## China Is Taking AI Safety Seriously. So Must the U.S. **Report Provider:** Time **Author:** Brian Tse **Publication Date:** August 13, 2025 This news report argues that the prevailing U.S. policy and tech circles are operating under a flawed assumption that China is not prioritizing AI safety. This narrative is used to justify a "reckless race to the bottom" in AI development, fearing that regulation would lead to falling behind Beijing. The author contends that this perspective is not only incorrect but also dangerous, highlighting China's significant and growing focus on AI safety as a prerequisite for advancement. ### Key Findings and Conclusions: * **China's Proactive Stance on AI Safety:** Contrary to the U.S. narrative, Chinese leaders view AI safety not as a constraint but as a fundamental requirement for progress. This is evidenced by: * **Political Prioritization:** President Xi Jinping chaired a rare Politburo study session on AI in April 2025, warning of "unprecedented" risks. * **Regulatory Frameworks:** China's National Emergency Response Plan now includes AI safety alongside pandemics and cyberattacks. Regulators mandate pre-deployment safety assessments for generative AI and have removed over 3,500 non-compliant AI products in the first half of 2025. * **Standardization Efforts:** China has issued more national AI standards in the first half of 2025 than in the previous three years combined. * **Research Focus:** The volume of technical papers on frontier AI safety in China has more than doubled in the past year. * **Missed U.S.-China Dialogue Opportunities:** The U.S. and China last met to discuss AI risks in May 2024. While officials hinted at a second round of conversations in September 2024, no meeting occurred under the Biden Administration, and future engagement under a potential Trump Administration is uncertain. This lack of dialogue is seen as a significant missed opportunity. * **China's Openness to Collaboration:** China has engaged in bilateral AI dialogues with the United Kingdom (launched in May 2025) and contributed to international efforts like the International AI Safety Report and The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities. * **Shared High-Stakes Threats:** Both the U.S. and China have a vested interest in addressing shared, high-stakes AI risks, such as: * **Biological Threats:** OpenAI's ChatGPT Agent crossing the "High Capability" threshold in the biological domain could facilitate the creation of dangerous biological threats, a concern for both nations as such attacks would not respect borders. * **Existential Risks:** Leading experts express concerns that advanced general-purpose AI systems could operate outside human control, posing catastrophic and existential risks. * **Acknowledged Risks by Both Sides:** Both governments have acknowledged AI risks. President Trump's AI Action Plan warns of novel national security risks in cybersecurity and CBRN domains. China's primary AI security standards body also highlighted the need for AI safety standards in these areas and loss of control risks. ### Recommendations for U.S. Policy: * **Revive U.S.-China Dialogue:** Re-establishing a government-to-government channel for AI risk discussions is crucial for coordination. * **Focus on Shared Threats:** Discussions should prioritize common high-stakes threats, such as the weaponization of AI for biological attacks and the potential loss of human control over advanced AI systems. * **Build Technical Trust:** Practical steps should be taken to build technical trust between leading standards organizations like China's TC260 and the U.S.'s NIST. * **Share Best Practices:** Industry authorities like China's AIIA and the U.S.'s Frontier Model Forum should share best practices on risk management frameworks. China's new risk management framework, focusing on frontier risks, can aid alignment. * **Share Safety Evaluation Methods:** As trust deepens, governments and leading labs should share safety evaluation methods and results for advanced models, potentially through "mutually recognized safety evaluation platforms." * **Establish Incident Reporting and Emergency Response:** Creating channels for incident reporting and emergency response protocols, akin to "hotlines" between top AI officials, is essential for rapid and transparent communication in case of AI-related accidents or misuse. ### Important Statistics and Metrics: * **3,500+:** Number of non-compliant AI products removed from the market in China in the first half of 2025. * **3x:** China has issued more national AI standards in the first half of 2025 than in the previous three years combined. * **2x:** The volume of technical papers focused on frontier AI safety in China has more than doubled over the past year. * **33:** Number of countries and intergovernmental organizations (including the U.S. and China) backing the International AI Safety Report. ### Notable Risks or Concerns: * **"Reckless Race to the Bottom":** The U.S. approach, driven by the fear of falling behind China, could lead to a dangerous disregard for AI safety. * **"High Capability" AI Agents:** The potential for AI agents to facilitate the creation of dangerous biological threats. * **Loss of Human Control:** Advanced AI systems may operate outside human control, posing catastrophic and existential risks. * **Cybersecurity, CBRN, and Manipulation:** Risks associated with AI in cybersecurity, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) domains, as well as large-scale persuasion and manipulation. The report concludes that rather than using China as an excuse for domestic inaction on AI regulation, American policymakers and industry leaders should engage directly with China, as AI risks are global and require a coordinated governance response.
China Is Taking AI Safety Seriously. So Must the U.S.
Read original at Time →“China doesn’t care about AI safety—so why should we?” This flawed logic pervades U.S. policy and tech circles, offering cover for a reckless race to the bottom as Washington rushes to outpace Beijing in AI development.According to this rationale, regulating AI would risk falling behind in the so-called “AI arms race.
