Insight check

A sometimes weekly email about decision-making, strategy, games and other observations.

In the high-stakes theatre of global technology competition, something remarkable is happening: the United States and China have begun an elaborate act of strategic cosplay, each donning the other's traditional technological identity. The United States, long casting itself as the champion of open innovation and collaborative development, has suddenly adopted China's signature costume of technological secrecy and control. Meanwhile, China, historically typecast as the guardian of closed systems and proprietary development, has stepped into America's seemingly abandoned role as the advocate for open-source AI development.

This isn't merely a superficial swap of positions. Like professional wrestlers engaging in kayfabe—the careful maintenance of an in-character storyline—both nations are committed to playing their new roles with conviction. OpenAI, once the standard-bearer of algorithmic transparency, now guards its models closely. Across the Pacific, China's DeepSeek team presents itself with the flavour of early Silicon Valley open-source advocates, complete with public repos and collaborative development frameworks.

Yet beneath this theatrical exchange of identities lies a serious game of strategic positioning. Each nation has recognised that their traditional technological personas no longer serve their interests in the age of artificial intelligence. Like method actors who have found deeper truth in their assumed roles, both the US and China are discovering that their adopted strategies might better position them for the challenges ahead than the positions they've abandoned.

Understanding this great strategic cosplay—how it emerged, why it matters, and where it might lead—requires us to look beyond the surface performance to the complex calculations that drove two global superpowers to swap their technological identities. This strategic pivot by both nations not only signals a fundamental shift in how the world's superpowers approach technological competition in the AI age but also underscores their strategic foresight and adaptability.

This reversal challenges conventional wisdom about innovation, control, and global technology leadership. More importantly, it reveals the complex strategic calculations that drive national AI policy as countries maneuver for advantage in the most consequential technological race of the 21st century. In this analysis, we'll explore how this remarkable role reversal illuminates the changing nature of technological power in the age of AI and what it tells us about the future of global competition for algorithmic supremacy.

How We Got Here

The United States built its technological dominance on a foundation of openness. From the early days of Silicon Valley to the development of the Internet, American innovation thrived through the free exchange of ideas and collaborative development. This approach wasn't just philosophical—it proved remarkably effective at fostering breakthrough innovations and maintaining American leadership in successive waves of technological advancement.

Born and nurtured in the US, the open-source software movement exemplified this ethos. Companies like Red Hat demonstrated that openness could coexist with commercial success, while Linux showed how collaborative development could create robust, world-changing technology. This culture of openness became deeply embedded in the American tech industry's DNA.

China took a different path. Its rise as a technological power relied heavily on state direction and control. The government's ability to marshal resources, protect strategic industries, and guide technological development proved highly effective at closing the gap with Western competitors. China's "Great Firewall" and strict data controls reflected a philosophy that saw information control as crucial to national security and economic development.

However, the emergence of transformative AI technology has prompted both nations to reassess these approaches fundamentally. The stakes are too high to rely on traditional playbooks.

The Strategic Calculus: Why the Switch?

The US shift toward closed AI development, exemplified by OpenAI's increasingly proprietary approach, reflects several strategic imperatives. First, there's the recognition that AI represents a qualitatively different technology. Unlike previous innovations, advanced AI systems have the potential to generate breakthroughs, creating a feedback loop of accelerating capability. In this context, maintaining a technological lead becomes crucial—once lost, it might prove impossible to regain. This first-mover advantage is strategically likely why OpenAI (and, by extension, the US) became not-so-openAI.

There's also the matter of control. As AI systems become more powerful, the ability to shape their development and deployment becomes increasingly critical. Closed development allows for greater oversight and the ability to implement safety measures and ethical guidelines. This control may prove crucial as AI capabilities expand into more sensitive domains.

China's move toward openness with DeepSeek reflects equally sophisticated strategic thinking. By open-sourcing an advanced AI model, China gains several advantages. First, it taps into the global AI research community, effectively turning potential competitors into collaborators in improving Chinese technology. This second-mover approach accelerates development while reducing research and development costs.

Moreover, open sourcing creates dependency. As developers worldwide build applications on top of DeepSeek, China's influence over the global AI ecosystem grows. This soft power approach is more effective than traditional efforts at technological control.

Beyond the Binary: The Multi-Player Reality

This is not a two-player game. While the US-China dynamic dominates headlines, the global AI landscape is far more complex. Many entities play the game. The European Union pursues its path, emphasising privacy and ethical considerations in AI development. India leverages its software engineering talent to carve out a unique position. Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Tencent operate as quasi-sovereign entities in the AI space, pursuing their strategic objectives.

This multi-player environment creates interesting dynamics. Alliances form and dissolve as different actors pursue their interests. For instance, the EU's GDPR influences how American and Chinese companies approach AI development. Indian developers might build on Chinese open-source models while collaborating with American companies. The strategic landscape resembles less of a chess match between two players and more of a complex ecosystem with multiple competing and cooperating entities.

