Sources: China is weighing tightening AI and chip export controls and is consulting leading domestic AI companies, in a bid to slow advanced tech acquisitions

Chinese regulators are considering tightening export controls on artificial intelligence and semiconductor technologies …

Financial Times 2026-07-21

Context & Ripple Effects

China’s deliberations would add an outbound dimension to a technology contest in which US restrictions on AI chips and chipmaking equipment had already put China’s semiconductor and AI development under pressure, as covered in the early assessment of those constraints.

The move also follows Taiwan’s reported consideration of broader China AI-chip sales restrictions, extending controls beyond named blacklisted firms. China’s consultations with domestic AI companies matter because they could determine how any new rules treat commercially important technologies and cross-border customers.

First-order effects

Leading Chinese AI companies are being drawn directly into rulemaking, giving regulators input on which AI and semiconductor technologies could be covered and how compliance would work.
Until a decision is made, Chinese firms that export relevant technology—and overseas customers that rely on it—face added planning uncertainty rather than an announced restriction.

Second-order effects

Prospective controls could prompt overseas buyers and Chinese suppliers to reassess dependencies, contracts, and alternative sources for covered AI or chip technologies.
The proposal reinforces a reciprocal-control dynamic: it follows successive US efforts to tighten the technical perimeter around AI-chip exports, including rules aimed at chips just below earlier thresholds.

Third-order effects

If enacted, the policy would make advanced-computing trade more governed by parallel national licensing regimes, not only by controls on shipments into China.
The broader effect would be to deepen AI sovereignty: companies may increasingly have to localize technology, supply chains, and customer access around national rules, though the eventual scope remains unknown.

The trend: Advanced AI and semiconductor capabilities are becoming instruments of statecraft, with export controls increasingly flowing in both directions across the technology supply chain.

