Oxford China Policy Lab

Oxford China Policy Lab Director Scott S. features twice in Shakeel Hashim's excellent Transformer newsletter. Article one discusses US frontier strategy and other bits and pieces. Article two analyses where DeepSeek and its Chinese peers sit on AI Safety. Full note: https://lnkd.in/eHBDxaD4

Excited to share this piece on how Silicon Valley and Washington D.C. have considered DeepSeek's rise to prominence in the last week. Thank you to Bryanna Entwistle for her awesome contributions :) and to The Asia Foundation for bringing us together! Major thanks to Sam Hogg and Oxford China Policy Lab for helping me hone my ideas. And much appreciation to the The Diplomat for publishing the piece ~

“As in Washington, the China-U.S. narrative has become a driving force behind AI development in Silicon Valley.” Oxford China Policy Lab fellow Shannon Hong discusses how Silicon Valley and Washington DC analysed the latest DeepSeek model for The Diplomat. https://lnkd.in/eSRVuZ63

I contributed to this Institut Montaigne report on China’s future in 2035. Uncertainty limits my own predictions, but my main concern is Xi’s tendency for retrospective policymaking, or what I term a 'rearview mirror approach'. How will this shape decisions on Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the economy? Must he learn through missteps? His strategic reasoning remains unclear to me more often than not. https://lnkd.in/e6HgRWRz Oxford China Policy Lab

It's been a crazy couple weeks for the China AI team at Carnegie as we've watched DeepSeek's rise to public fame. That's why Matt Sheehan and I wanted to take a step back and think about what DeepSeek might reveal about the future of U.S.-China AI competition. Here's the tl;dr on our latest for Foreign Policy: We're at a critical juncture for frontier AI and geopolitics. DeepSeek's models are impressive in terms of capabilities and cost efficiency, and there are compelling reasons to believe China could continue to close the relative capabilities gap. On the other hand, absolute capabilities in both the U.S. and China are getting much better, with OpenAI rival Anthropic's CEO predicting we could see AI that is “smarter than almost all humans at almost all things” by 2026 or 2027. These rapid capabilities increases have spurred greater concern by some of the world's most respected AI scientists about catastrophic risks that they worry could emerge with increasingly powerful AI systems. At the end of the day, none of us know how the technology will progress, and it's not the job of policymakers to adjudicate among different camps. It is their job, however, to prepare for the different contingencies, including the possibility that the dire predictions come true. Given the complex and fast-evolving technical landscape, Matt and I outline two key policy objectives: 1) staying ahead of China in frontier AI capabilities while 2) preparing for a world in which both countries possess extraordinarily powerful—and potentially dangerous—AI systems. The national security community in Washington largely agrees we need to do the first. But the second is equally important and has been sorely neglected. Read on for more on how the U.S. can successfully achieve these dual imperatives:

"There are few meaningful parallels between DeepSeek’s release and the Sputnik launch." OCPL Fellow Huw Roberts analyses the release of DeepSeek's latest model for the Royal United Services Institute, and asks what a true Sputnik moment would look like. Link in comments 🔗

In my latest commentary for the Royal United Services Institute, I unpack why DeepSeek isn't a turning point in US-China AI competition and consider what a 'Sputnik Moment' for AI could look like. https://lnkd.in/eXzWmXhf Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford China Policy Lab

The first Oxford China Policy Lab newsletter of the year is out! We’d like to welcome the new kids on the block: - 20 talented OCPL Fellows - one exceptional non-resident expert - and, last but not least, DeepSeek’s market-shattering R1 model [Pic from Chinese NY celebrations!] Read the short newsletter here to get a view of what we're analysing, saying and watching. https://t.co/feSKo853FL

DeepSeek's emergence as a frontier AI player has put China’s AI ecosystem on the map around the world – just ask the U.S. stock market. But amidst growing concern about the risks increasingly powerful Chinese models pose, many have overlooked a fascinating development unfolding since Christmas: DeepSeek and a bunch of other Chinese companies have rolled out promises to safeguard their AI. And their commitments look remarkably similar to the ones mostly Western companies had signed onto at the International AI Summit in Seoul in May. The similarities in wording and focus are striking. Both sets of commitments emphasize: - Risk assessment across the AI lifecycle - Safety-focused organizational structures - Clear risk mitigation processes - Transparency about model capabilities and limitations Of course, differences remain. The Chinese commitments have explicit provisions for open source models, for example, while the Seoul commitments emphasize specific risk thresholds. And Chinese industry has more explicit government backing through affiliations with the Ministry of Innovation and Information Technology. But this convergence could be significant. China’s release of its AI Safety Commitments follows a pattern in China's AI governance: launching domestic initiatives that foreshadow international consensus. Similar dynamics played out when China released its Global AI Initiative domestically before signing the Bletchley Declaration as part of a global effort. As frontier models become more powerful - and potentially riskier - finding space for coordination on safety becomes increasingly critical. The upcoming Paris AI Summit in February will be a key test: will more Chinese companies sign onto the Seoul Commitments? My latest analysis for Carnegie explores what these commitments are, how they came about, and what it all means for international AI governance: https://lnkd.in/esgg_qyt

In May 2024, 16 frontier AI companies signed “Frontier AI Safety Commitments.” At the time, only one Chinese firm was among them. Fast forward nine months, and 17 Chinese companies have signed onto their own AI Safety Commitments, with strikingly similar language to the Seoul Commitments. Writing for Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Oxford China Policy Lab Director Scott S. explores the latest on frontier companies converging on safety and security measures. https://lnkd.in/ej29C8xF