” And since China supposedly doesn’t prioritize safety, racing ahead—even recklessly—is the safer long-term bet. This narrative is not just wrong; it’s dangerous.Ironically, Chinese leaders may have a lesson for the U.S.’s AI boosters: true speed requires control. As China’s top tech official, Ding Xuexiang, put it bluntly at Davos in January 2025: “If the braking system isn’t under control, you can’t step on the accelerator with confidence.
” For Chinese leaders, safety isn’t a constraint; it’s a prerequisite. AI safety has become a political priority in China. In April, President Xi Jinping chaired a rare Politburo study session on AI warning of “unprecedented” risks. China’s National Emergency Response Plan now lists AI safety alongside pandemics and cyberattacks.
Regulators require pre-deployment safety assessments for generative AI and recently removed over 3,500 non-compliant AI products from the market. In just the first half of this year, China has issued more national AI standards than in the previous three years combined. Meanwhile, the volume of technical papers focused on frontier AI safety has more than doubled over the past year in China.
But the last time U.S. and Chinese leaders met to discuss AI’s risks was in May 2024. In September, officials from both nations hinted at a second round of conversations “at an appropriate time.” But no meeting took place under the Biden Administration, and there is even greater uncertainty over whether the Trump Administration will pick up the baton.
This is a missed opportunity.Read More: The Politics, and Geopolitics, of Artificial IntelligenceChina is open to collaboration. In May 2025, it launched a bilateral AI dialogue with the United Kingdom. Esteemed Chinese scientists have contributed to major international efforts, such as the International AI Safety Report backed by 33 countries and intergovernmental organisations (including the U.
S. and China) and The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities.A necessary first step is to revive the dormant U.S.–China dialogue on AI risks. Without a functioning government-to-government channel, prospects for coordination remain slim. China indicated it was open to continuing the conversation at the end of the Biden Administration.
It already yielded a modest but symbolically important agreement: both sides affirmed that human decision-making must remain in control of nuclear weapons. This channel has potential for further progress.Going forward, discussions should focus on shared, high-stakes threats. Consider OpenAI’s recent classification of its latest ChatGPT Agent as having crossed the “High Capability” threshold in the biological domain under the company’s own Preparedness Framework.
This means the agent could, at least in principle, provide users with meaningful guidance that might facilitate the creation of dangerous biological threats. Both Washington and Beijing have a vital interest in preventing non-state actors from weaponizing such tools. An AI-assisted biological attack would not respect national borders.
In addition, leading experts and Turing Award winners from the West and China share concerns that advanced general-purpose AI systems may come to operate outside of human control, posing catastrophic and existential risks.Both governments have already acknowledged some of these risks. President Trump’s AI Action Plan warns that AI may “pose novel national security risks in the near future,” specifically in cybersecurity and in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) domains.
Similarly, in September last year, China’s primary AI security standards body highlighted the need for AI safety standards addressing cybersecurity, CBRN, and loss of control risks. From there, the two sides could take practical steps to build technical trust between leading standards organizations—such as China’s National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee (TC260) and the America’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)Plus, industry authorities, such as the AI Industry Alliance of China (AIIA) and the Frontier Model Forum in the US, could share best practices on risk management frameworks.
AIIA has formulated “Safety Commitments” which most leading Chinese developers have signed. A new Chinese risk management framework, focused fully on frontier risks including cyber misuse, biological misuse, large-scale persuasion and manipulation, and loss of control scenarios, was published during the World AI Conference (WAIC) and can help both countries align.
Read More: The U.S. Can’t Afford to Lose the Biotech Race with ChinaAs trust deepens, governments and leading labs could begin sharing safety evaluation methods and results for the most advanced models. The Global AI Governance Action Plan, unveiled at WAIC, explicitly calls for the creation of “mutually recognized safety evaluation platforms.
” As an Anthropic co-founder said, a recent Chinese AI safety evaluation report has similar findings with the West: frontier AI systems pose some non-trivial CBRN risks, and are beginning to show early warning signs of autonomous self-replication and deception. A shared understanding of model vulnerabilities—and of how those vulnerabilities are being tested—would lay the groundwork for broader safety cooperation.
Finally, the two sides could establish incident-reporting channels and emergency response protocols. In the event of an AI-related accident or misuse, rapid and transparent communication will be essential. A modern equivalent to “hotlines” between top AI officials in both countries could ensure real-time alerts when models breach safety thresholds or behave unexpectedly.
In April, President Xi Jinping explicitly stressed the need for “monitoring, early risk warning and emergency response” in AI. After any dangerous incident, there should be a pre-agreed upon plan for how to react. Engagement won’t be easy—political and technical hurdles are inevitable. But AI risks are global—and so must be the governance response.
Rather than using China as a justification for domestic inaction on AI regulation, American policymakers and industry leaders should engage directly. AI risks won’t wait.
