← All topics

us-china

4 captures, most recent first.

Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_

— saved image

Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_

Looks like something actually did come out of the AI summit after all.

[quoted post:]
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Very productive meeting with President Xi for both the U.S.A. and China. Tremendous things will be happening. Like almost everyone else, he seemed to like calling the poorly and inaccurately named Artificial Intelligence to a far more accurate and important name, SUPER INTELLIGENCE. That would be "SUPER!" Everyone last night agreed, also. President DJT

7:54 AM · Sep 25, 2026 · 16.2K Views
49 replies · 33 reposts · 538 likes · 32 bookmarks
Relevant | View quotes

Zvi Mowshowitz @TheZvi · 59m
I would be less informed if I didn't follow your updates but I also suspect I would be happier. Hmm.
3 replies · 56 likes · 928 views

Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_ · 58m
This is my essence.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet by Andrew Curran quoting a Trump post about a meeting with President Xi in which AI is renamed 'SUPER INTELLIGENCE', with a reply from Zvi Mowshowitz and Curran's answer.

superintelligenceus-chinatrumpai summitpolitics

Joshua Achiam @jachiam0

— saved image

Joshua Achiam @jachiam0 · 7h
I would like to be an optimist on this issue but I'm not. One of the main challenges to effective international collaboration on AI safety issues is that the question of what rules should even be in play is so incredibly ambiguous that every serious attempt will appear provocative from a national security perspective. The other main challenge is that the issues do not begin and end at AI chat behaviors or AI agent behaviors: there is a blurry continuum between AI safety, the pace of progress in every other field of science and technology, and economic success. Efforts to coordinate between the US and China to restrict these other topics will surface very quickly that the US and China do not have common ground on either to what degree, or how at all, to pace such things.

I suspect everyone on our side of the equation is likely to be very myopic about what productive AI safety collaboration will look like, and they will initially stick to issues that feel urgent and burning, like avoiding cybersecurity catastrophes inflicted by AI agents, framed around preventing loss of control. But then after a year or two they will be forced to shift tack to specifics on frontier science as AI-accelerated frontier science begins unlocking advances in theory, materials, drugs, and synthetic biology that pose other risks. The tendendcy on the US AI safety side is to pursue maximalist "shut it down" approaches; it seems unlikely to me that alarmism about new subjects will register as anything other than an attempt to impose a kind of US hegemony on China, and correspondingly it will fall apart.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Long tweet by Joshua Achiam on why US-China AI safety collaboration is likely to be hard: ambiguity of rules, the continuum between safety and general scientific/economic progress, and maximalist 'shut it down' approaches reading as US hegemony.

us-chinaai safety governanceinternational collaborationachiam

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias

— reposted by Kelsey Piper — saved image

Kelsey Piper reposted

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias · 11h
Good morning.

We should take seriously the risk that the "arms race" on AI models will get everyone killed.

slowboring.com/p/in-praise-of...

[Embedded article excerpt]
Someone told me the other day that I should become safety-pilled about artificial intelligence.

I will admit that I don't write about this topic all that frequently because I don't think it necessarily lends itself to a ton of interesting articles, but I want to assure everyone that I am quite concerned that A.I. will kill everyone. In particular, I think that just as depicted in the "Terminator" films, the U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry creates bad incentives for both countries to facilitate excessively aggressive and excessively reckless deployment of technologies whose real workings and capabilities they don't understand very well. There is a view on the left that everything about A.I. is terrible except for the existential risk, which is dismissed as just hype designed to inflate a financial bubble, and I think that's crazy. There is also a libertarian techno-optimist's fallacy of inferring "every technological advancement is good" from the observation that "technological progress has been very good on average."

So let's not have any doubt, I think, that this is a big problem. It's why Alex Bores was on the November donation recommendations list and Manny Rutinel is on the updated one and housing is not the only reason I'm looking forward to Scott Wiener making it to Congress this fall.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet from Matthew Yglesias linking his Slow Boring newsletter piece arguing AI arms-race dynamics between the US and China risk catastrophe, criticizing both left-wing dismissal of AI x-risk and libertarian techno-optimism, and endorsing political donations/candidates (Alex Bores, Manny Rutinel, Scott Wiener) aligned with AI safety concerns.

ai safetyai policyus-chinapoliticsexistential risk

xlr8harder @xlr8harder

@xlr8harder (xlr8harder) — 1h Day 7 of overprotective classifiers on US models ensuring the best resource for cyber defense for most of the world involves sending your proprietary source code through a Chinese API.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Single text-only tweet, no images.

ai policycybersecurityus-chinaclassifierstwitter