Is Global AI Cooperation Even Possible? Insights on the US-China AI Rivalry and Its Impact on AI in Recruiting

In the fast-evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, few topics generate as much intrigue and urgency as the competition between the United States and China. With both nations recently releasing their respective AI action plans, the world watches keenly to see whether cooperation or outright competition will define the future of AI development. This article delves into the nuances of these plans, the geopolitical undertones shaping AI governance, and what this means for sectors like AI in recruiting and beyond.

Drawing from a detailed analysis by The AI Daily Brief, this exploration sheds light on how AI is carving out new diplomatic frontiers, the strategic moves by tech giants, and the complex interplay of national security, innovation, and global collaboration.

The US AI Action Plan: A New Chapter in Global AI Diplomacy

Last week, the White House unveiled its AI action plan, a blueprint that outlines a multifaceted approach centered on three core themes: accelerating AI innovation, building robust American AI infrastructure, and leading international AI diplomacy and security. Sriram Krishnan, former leader of the Biden administration’s AI action plan, succinctly summarized these pillars, emphasizing the urgency of maintaining American leadership in this transformative technology.

What makes this plan particularly fascinating is its apparent departure from the White House's usual "America First" foreign policy stance. As Politico's Daniella Cheslo, a Northwestern classmate of the report's commentator, observed, the AI action plan contains a subtle yet significant pivot—calling for the United States to forge a lasting global alliance on AI technology. This is a sharp contrast to previous unilateral approaches, signaling that AI might be an exception to the traditional nationalist rhetoric.

The plan explicitly tasks the State and Commerce Departments with leveraging the US's influence in international bodies such as the United Nations, OECD, G7, G20, and the International Telecommunication Union. The goal is to advocate for standards and governance frameworks that reflect American values and ideals. This proactive stance on AI diplomacy underscores the recognition that AI is not merely a domestic technological issue but a global strategic priority.

Open Source AI as a Diplomatic Tool

One of the more intriguing aspects of the US plan is its treatment of open source and open weight AI models. The document highlights the geostrategic value of ensuring that America leads in developing open AI models founded on American values. It suggests that open source AI could become global standards, particularly in business and academic research, thus serving as a form of soft power and diplomacy.

This perspective challenges earlier concerns that open sourcing AI models might inadvertently assist China in catching up technologically. In 2023, many experts feared that releasing open source or open weight models would accelerate China’s AI progress. However, China has since made significant strides, even surpassing the US in open AI model development. Therefore, the conversation around open source AI now unfolds in a context where China is leading in this domain, making the US's diplomatic approach to open AI models even more critical.

Mixed Reactions to the US AI Action Plan

The reception of the US AI action plan has been polarized, largely reflecting the vantage points of different stakeholder groups. The tech community has generally welcomed the plan. Aaron Levy from Box praised it as a strong framework with a clear mission to win the AI race by removing barriers and promoting adoption. Levy also appreciated the plan's optimistic focus on the tangible benefits AI brings to everyday life.

Conversely, mainstream media outlets like The New York Times zeroed in on aspects they felt were missing, especially issues surrounding copyright and intellectual property. Professor Kevin Bryan expressed frustration that the coverage disproportionately emphasized copyright concerns rather than the broader implications of AI on the economy, defense, and scientific progress.

Despite the division, some voices offered a more balanced view. Shaquille Hashim, editor at Transformer, noted that many experts were pleasantly surprised by the White House’s approach, describing it as cautiously promising. Brad Carson of Americans for Responsible Innovation, Michael Kleinman of the Future of Life Institute, and Brendan Steinhauser of the Alliance for Secure AI all recognized the plan as a step in the right direction. Even the Washington Post, often critical, endorsed the plan as a good start.

China’s AI Action Plan: Cooperation or Strategic Positioning?

Shortly after the US announcement, China released its own AI action plan at the World AI Conference in Shanghai, one of the nation’s premier tech events. Premier Li Cheung delivered a keynote emphasizing the dangers of technological monopolies and restricted access, warning that such practices would limit AI to an exclusive game dominated by a few countries and enterprises.

China’s plan is built around the creation of the World AI Cooperation Organization, an international body focused on AI governance, regulation, and deployment. This organization is envisioned as a sort of United Nations for AI, but headquartered in Shanghai. The plan stresses multilateralism and global consensus, calling for adherence to existing UN agreements on digital technology and highlighting cooperation as a recurring theme—mentioned thirteen times across its key priorities.

However, experts like George Chen from the Asia Group caution against viewing China’s approach as purely multilateral. Instead, Chen suggests China seeks a unilateral strategy with itself at the center of a multinational coalition, leveraging Chinese AI technology extensively—an approach reminiscent of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, but in the digital domain. The plan aims to distribute Chinese AI technology broadly and affordably, especially targeting developing countries in the global south.