Discussion

@emollick Ethan Mollick on x
And now from the Chinese government side. This would be a good time for cooperation between the US and China to establish common testing/acceptance standards for new models, so at least the safety certification side of model releases can be transparent for open & closed models.
@zijing_wu Zijing Wu on x
Scoop: China weighs tighter export controls on 1. taking data overseas for training; open model weights 2. advanced chip fab overseas 3. acquisition of AI start-ups * Regulators are consulting tech firms with no final decision made https://as.ft.com/...
@pequityresearch @pequityresearch on x
J.P. Morgan has domestic AI chip shipments reaching 5 million units in 2028😳 More and more chips on the way... [image]
@lentils80 @lentils80 on x
Zhipu, creators of GLM, just brought a massive data center online They officially started operating a 1GW data center containing ONLY Chinese-made chips to train next-gen GLM models without the need for Nvidia chips ig they will join the very big OSS model club soon [image]
@kimmonismus @kimmonismus on x
Holy: China now has a 1-gigawatt AI data center built without a single Nvidia chip! Via Bloomberg: zAI has reportedly completed construction of the facility and begun partial operations. It runs exclusively on Chinese-made chips and will support the development of the company's […
@peterwildeford Peter Wildeford on x
No, China does not have a 1-gigawatt AI data center. Some sanity on this... 1. The actual claim is “several clusters of 10,000+ chips”... that's ~75-100 MW of actual load. The facility is billed at 1 GW. It probably has 1GW of energy, but it certainly isn't powering 1GW of
@basedjensen @basedjensen on x
Murican compute advantage may not last
@teortaxestex @teortaxestex on x
Xi should be grateful that the Council on Foreign Relations has such China hands as Chris So many errors. more like 680K, 950DT is better than 910C in everything except fp16 FLOPS (also irrelevant), we know of 60K and 100K clusters with domestic chips and ofc datacenter!=chips [i…
@0xzergs David on x
actual physical independence would be the franz ferdinand moment for taiwan invasion china would emerge as intelligence leader w its own chip supply chain, and US risks losing the next century
@denisewu Denise Wu on x
Always take a large grain of salt 🧂 whenever journalists were unable to personally visit the site and confirm it through “this person said.” 🧂🧂🧂 We've been through too many intentionally misleading Chinese AI stories in the past 2.5 years that this should be part of
@tmtlongshort @tmtlongshort on x
Wake me up when it's actually filled with 1GW worth of chips
@jsevillamol Jaime Sevilla on x
@ChrisRMcGuire >A 1GW data center would be the biggest data center in the world. The largest functioning data center in the world by power draw is xAI's Colossus II One note since this can be confusing, this is by IT power. If we account for PUE, Colossus II and the Amazon-Anthro…
@mayhem4markets @mayhem4markets on x
Those export bans sure helped to keep AI acceleration technology out of China's hands, didn't they? Do people really think banning open-weight models will be any easier? Hint: It won't. They're 1s and 0s. Even harder to restrict access.
@teortaxestex @teortaxestex on x
at some point ZAI will have a 1GW datacenter. $20B is no issue
@bleysg Bleys Goodson on x
Amazingly, when I crunched what it takes to serve Kimi K3, I found not only Huawei's next-gen Ascend 950DT on track to beat the Nvidia B300 on the all-important tokens-per-watt metric, but also the current CloudMatrix 384 generation already at parity at the 50 tok/s speeds API [i…
@chrisrmcguire Chris McGuire on x
Some back of the envelope math as to why I think reports that https://z.ai/ is running a 1GW data center using only Chinese chips are impossible: 1. China doesn't make enough chips. A 1 GW facility running Huawei's CloudMatrix systems needs ~500K Ascend 910Cs.
@dedene Peter Dedene on x
@kimmonismus And remember that unlike most other countries, China is not energy constrained and actively building out nuclear power plants that can fuel all these datacenters. After being the factory of the world, I'm convinced this will allow them to transform into the token fac…
@peterwildeford Peter Wildeford on x
@ChrisRMcGuire also does math and finds the “China has a 1GW data center” claim to be nonsense
@zephyr_z9 @zephyr_z9 on x
HUH Are they training a 10T big boi or what?? Or is it for inference?
@suchenzang Susan Zhang on x
narrator: yes, jensen was right all along [image]
@jukan05 Jukan on x
This reminds me of something. A few days ago, I read the transcript of an expert call hosted by DB. It said that shipments of homegrown Chinese chips had already reached 2.5 million units this year. I scoffed at the figure, thinking there was no way it could be true—but now I'm […
@wolvenone @wolvenone on x
@suchenzang Yeah, this was my big concern with that. Ultimately it was an attempt to lock down the field and bypass the need to compete internationally. That was never going to work. It's hard to lock out competition. It's especially hard to lock out competition in an emergent fi…
@tshirtnjeans2 @tshirtnjeans2 on x
