The United States and China are engaged in an intense competition for dominance in artificial intelligence, with both nations recognizing AI's critical role in shaping future economic and military power. While the US currently maintains an edge in generative AI, thanks to its superior talent pool, robust infrastructure, and private sector innovation1, China is rapidly closing the gap through substantial government investment and a thriving tech ecosystem2. The race is characterized by contrasting approaches: the US relies primarily on private enterprises and open-source models, while China employs centralized planning and direct state funding1.

Key areas of competition include:

• Advanced semiconductors, where US export controls have slowed Chinese progress12

• AI research output, with China surpassing the US in AI-related published papers2

• Patent filings, where China has overtaken the US since 20212

• Data resources, where China's vast population provides an advantage2

• Military applications, with both nations integrating AI into their armed forces3

The outcome of this technological rivalry has significant implications for global power dynamics, economic growth, and the future of governance models45.

The Trump administration's approach to AI policy marks a significant shift towards deregulation and a focus on national security. This new direction emphasizes fostering innovation and reducing regulatory barriers to position the U.S. advantageously in the global AI race, particularly against China1. Key aspects of this policy shift include:

• Rollback of previous regulations, including Biden's AI Executive Order

• Emphasis on rapid technological advancements to drive economic growth and job creation

• Potential retention of national security-related elements from previous policies

• Exploration of AI applications in government sectors for defense purposes

• Consideration of measures like reskilling programs to address potential worker displacement due to increased automation1

While this deregulatory approach aims to catalyze AI development, it also raises concerns about potential ethical challenges, algorithmic biases, and privacy issues1. Critics worry that the absence of federal oversight could compromise consumer safety and privacy, potentially leading to the premature introduction of AI technologies with unknown risks2.

The repeal of Biden's AI executive order could significantly impact AI safety protocols in the United States. Key safety measures that may be affected include:

• Elimination of mandatory safety testing and reporting requirements for powerful AI systems12

• Potential dismantling of the U.S. AI Safety Institute, which was tasked with developing voluntary guidelines and best practices34

• Shift towards industry self-regulation through voluntary commitments rather than government-led consensus on safety standards5

These changes could reduce oversight and consistency in AI safety practices across the industry. However, the absence of federal regulation may accelerate state-level and global AI safety initiatives, potentially creating a complex patchwork of requirements for AI companies to navigate56.

The AI Oversight Order, issued by President Biden in 2023, aimed to establish comprehensive safeguards for artificial intelligence development in the United States. Key provisions of the order included:

• Requiring AI developers to submit safety test results to the federal government before public deployment12

• Directing federal agencies to create safety standards and mitigate risks related to cybersecurity and other threats1

• Tasking the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with developing guidance to help companies identify and address AI model flaws, including algorithmic biases12

The order's repeal by the Trump administration marks a significant shift in U.S. AI policy, moving away from federal oversight towards a more deregulated approach. This change aligns with Trump's campaign promises to support AI development based on principles of free speech and economic growth, though specific details of replacement policies remain undisclosed13.