Democracy for Show, Power for Real: The AI Standard
We like to imagine that our leadership in AI is about promoting democracy, fairness, and human rights. And sometimes, it is. American researchers do often focus on ethical frameworks, transparent algorithms, and protecting civil liberties. But at the highest levels of international politics, AI leadership is more about who controls the future — the economies, the weapons, the information systems — than it is about whose values are being exported.
That’s why the U.S. can denounce China’s AI practices while quietly partnering with Saudi Arabia’s AI initiatives. Both countries are autocratic, but only one is our strategic rival. AI is a tool — a powerful one — and we are competing to make sure that tool is in the hands of governments aligned with our interests, not necessarily our ideals.
What We’re Really Competing For
The competition over AI leadership is really a competition over:
Military dominance: AI powers weapons systems, cybersecurity, and surveillance infrastructure.
Economic control: Whoever leads in AI leads in productivity, automation, and data extraction.
Narrative influence: Controlling the AI agenda means shaping how the world thinks about truth, fairness, and intelligence.
That’s why we want Saudi Arabia “in our orbit.” It’s not about democracy; it’s about positioning. If Saudi Arabia aligns with China instead of the U.S., it strengthens the Chinese-led AI ecosystem and increases China's leverage on everything from oil to digital infrastructure.
So we’re willing to look the other way on repression, censorship, and inequality — because the endgame is global influence.
I’m just casting judgement other than to say we should call a spade a spade. US-China AI competitition is about power not the quest to sustain global democracy.