@ChrisRMcGuire Dude, when have you ever been right about anything related to Chinese semiconductors? You gambled with America's future and found enough politicians dumb enough to buy into your export control policies and it backfired. And this is the first of many more cases
@__marty__1 Marty on x
@suchenzang 1) Jensen was just advocating for NVIDIA's and his self-interest. They make more money if they have more customers for their chips. 2) China was building their own stack either way. Self-reliance has long been in their five year plans.
@aetasfuturis @aetasfuturis on x
@kimmonismus China will leverage its industrial capacity and it surprise many Americans who think this lead is secure. It will be a very close race
@denisewu Denise Wu on x
We're pathetic for waiting for the CCP to first implement stricter export controls. TSMC is already banned by the US, and cutting off AVGO is akin to shooting its own foot, showing major signs of overconfidence. Do it! Do it! Do it!
@teortaxestex @teortaxestex on x
I think MofCom has a strategic target of stealing and copying American IP, namely every part of the export control framework, to use at will. Hence the senseless detail about Qualcomm/TSMC using Huawei designs. Nevertheless, worrying for AI. [image]
@kyleichan Kyle Chan on x
China's Ministry of Commerce is talking with AI companies such as “Alibaba, ByteDance and Zhipu on limiting the transfer of key data for the training of their models overseas, as well as allowing their model weights to be downloaded by foreign users” FT: https://www.ft.com/...
@mkwitzke Mark Witzke on x
FT confirms Reuters reporting: “MofCom talked to AI companies ... on limiting the transfer of key data ... overseas, as well as allowing their model weights to be downloaded by foreign users” This conflicts with Xi recently affirming open source approach at WAIC
@andrewcurran_ Andrew Curran on x
Open-weight models in jeopardy from both the East and West. MofCom is China's Commerce Departmet equivalent. [image]
@garymarcus Gary Marcus on x
Welcome to the new Cold War.
@rohanpaul_ai Rohan Paul on x
🇨🇳 wow. China is drafting rules to stop its most advanced AI and chip designs from reaching the West. Regulators at the Ministry of Commerce have asked Alibaba, ByteDance and Zhipu how to keep frontier work home. The talks cover training data leaving the country and whether [imag…
Maria Lourdes Cabaletti Maria Lourdes Cabaletti on linkedin
China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) is weighing a new category of export control, and this one points inward rather than outward. …
@scaling01 @scaling01 on x
pinky promise there's no distillation [image]
@kimmonismus @kimmonismus on x
The entire debate currently taking place is the best PR Chinese open-source labs could hope for. It is not only being openly acknowledged that Chinese models have fewer guardrails and are therefore more useful, but also that they are cheaper and thus pose a threat to the US [imag…
@emostaque Emad on x
If distillation were all that any of the western open source labs would have have raised billions could distill K3 (soon) or GLM 5.2 and have a sota model for say 32gb or 80gb of vram Who thinks they will
@ryangreenblatt Ryan Greenblatt on x
This is well known, but I do find that Kimi K3 claims to be Claude disproportionately often. I had Opus 4.8 do some (slop?) research about this. I was curious if K3 would ever claim to be Mythos/Fable, but we don't see this. K3 does claim to be 4.5 while claude models don't. 1/ […
@typebulbit @typebulbit on x
@RyanGreenblatt I ran a cross-entropy comparison of all raw text responses from numerous models using data I already had from a benchmark I run. I leaned on Fable for the stats-know-how; certainly seems very suspicious. The results/code are here for others to inspect: https://typ…
@pmddomingos Pedro Domingos on x
Surprise: Kimi was distilled from Fable.
@natolambert Nathan Lambert on x
Where Kimi K3 puts the balance of power — and bends the trajectory — of the AI ecosystem. https://www.interconnects.ai/ ...
@natolambert Nathan Lambert on x
In my long read on the Kimi K3 situation, I focus on the big picture for where we going next. 0. Chinese labs have 3 of top 8 most intelligent models, and have been climbing the ranking. 1. China's recommits to open-source AI - showing a different (lower) read on near-term
@zainhasan6 Zain on x
this is interesting b/c for deepswe tasks: - Kimi K3 agrees with Fable more often, both in its right/wrong answers - K3 <=> Fable task performance correlation is higher then Sol <=> K3 and Fable <=> Sol cool pattern in how/why each model fails/passes [image]
@bleysg Bleys Goodson on x
Thanks for these thoughts Nathan. We largely agree: the trailing equilibrium is real and a net good, near-term risks are overhyped, bans make things less safe, and independent evals are the institution worth building. But I strongly reject that open weights as we're seeing them […
@ramez Ramez Naam on x
This from @natolambert is the best overall perspective I've seen on both Kimi K3 and what the overall rise of open model capabilities means for the AI landscape. I don't fully agree on the deceleration point, but all of it is worth reading.
@kimmonismus @kimmonismus on x
