of a planned Trump-Xi summit on September 24, a sensitive timing. AI governance has become a key issue in U.S.-China relations, with the balance between security, competition, and cooperation being delicate.

If China refuses to follow the U.S. in slowing down, and the U.S. government itself opposes deceleration, then U.S. AI labs may have to reconsider their strategies. The article analyzes that the only remaining option would be to build the most powerful AI systems as quickly as possible, akin to an arms race during the Cold War. This prospect highlights the geopolitical tensions behind the AI safety debate.