Bessent Says US, China To Launch AI Safety Talks After Trump-Xi Meeting In Beijing
by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on May 14 that Washington and Beiji
# THE TAKE: AI Safety Theater Won't Stop the Real Game Treasury Secretary Bessent's announcement is corporate damage control disguised as diplomacy. The US and China aren't negotiating AI safety—they're negotiating market dominance. "Safety talks" conveniently sidestep the actual conflict: who owns the computational infrastructure, training data pipelines, and chip supply chains that determine AI winners. OpenAI, Google, Meta versus Alibaba, Baidu, ByteDance. The real negotiation happens in boardrooms, not UN committees. Both governments benefit from this rhetorical cover. gets legitimacy; Washington gets to claim moral high ground while CHIPS Act subsidies funnel billions to semiconductor monopolists. Neither side will enforce binding restrictions on their own corporations. Watch the footnote: What technology gets excluded from talks? Which companies get exempted? That's where power actually lives—in carve-outs for the firms that matter most to state capacity. Safety theater. Real stakes elsewhere.
What the Documents Show
Speaking to CNBC from the Trump-Xi summit, Bessent emphasized that the talks would focus on safeguards and governance protocols. Yet his framing reveals the unspoken competitive reality underlying these discussions: the U.S. is negotiating from what it perceives as a position of technological superiority. "The reason we are able to have fulsome discussions with the Chinese on AI is because we are in the lead," Bessent stated bluntly. "I do not think we would be having the same discussions if they were this far ahead of us." This admission exposes what mainstream coverage typically glosses over—that AI safety talks are inseparable from geopolitical dominance.
Follow the Money
isn't primarily motivated by preventing non-state actors from obtaining AI models out of abstract concern for global security. Rather, Washington seeks to embed "U.S. values" and -led standards into emerging global AI frameworks while China remains in a perceived position of disadvantage. The talks represent an opportunity for the U.S. to codify its technological leadership into international norms that would constrain competitors. Bessent's confidence that these negotiations only occur because America is "in the lead" suggests that if power dynamics shifted, so would American commitment to such cooperation.
What Else We Know
The timing and context matter considerably. These AI safety discussions emerge amid ongoing trade disputes, tensions over the Iran conflict, and broader strategic rivalry—meaning they function as a pressure release valve rather than a fundamental shift in U.S.-China relations. Both nations are essentially agreeing to discuss rules for a technology both are aggressively developing and deploying. The agreement to talk about preventing "wrong hands" from accessing advanced models sidesteps harder questions: whose hands are acceptable, who determines global AI standards, and whether a U.S.-dominated framework actually serves global security or simply extends American technological hegemony. For ordinary people, the implications are profound but often invisible. AI safety protocols negotiated behind closed doors by government officials and corporate interests will shape which algorithms decide loan approvals, hiring decisions, and law enforcement actions.
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Corporate Watchdog
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.
This article is produced by NewsAnarchist's AI reporting system, not a human staff reporter. It's built from the primary source cited above (a company's own disclosure, a security researcher's published findings, a regulator's filing (FTC, EU data-protection authorities), or a data-breach notification) and reports what that source states, attributed to it — it is not security advice specific to your own devices or accounts, and does not verify a vendor's disputed claim beyond what the source states. Part of our Tech & Privacy hub. Found an error? Tell us.