China's open-weight models are starting to threaten the business model behind OpenAI and Anthropic. Via Wall Street Journal Kimi K3 and Qwen 3.8 Max are cheap, capable and customizable. Kimi was competitive with leading US systems on some benchmarks, while American companies [ima…
r/LocalLLaMA r on reddit
Unpopular(?) opinion. The distillation claim is overblown.
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
i may be half wrong — some VCs pushing pro open source while perhaps big labs pushing for regulatory capture?
@sarthakgh Sar Haribhakti on x
@MikeIsaac the literal opposite is happening tons of investors have strongly advocated for pro open source position both in america and china https://x.com/... https://x.com/... https://x.com/... https://x.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
what will happen for the foreseeable future is basically most of the big labs and VC class lobbying the government against open source chinese models that is b/c open source erodes the first mover advantages closed source companies had and thats where all the investment is
@edludlow Ed Ludlow on x
Treasury Sec. Bessent on Fox: “This administration supports open source models, but what we do not support is IP theft. If we see, especially, that overseas models are stealing from our great companies, we have the ability to sanction them because of this theft.”
NewsMax.com Brian Freeman on x
Trump Weighs Curbs on Chinese AI Models
@deanwball Dean W. Ball on x
Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also s…
@davidsacks David Sacks on x
I'm not sure whether Dean Ball is confessing to a regulatory capture strategy or simply predicting this will happen (he now says the latter). Either way, the weaponization of regulatory uncertainty as a competitive tool should be completely unacceptable. He argues there's no [ima…
@stratechery @stratechery on x
Who's Afraid of Chinese Models? Everyone is worried about Chinese models, but the frontier labs will be fine; we need to enable open U.S. alternatives. https://stratechery.com/...
@martin_casado @martin_casado on x
“Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist” .... this is a grossly incorrect statement with no supporting arguments or logic that is counter to the long arc of learnings of the industry over the last 50 years. What a stupid thing to say.
@benbajarin Ben Bajarin on x
Overall a great read and I agree with all of it by @benthompson [image]
@garrytan Garry Tan on x
Great reminder to stay frosty
@willmanidis Will Manidis on x
My friend Dean Ball has advanced an argument for the de facto protection of American frontier intelligence providers. Dean does not propose banning Chinese open-weight models. Banning things requires Congress. He proposes something more characteristic of the modern
@rabois Keith Rabois on x
Someone actually understands what is going on.
@huaijiangzhu @huaijiangzhu on x
my spicy theory is that chinese ai labs keep winning because of culture, not talent or resources. chinese labs still have a deeply hands-on engineering culture deepseek and kimi are flat organizations where science and engineering are fused...but sf tech bros have decided that “…
@jachiam0 Joshua Achiam on x
Some observations, in the wake of the Dean Ball open source discourse. In my long tenure at OpenAI and as a public commentator on social media, I never felt pressure from OAI leadership or the comms department to say or post anything; I always gave my own view. It's possible I
@dillon_mulroy Dillon Mulroy on x
actually an insane thing for openai's head of strategy to publicly say [image]
@jukan05 Jukan on x
It's no exaggeration to say I come to X for exactly this kind of intellectual elitism. This is basically porn to me.
@egrefen Edward Grefenstette on x
What the fuck did I just read?
@bubbleboi Bubble Boi on x
This is a level of having your head up your own ass I've never seen before.
@francoisfleuret François Fleuret on x
“Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist” You young people do not know, but we went through exactly the same kind of bullshit when linux started to get market shares.
@crypt0lake @crypt0lake on x
this post has dark energy very american bush-esque energy right here freedom is slavery type language grim
@wanguws Howe Wang on x
I give 6 months [image]
@blancheminerva Stella Biderman on x
It continues to be an excellent heuristic that when employees of trillion dollar corporations shake their fists and scream “you just want communism” you're doing the right thing.
@martin_casado @martin_casado on x
Do you know what open weights model actually decelerate? The formation and power of oligopolies. You know, those things which really do stifle innovation.
@buccocapital @buccocapital on x
OpenAI taking a page out of the Bush administration's playbook. You can get a smart-sounding person to justify anything! If you can get a Ivy League law professors to use constitutional theory of law and the concept of statehood to justify a proactive war on the abstract
@rnaudbertrand Arnaud Bertrand on x
This is a thoughtful post by the Head of Strategic Futures at OpenAI but his claim that “open weight models are inherently decelerationist” is fundamentally wrong. Yes it may be decelerationist for individual companies like OpenAI or Anthropic (and even that's not sure at all)
@cgtwts @cgtwts on x
“Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist”. [image]
@jaldrichpl Jonathan Aldrich on x
It's just so RICH that the Head of Strategic Futures at an organization that (A) was founded as a nonprofit (B) with a vision of promoting OPENNESS in AI and (C) is literally called @OpenAI is now throwing shade at open source / open weight models. How far they have fallen.
@albertwenger Albert Wenger on x
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
@grady_booch Grady Booch on x
“Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist” Let me reframe that for you: “open-weight models undercut @OpenAI's ability to make piles of money for a product whose ROI is still a large negative number.”
@tetsuo_cpp @tetsuo_cpp on x
Babe wake up, new insufferable frontier lab employee tweet dropped.
@qualiascript @qualiascript on x
it's 2001. open-source Linux is better than Windows on servers. Steve Ballmer calls Linux “cancer”, “communist” and asks for it to be regulated away it's 2026. open-source LLMs are better than ChatGPT/Claude on costs. they are called “decelerationist” and “communist”
@drnicka Nick Almond on x
Unhinged shit from this OpenAI strategy bellend. He admits Kimi is as good as the frontier and it's not basic distillation. So can't just call it theft. So calls open models communist instead. Anything that is a “public good” is commie apparently. Somehow then makes the leap
@ruima Rui Ma on x
Oh look someone who works for OpenAI telling you that - AI is so dangerous! How can you let anyone but us handle it! - Anyone who lets other people use it basically just doesn't understand tech. They dumb boomers. We smart tho. Never mind their regulations actually show a
@pawelwargan Paweł Wargan on x
OpenAI's Head of Strategic Futures says that AI as a public good rather than a “market product” is a path towards a “dystopian hellscape” of automated communism. These people are fighting tooth and nail against the democratisation of technology — and they are losing.
@deepdishenjoyer @deepdishenjoyer on x
lmao openai admits it does not want fully automated luxury space communism, they are openly admitting they want technofeudalism where they own everything [image]
@thdxr Dax on x
“One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism” [image]
@signulll @signulll on x
i can probably take this thread point by point & counter it hardcore but the quote tweets have done that so it's not that interesting. but beyond that.. you as an openai head of policy simply cannot publicly post content where you blatantly introduce mechanics for fud
@jun_song Jun Song on x
An OpenAI (aka ClosedAI) executive is really out here saying the most absurd things. They're claiming that open-source AI is decel and wants a dystopia—the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard. It's pretty obvious they're just terrified of their own company going bankrupt.
@batwood011 Brian Atwood on x
This is grotesque. I bet Dean is a good, smart guy. Yet he is trying to convince you that hosting an LLM in your basement - private and sovereign, as the Founding Fathers would have wished - is dystopian communism. Now why would he do that?
@benjaminnorton Ben Norton on x
This guy who works at the poorly named OpenAI (or more accurately ClosedAI) laments that China's open-source models could lead to: “full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a ‘public good’ which will ultimately be provided by …
@growing_daniel Daniel on x
Okay, I'll take a hack at Deans argument without his conflict of interest. What China is doing in AI is called dumping. They do it in literally every industry they enter. The goal is to kill all local competition by subsidizing their own industry so they can produce at a loss,
@yacinemtb Kache on x
You know that thing that happens when you can't read a big blob of text because an LLM wrote it and it contains zero entropy? Yeah
@dee_bosa Deirdre Bosa on x
The irony of this: China's strategy is remarkably capitalist... use free models to win distribution and capture the ecosystem. This meanwhile proposes gov't intervention to shield American labs from competition. America is better off competing than manufacturing FUD
r/LocalLLaMA r on reddit
US gov't lobbied by major US labs is about to ban open source models.
r/worldnews r on reddit
Bessent says U.S. could sanction China over AI model ‘theft’
r/neoliberal r on reddit
China weighs tighter export controls on AI models and chips
r/China r on reddit
Bessent says U.S. could sanction China over AI model ‘theft’
@bgurley Bill Gurley on x
If there has been “theft” that suggests a crime has been committed. But I am unaware of any lawsuits being filed. No company should be allowed to declare infringement without adjudication. I'm not convinced a court would call using a product as it's designed theft. There is a
r/technology r on reddit
Bessent says U.S. could sanction China over AI model ‘theft’
@buccocapital @buccocapital on x
This is a fascinating, honestly kind of shocking post. Of course, lots of VCs are quote tweeting it. Look at what it says! - “American companies need a legal way to turn American frontier capability into cheaper, ownable models.” - “Frontier labs could sell structured training
@deanmeyerrr Dean Meyer on x
America's Open-Model Paradox
