Josh Rogin
Role at the time: Lead Global Security Analyst, The Washington Post
Statement summary
Josh Rogin argued that China's own extensive AI regulation disproves the claim that U.S. regulation would let China win the AI race, calling that argument self-serving, while distinguishing Chinese AI regulation (aimed at protecting the Communist Party) from the privacy- and democracy-focused regulation he says the U.S. needs.
“This idea that if we regulate AI, that China will win, is not true. And the way that we know that is because China regulates AI. They have the most regulation of their AI than any country in the world... So the tech bros in the U.S. that say if we regulate AI, the Chinese going to win - that's a self-serving argument. That isn't true.”
Why we used this label
The reference point is Washington's current approach to frontier-AI safety, which relies on company self-regulation, voluntary commitments and existing federal powers. Rogin calls the argument that U.S. regulation would let China win self-serving and untrue, noting China's own AI rules, and says the United States needs regulation that protects privacy, data and democracy. He rejects the main argument offered for the current approach, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization; it loses because he goes beyond disputing the argument to call for regulation.