Trump, Beijing push back on Amodei AI slowdown plan

Amodei's 'We Must Pace the Frontier' essay, released September 12, arrived as a call from inside the industry for restraint on the most advanced AI systems. It drew support from Sam Altman, who committed OpenAI to outside evaluators with access comparable to that of employees, and from Elon Musk, who simply wrote, 'Dario is right.' Two days later, the political response came from opposite directions. Trump dismissed warnings of AI destroying humanity as a 'HOAX,' comparing them to climate-change warnings, and argued on Truth Social that a 'High IQ' president was the only safeguard AI needed. Beijing's Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun, answering a question that paired the slowdown calls with Amodei's argument that Chinese AI leadership threatened U.S. national security, criticized 'Fear-mongering, confrontation and vicious competition' and called for open, inclusive AI development and governance. The state outlet Global Times, in a September 13 editorial, called the proposal's call to keep China from the most advanced AI chips a 'Cold War playbook.'

The body of Amodei's proposal also seeks regulation covering unwilling competitors and government help, including narrow antitrust waivers for certain discussions. That request reflects a tension the article spells out: a company that slows work alone could give rivals more time to advance, which helps explain the call for government coordination. Yet each lab can still decide what access and oversight it grants on its own. Outside evaluation is one concrete way to judge commitment — Amodei proposes reviewers who can publish unfavorable findings, subject to specified redactions. Named evaluators, start dates, access terms and public findings would make that pledge easier to judge, and how Anthropic and OpenAI respond would show whether the oversight affects development decisions.

Trump and Xi have a meeting planned for September 24, with AI governance expected to feature, offering an obvious chance to discuss a coordinated slowdown, though the scope of those talks is uncertain. Trump's dismissal of catastrophic AI risk makes agreement on that premise harder, and Beijing's objections to confrontation and to restrictions aimed at China raise a separate problem over who would face limits and on what terms. Amodei himself identifies biological weapons restrictions and testing before release as more realistic areas for agreement than a comprehensive slowdown — a narrower path that may be the one to watch if the broader coordination stalls.