I don't see how the dual goals of "we have to make an agreement with China for mutual slowdown" but also "we have to ensure we will always stay ahead of China" would work.

I imagine the first thing the chinese government would demand in negotiations about such an agreement would be a lifting of the chip and distillation ban.

> Some may believe these measures make it more difficult to cooperate with China, but I believe the opposite is true: these measures increase the leverage held by democracies and make an agreement more likely in the future.

Everyone can believe what they like, but it seems to me the "leverage" in that case would exactly be the ability to lift those measures - you can't have both, use them as leverage and keep them active at the same time.

This contradiction "we have to make an agreement with China for mutual slowdown" but also "we have to ensure we will always stay ahead of China" would work. Its just fantasy. The only way to enforce this is with military force and the cost would be too unbearable. You could try trade restrictions but the previous tariffs did not work and doubt future ones will to. US citizens (and thus politicians) won't bear that pain. Thus at a minimum this contradiction will mean AI will continue to develop until both US and China are at the same level. Playing with logic gives you possible scenarios. If China catches up within 1 year then negotiations could begin. If China takes many years to catch up, say 6 months behind now, then next year 5 months behind, then year after 4 months behind then expect overall AI development to proceed at full speed. The one way you could do it is to negotiate to transfer direct technology to China that will ensure that they will have the capability to be on par with USA. Politicians won't do this publicly as they want to get elected but they could make a deal that appears to appeal to both sides while actually transferring technology.

This is the part I find being left surprisingly hand-wavey.

If you extrapolate it out, you see that it has a high likelihood of inciting physical force (read: military action) as a means of enforcement, so perhaps that's why nobody promoting ideals has been direct about it.

Probably thinks he has a better chance negotiating with China now than with misaligned AGI in the future.

Some people would like to have law that protects them but doesn't bind and for others to be bound but not protected.

They would like to slow down China while speeding ahead. Why wouldn't they want that?

Now they have to make that happen somehow.

Sure, Dario needs to decide first if he sees China as an enemy orva friend.

Limiting NVIDIA chips already turned China into silicon compete mode, and China is already far ahead in robotics.