The Geopolitical Stakes: Export Controls and NVIDIA's H20 Chips

In the wake of these policy releases, tensions surfaced around a seemingly technical but strategically significant issue: the export controls on NVIDIA’s H20 AI chips. Recently, the US administration lifted restrictions on these chips, allowing them to flood into China. This move aligns with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s view that China will inevitably develop AI data centers, so it’s better for them to use NVIDIA chips rather than alternatives like Huawei’s.

Demand for these chips has skyrocketed, with NVIDIA reportedly placing orders for 300,000 units with TSMC, on top of an existing stockpile of 600,000 to 700,000 chips. Last year, NVIDIA sold around a million H20 chips, and the current orders suggest they are preparing for a similar volume soon.

However, this decision has not gone uncontested. A coalition of twenty national security experts and former officials wrote to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick urging a reversal. They argued that the H20 chip is a potent accelerator of China’s frontier AI capabilities and outperforms even the more advanced H100 chip, which remains restricted. The letter emphasized that AI chips are a zero-sum game—greater demand from China exacerbates US chip shortages and threatens America’s technological edge.

The signatories, including Brad Carson and former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Stuart Baker, framed the issue squarely as a matter of national security, not trade. Their plea highlights the complex balancing act the US faces between fostering global AI cooperation and safeguarding its strategic interests.

The Fluid Dynamics of US-China AI Competition

Reflecting on these developments, it’s clear that the US-China AI rivalry is more nuanced and fluid than it has been in recent years. There are competing forces at play—not only in the broader political environment but also within the corridors of the White House. An inherent tension exists between a foreign policy that has often favored withdrawal from global engagement and the imperative to lead in international AI competition.

This tension manifests in the AI action plan’s call for global leadership and collaboration, which seems at odds with other nationalist or protectionist tendencies. Rather than a full-scale policy reversal, this may represent a growing acknowledgment that the AI competition landscape demands new approaches.

 

Foreign Affairs recently published a piece titled “China’s Overlooked AI Strategy,” highlighting how China’s release of open AI models like DeepSeek is a calculated soft power move to dominate global AI infrastructure. Meanwhile, societal attitudes toward AI differ sharply. MIT Technology Review reported that Chinese universities encourage students to use AI extensively, while many Western institutions remain cautious or even resistant.

Even within Washington’s Beltway, the rapid advancements by China have caused surprise and concern, as noted by The Washington Times. These shifts challenge the long-held assumption that the US-China AI rivalry is a straightforward arms race for supremacy.

Rethinking the AI Arms Race: Collaboration as an Alternative

Some scholars and experts propose innovative alternatives to the notion of an inevitable AI arms race. Law professor Peter Salib and collaborator Simon Goldstein advocate for a joint US-China AI laboratory, combining top talent and investment from both nations. Their proposal, detailed in a paper titled Collaboration at the International Law for the AI Arms Race, argues that such a joint venture would be both safer and faster than competing or nonproliferation models.

This idea seeks to transcend the zero-sum mindset, suggesting that AI safety advocates and accelerators alike should support collaborative frameworks. While this vision may seem ambitious given current geopolitical realities, it signals a growing discourse around cooperation over competition.

Implications for AI in Recruiting and Beyond

While much of this discussion revolves around global AI governance and security, the outcomes will inevitably ripple through various sectors, including AI in recruiting. The models, infrastructure, and standards shaped by these international dynamics will influence how AI tools are developed, deployed, and trusted in recruitment processes worldwide.

For instance, open source AI models, championed as diplomatic tools by the US, could set the foundation for transparent, fair, and accountable AI-driven recruitment platforms. Conversely, if AI ecosystems become fragmented along geopolitical lines—with China dominating certain regions and the US others—businesses and HR professionals may face challenges in navigating differing AI standards and capabilities.

Moreover, the competition over advanced AI chips like NVIDIA’s H20 impacts the pace at which AI-powered recruiting tools can innovate. Supply constraints or technological disparities could delay access to cutting-edge AI capabilities, affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of recruitment technologies globally.

Looking Ahead: Navigating the Complex AI Landscape

The unfolding US-China AI rivalry is a defining story of our time, blending technology, diplomacy, national security, and economic strategy. It is a reminder that AI is not just a tool for innovation but a geopolitical force reshaping global power structures.

For those invested in AI in recruiting or any AI-driven industry, staying informed about these developments is crucial. The decisions made in Washington, Shanghai, and Beijing today will influence which AI models are accessible, how AI ethics and safety are enforced, and what opportunities emerge in the years ahead.

In this complex environment, the hope remains that cooperation—even if cautious and limited—can coexist with competition to foster a safer, more equitable AI future.

As we continue to monitor these dynamics, it’s essential to appreciate the broader context in which AI technologies evolve and the profound impact this has on every facet of society, including the future of work and recruitment.