Global AI arms race risks existential stakes: How U.S.-China rivalry obscures cooperative survival pathways
Original framing: “U.S. seeks ‘AI dialogue’ with China as officials set stage for Trump-Xi summit” — The Hindu
The ‘existential threat’ narrative is a classic trickster move—using fear to distract from deeper structural issues, much like Coyote in Indigenous lore or Hermes in Greek myth, who misdirect attention from power imbalances. The framing obscures how AI’s real risks stem from unchecked capitalism and militarism, not the technology itself. A trickster reading would expose how Trump and Xi’s summit is less about cooperation and more about performing leadership while maintaining control over AI’s extractive economies. Satirical figures like *Anansi* remind us that wisdom often lies in questioning the sacred cows of progress.
The U.S.
-China AI dialogue is a symptom of deeper systemic failures: the marriage of unchecked technological ambition with geopolitical rivalry, the erasure of Indigenous and marginalized epistemologies, and the absence of democratic governance in AI’s development. Historical patterns—from nuclear arms races to climate inaction—show that cooperation under pressure is rare without external constraints, yet today’s framing treats AI as an isolated threat rather than a product of extractive capitalism and militarism. Cross-cultural perspectives, from Māori guardianship to African Ubuntu ethics, offer pathways to align AI with collective well-being, but these are sidelined in favor of elite negotiations. The trickster dimension reveals how the ‘existential threat’ narrative obscures power structures, much like Hermes’ misdirection or Coyote’s chaos, which ultimately serve to maintain control. Solutions must integrate Indigenous co-governance, demilitarization treaties, labor rights, and degrowth economics to reshape AI’s trajectory—before the next crisis forces cooperation too late.