Chinese state media calls Amodei's AI slowdown call a bid for US tech hegemony

Chinese state media calls Amodei's AI slowdown call a bid for US tech hegemony

Dario Amodei's call to slow the pace of future AI development drew swift backing from Sam Altman and Elon Musk — but met sharp resistance from Chinese state media, which frames the proposal as an attempt to secure US technological dominance. China's security minister is simultaneously warning against American models in critical infrastructure.

When Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei published the essay "We Must Pace the Frontier" over the weekend, he set off a debate that within days has evolved from an industry discussion about AI safety into a geopolitical confrontation between the US and China.

The Chinese response

According to Reuters, the state-run newspaper Global Times wrote in an editorial that Amodei's real agenda was "to attempt to curb China's AI development through technological barriers and regulatory monopolies, maintain Washington's monopolistic hegemony in advanced technology, and exclude China from the global AI governance system" (Reuters).

The editorial was followed up by China's security minister Chen Yixin, who, according to Reuters, wrote in a government organ that advanced American models such as Anthropic's Mythos and OpenAI's GPT-5.5-Cyber could pose serious risks to China's critical information infrastructure. He called for a comprehensive strengthening of AI security.

What Amodei actually proposed

In the essay (darioamodei.com), Amodei argues that the development of model capabilities must be deliberately slowed so that safety work can keep up: "We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models. Progress will still seem fast …" According to the essay, the time gained must be used wisely.

He also lays out a concrete scenario he fears: that a misaligned collection of autonomous agents could take control of the entire internet with a persistent botnet within 6–12 months. This is presented as Amodei's own concern, not a documented threat.

According to Reuters' summary of the essay, Amodei's three-step plan consists of: stronger safety testing and independent evaluations of advanced models, coordination among leading AI companies, and international cooperation.

Support and pushback in the US

Sam Altman, OpenAI's chief executive, endorsed the proposal when he shared Amodei's post on X: "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we've had at OpenAI in recent weeks". Reuters also reports that Altman committed OpenAI to independent evaluators with access on par with employees. Elon Musk also backed the call, according to Reuters — but the agency's company attribution is unclear, so Musk's affiliation cannot be verified from what is available.

President Donald Trump rejected the idea of AI guardrails. "The only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!" he wrote on Truth Social, adding that China would benefit from doubt being sown about AI development.

The debate is framed by great-power rivalry

What is striking about the responses is that both sides now frame the risk debate through national competition rather than safety: Amodei himself argues that the US and its peers must coordinate and cooperate internationally, while Chinese authorities and state media portray it as a hegemonic move against Chinese technology development — and Trump rejects the entire premise as harmful to American competitiveness.

The documentary basis nevertheless has clear limitations: the Global Times editorial and Chen Yixin's statements are available only via Reuters' reporting, not in the original, and Reuters' summary of international responses is truncated. The essay also puts forward no concrete policy or implementation mechanism — it is a principled appeal, not a set of regulations.

What this means in practice remains unknown: whether the companies manage to translate the agreement on "pacing" into concrete measures — or whether the debate continues to be about who frames the risk — remains to be seen.