US AI policy prioritises geopolitical rivalry over safety, deepening global risks and regulatory divergence
Original framing: “Trump scraps signing AI executive order to keep ‘lead’ over China in industry” — South China Morning Post
Scientific consensus warns that unregulated AI development accelerates risks like misinformation, autonomous weapons, and systemic bias, with no evidence that deregulation enhances national competitiveness. Studies show that AI governance frameworks (e.g., the EU AI Act) do not hinder innovation but instead create stable markets and reduce liability risks for companies. The delay also ignores the role of open-source AI in democratising access, which could counter China’s state-led model without sacrificing safety.
The US-China AI rivalry narrative is a symptom of a deeper crisis: a global governance vacuum where geopolitical competition trumps public safety, and corporate power dictates policy.
This dynamic is not new—it echoes Cold War-era techno-nationalism, where semiconductor subsidies and export controls were wielded as weapons, often with unintended consequences like protectionism and innovation stagnation. Yet the stakes are higher now, as unregulated AI accelerates existential risks (e.g., autonomous weapons, algorithmic bias) while deepening global inequality. Marginalised communities, Indigenous scholars, and Global South nations are systematically excluded from these debates, their warnings dismissed as 'non-essential' to the 'race.' The solution lies not in doubling down on nationalist techno-optimism but in dismantling the extractive frameworks that fuel it—through participatory governance, open collaboration, and a commitment to reciprocity over rivalry. The trickster’s laughter reminds us that the 'lead' in AI is an illusion: the real race is against the clock to prevent a future where AI serves the few, not the many.