Bei einem KI-Wettrüsten zwischen den USA und China kann es keine Gewinner geben

Submission statement: In the early days of this standoff, US policymakers drove an agenda centered on “winning” the race, mostly from an economic perspective. In recent months, leading AI labs such as [OpenAI](https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-urges-us-prioritize-ai-funding-regulation-stay-ahead-china-2025-01-13/) and %5BAnthropic%5D(https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-can-keep-americas-ai-advantage-china-chips-data-eccdce91) got involved in pushing the narrative of “beating China” in what appeared to be an attempt to align themselves with the incoming Trump administration. The belief that the US *can* win in such a race was based mostly on the early advantage it had over China in advanced GPU compute resources and the effectiveness of AI’s [scaling laws](https://openai.com/index/scaling-laws-for-neural-language-models/).

But now it appears that access to large quantities of advanced compute resources is no longer the defining or sustainable advantage many had thought it would be. In fact, the capability gap between leading US and Chinese models has essentially disappeared, and in one important way the Chinese models may now have an advantage: They are able to achieve [near equivalent results](https://venturebeat.com/ai/deepseeks-first-reasoning-model-r1-lite-preview-turns-heads-beating-openai-o1-performance/) while using only a small fraction of the compute resources available to the leading Western labs.    

The AI competition is increasingly being framed within narrow national security terms, as a zero-sum game, and influenced by assumptions that a future war between the US and China, centered on Taiwan, is inevitable. The US has employed [“chokepoint” tactics](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/tech/us-china-chip-export-curbs-intl-hnk/index.html) to limit China’s access to key technologies like advanced semiconductors, and China has responded by accelerating its efforts toward self-sufficiency and indigenous innovation, which is causing US efforts to backfire.

As long as these developments are open-source, it’s good for everyone, right?

Yes there can be a winner, but I guess if the US doesn’t win then it doesn’t count

if I’m making dinner at my house and you’re making dinner at your house, but you come over and lock me inside, so I just cook using whatever’s in my fridge. is it a dinner war? lmao. or just one guy being an asshole lmao

Disclosure: I don’t like/approve the behavior of USA or China. None of them actually care about the people, in my views, both are targeting their influence and power.

——-

This very post is actually promoting China. They put them on a higher moral ground simply because they tick some boxes: lower power consumption (ie. decarbonization), lower prices (ie. ongoing inflation effects across the globe), open-source (ie. in my opinion a smokescreen that is meant to bring credibility), innovation, the idea of the “little guy” winning.

That being said, their war on AI will most likely lead to something similar to Nuclear post-WW2. There will be considerable advancements, a handful of countries will keep the military-scoped version for themselves and bully the others with it, some consumer-scoped use-cases will be available to an extended list of allies in order to create a hierarchy of countries by bullying the rest of the small countries. The world will change dramatically and divergences will grow between countries, causing some to be “developed”, while the others will be the “emerging” ones, after a few decades we will have the next big thing and we repeat.

„there can be no winners“ is usually the first thing the loser says when they know they are going to lose

Wonder if the 500 billion number was just a bluff to get China to overspend.

Speedrunning thousands of job losses then blaming China for it, again! 2025 edition.

Obvious winner here (and i’m no fan of the country). Have you seen how dumb our students are and how much dumber they’re getting?