@signulll @signulll on x
thoughtful piece! even granting all of it, distillation doesn't solve the compute problem. it's a post training shortcut.. it maybe gets you reasoning traces & instruction following polish cheap (questionable still), which maybe compresses the gap. but it's still very difficult
@stephzhan Stephanie Zhan on x
Leadership at the frontier is incomplete without a world-class open layer. @reflection_ai is building that layer: frontier intelligence that enterprises and sovereigns can own, adapt, and deploy.
@quxiaoyin Xiaoyin Qu on x
1. It's almost impossible to truly block distillation. That's silly to even want to enforce it. Claude can try blocking Chinese IPs but there are 100 other new ways popping up. 2. Distillation is not legally blockable because the copyright of a model that is trained based on
@alfred_lin Alfred Lin on x
Thoughts on open models and distillation from my partners @DeanMeyerrr and @Konstantine. “Imagine if we had not allowed for training on the open web. We would have no leading AI at all. These types of policy implications are transformative. All the leading labs benefited from
@quxiaoyin Xiaoyin Qu on x
China could ban domestic user traces from being sold to US labs, but they won't ban open-weight models. They are benefiting from it tremendously now.
@moshesshalev Moshe Shalev on x
There are countless reasons why the West needs a leading open-source model. These are some of the most important. It's not an easy challenge, but it's critical today and strategically even more important for the future and ecosystem. Highly recommend!
@davidcahn6 David Cahn on x
There is a web of interdependence in AI right now. It is interesting that Chinese open-source is playing such a meaningful intermediary role. Long-term equilibrium has not been reached yet.
@dleitersdorf Dean Leitersdorf on x
The West must have a frontier-class open model that can compete with China. Distillation is a great reason. There are more excellent points here, partnerships between labs could definitely play a key role Great article @DeanMeyerrr
@himanshustwts Himanshu on x
Yesterday: US administration is reportedly considering restrictions on advanced Chinese AI models such as Kimi K3 and DeepSeek. Today: China is considering tightening its export controls on AI tech and would restrict non-Chinese nationals from downloading the open weights of
@shaunmmaguire Shaun Maguire on x
My partners @DeanMeyerrr and @Konstantine have been thinking deeply about open source AI
@hosseeb Haseeb on x
Notably, Kimi has not released their weights yet. Supposed to be released next week (waiting for Beijing review?) And the new Qwen model hasn't even said when their weights will be released. Neither country seems to know what game they want to play yet. China is vacillating. A
@bgurley Bill Gurley on x
“It is going to fail miserably.” I concur. There is zero action DC can take that will stop or slow China's AI progress. In fact, DC action will very likely help them globally. Tyler is spot on.
@ramez Ramez Naam on x
Bessent lays out the playbook: 1. Declare distillation to be theft. 2. Find that every foreign model has distilled a US model. 3. Sanction those companies and make it harder to use their models. This is a playbook for giving people outside the US, including malicious actors,
@karlbode.com Karl Bode on bluesky
U.S. AI policy for the foreseeable future is going to be an open sewer of bizarre, incoherent, xenophobic protectionism, and our trash press is going to normalize it as serious adult policymaking the entire way
r/LocalLLaMA r on reddit
Bessent says U.S. could sanction China over AI model ‘theft’
@kyleichan Kyle Chan on x
Yes, I think there's been some confusion about China and open source AI. For China, open source and open development of AI are related but not the same thing. Xi's speech at WAIC grouped a bunch of these terms together: open source 开源, open 开放, win-win 共赢, cooperation and
@vince_chow1 Vincent Chow on x
Interesting comments on what “open source” means in China from Fu Hongyu, Alibaba's AI governance lead and a leading collaborator from industry on Chinese AI policy [image]
@hugolowell Hugo Lowell on x
New: Undersecretary of War Emil Michael tells me Chinese openweight AI models don't currently need restrictions — “When does it reach the threshold of a national security threat? We're going to have to act, but right now we're not there. We want competition. Competition first.”
@garymarcus Gary Marcus on x
translation: it's ok if our companies steal IP wholesale from artists and writes, but bad if people from other countries steal IP wholesale for us. got it!
@ryanfedasiuk Ryan Fedasiuk on x
This from @SecScottBessent is the right approach. We should be going after Chinese open-weight models because they present unique security risks and steal American IP—not necessarily because they are open-source or threaten the position of our leading labs.
@andrewcurran_ Andrew Curran on x
The US and China will hold AI talks in September. The US delegation will be led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. This will be the first official US-China dialogue on AI under President Trump, and both open-source and model regulation are expected to be high on the agenda. [im…

Chronicles