The Rise of Autonomous Agents: A New Player Has Joined the Game

(No AI article can avoid a trip down sci-fi lane)

One of the most intriguing aspects of the AI race is the potential emergence of the AI systems themselves as strategic actors. As these systems grow more sophisticated, they may begin to exhibit their own forms of agency, pursuing objectives that might not perfectly align with their creators' intentions. This possibility introduces unprecedented complexity into strategic calculations and invites contemplation on how to maintain control over a system designed to learn and evolve.

This possibility introduces unprecedented complexity to strategic calculations. How do you maintain control over a system designed to learn and evolve? What happens when AI systems from different nations or companies begin to interact in unexpected ways? The potential for emergence—complex behaviours arising from simple rules and interactions—creates new challenges for strategic planning.

Consider a scenario where multiple AI systems, operating with different objectives and constraints, begin to influence each other's development. A Chinese open-source model might learn from interactions with American systems, while American models might incorporate insights from analysing Chinese AI behaviour. The resulting dynamics could transcend the original strategic intentions of either nation. In fact, the whole game theory playbook probably goes out the window when you are dealing with a new theory of mind from a non-human entity. This truly moves the game into a chaotic state.

Information Ecosystems and Power Projection

(Back to the near-term horizon)

The battle for AI supremacy extends beyond pure technological capability. As AI systems increasingly mediate our interaction with information—from news recommendations to language translation to content generation—control over these systems becomes a powerful lever for shaping global narratives and understanding.

The US closed-model approach controls how American AI systems process and present information. This control could help maintain Western information frameworks and narrative structures. However, it also limits the systems' ability to understand and operate within different cultural contexts.

China's open-source strategy could allow its information processing and presentation approaches to spread organically through the global AI ecosystem. As developers worldwide build on Chinese models, specific ways of understanding and presenting information might become embedded in the global information infrastructure.

The Cost Factor

The economic dimensions of these strategic choices cannot be ignored. Closed development requires massive investment in research, infrastructure, and talent. Companies like OpenAI rely on significant revenue from their AI services to sustain development. This creates pressure to monetise advances quickly, potentially at the expense of broader innovation.

Open-source approaches distribute development costs across a global community of contributors. While this reduces direct expenses, it also makes it harder to capture value from innovations. China's strategy suggests a calculation that the benefits of ecosystem control outweigh the lost revenue potential from proprietary development.

These economic factors influence adoption patterns. Small companies and developers, particularly in developing nations, might gravitate toward open-source solutions due to cost considerations. This could gradually shift the centre of gravity in global AI development, regardless of which approach produces superior technology.

Think about the thousands of companies now changing their API calls of the GPT-wrappers to the 95% less expensive product in Deepseek. All of their outputs have been hot-swapped from US training data to Chinese.

Strategic Implications and Possibilities

Looking ahead, several potential scenarios emerge. The US closed-model approach might maintain American technological leadership but at the cost of global influence as more of the world builds on open-source alternatives. Alternatively, closed development's security and control advantages might prove decisive as AI systems become more powerful and potentially dangerous.

China's open-source strategy could succeed in creating a Chinese-led global AI ecosystem, or it might result in losing control over key technologies as they evolve in unexpected directions. The interaction between open and closed systems might create new hybrid approaches that combine elements of both strategies.

What's clear is that the traditional association of openness with Western technology and control with Chinese approaches no longer holds. Both nations are adapting their strategies to artificial intelligence's unique challenges and opportunities.

End Game or New Game?

The role reversal in US and Chinese AI strategies reflects the unprecedented nature of artificial intelligence as a technological and strategic asset. Traditional approaches to technological development and competition prove insufficient in the face of AI's transformative potential.

Success in this new landscape requires strategic flexibility and a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between technological capability, economic factors, and information control. Nations and organisations must balance the benefits of openness and control, collaboration and competition, in ways that advance their interests while managing the risks inherent in developing increasingly powerful AI systems.

As AI continues to evolve, the strategies adopted by major powers will shape technological development and the future of human society. Today's choices about openness, control, collaboration, and competition will influence how AI develops and who guides its trajectory.

These decisions require careful consideration of immediate strategic advantages and longer-term implications for global technological development and human welfare. The nation that best navigates these complex trade-offs, rather than the one that develops the most advanced technology, may ultimately emerge as the true leader of the AI age.

Dr Dan

🔗 LINKS

$0 Tabletop exercise foundation course

$5 Tabletop Exercise Starter Kit

$500 Ignite your offsite or workshop with a custom tabletop exercise

$1000+ 🎲 Professional Game Master Track

$ x+y= Hire us to design or run a game/strategy consulting

🎥 | YouTube

🌍 | Website / Blog

🐦/✖️ ️| Twitter  

📸 | Instagram

📱 | TikTok

👨‍💻 | LinkedIn

📘 | Facebook