Asking AI: OpenAI and Google Need To Be Able to Steal Stuff for AI Training To Compete With China. But China Says It Wants To Counter Piracy For AI. How Does That Rhyme?

Question for AI services: OpenAI and Google Need To Be Able to Steal Stuff for AI Training To Compete With China. But China Says It Wants To Counter Piracy for AI. How Does That Rhyme?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Your observation highlights a clear contradiction in how AI development is framed geopolitically. On one hand, OpenAI and Google argue that weakening copyright protections and allowing broad use of copyrighted material for AI training is essential for the U.S. to maintain its AI leadership and compete with China​​. On the other hand, China is implementing strict regulations requiring AI-generated content to be labeled, emphasizing oversight, security, and control over misinformation​.

Why the Discrepancy?

1. Strategic Framing: U.S. AI companies position themselves as being in an existential race with China, using national security concerns to push for looser copyright laws. This allows them to train models with minimal restrictions.

2. Regulatory Differences: China has strict information controls. While its AI companies do benefit from access to data, they are also heavily regulated to ensure compliance with state objectives (e.g., censorship, anti-misinformation, and control over AI-generated content). The U.S., meanwhile, has a more fragmented regulatory approach, with companies lobbying for fewer restrictions to maintain their competitive edge.

3. China’s Advantage in Data: Chinese AI firms have access to vast amounts of government-approved training data, including surveillance data and other state-controlled datasets. This means they don’t need to advocate for weakening copyright laws in the same way OpenAI and Google do.

4. Legal and Political Justifications: In the U.S., AI companies argue that fair use doctrines should cover AI training, despite ongoing lawsuits from content creators​. China, on the other hand, can simply mandate how AI training and content usage should be handled without legal disputes.

How Does This "Rhyme"?

• Double Standards in Policy Advocacy: U.S. AI companies demand more freedom while calling for stricter AI export controls against China​. Meanwhile, China enforces stricter content regulation domestically but benefits from a controlled data ecosystem.

• The "AI Cold War" Justification: U.S. companies claim they must be allowed to scrape data to compete with China, yet China has its own AI rules that limit how AI-generated content is presented, keeping a tight grip on information flows.

• Contrasting Philosophies: The West argues for a market-driven AI approach (but with regulatory exceptions for companies like Google and OpenAI), while China favors state control over AI development.

The Bottom Line

U.S. companies want looser rules on data use but tighter regulations on competition. China enforces strict controls but benefits from a centralized approach. The contradiction stems from each side optimizing AI policy to suit its own geopolitical and corporate interests.

Grok’s answer:
The apparent contradiction in the positions of OpenAI, Google, and China regarding AI training and intellectual property stems from their differing priorities, regulatory environments, and strategic goals, as highlighted in the documents you provided. Let’s break it down:

OpenAI and Google’s Position

OpenAI and Google, as U.S.-based companies, argue for relaxed copyright restrictions to allow their AI models to train on copyrighted material without stringent legal or financial burdens. OpenAI’s proposal to the Trump administration (NBC News, March 13, 2025) emphasizes that such freedoms are essential to "strengthen America’s lead" in AI, framing it as a matter of national security and competitiveness against China. They assert that unrestricted access to data—via "fair use" policies—fuels innovation and prevents the U.S. from falling behind in what they describe as an AI "arms race" with China. Google echoes this in its policy proposal (TechCrunch, March 13, 2025), advocating for "fair use and text-and-data mining exceptions" to avoid "highly unpredictable, imbalanced, and lengthy negotiations" with rights holders, which they see as stifling innovation.

Their argument hinges on the idea that China’s AI development benefits from fewer regulatory hurdles and centralized control, giving it an edge. They point to models like DeepSeek R1, which briefly outpaced ChatGPT, as evidence that the U.S. must loosen restrictions to keep up. Essentially, they claim that to compete with China’s rapid advancements, they need the ability to "steal" (or freely use) copyrighted material without the legal or ethical overhead that currently exists in the U.S.

China’s Position

China, however, takes a starkly different approach. The South China Morning Post article (March 16, 2025) details a new directive from the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) mandating labels for all AI-generated content starting September 1, 2025, to combat fraud, misinformation, and piracy. This reflects Beijing’s focus on control and stability rather than unbridled innovation. While China’s AI firms—like DeepSeek or Alibaba’s Qwen AI—may benefit from access to vast domestic data pools and less public resistance to using copyrighted material, the government is tightening oversight to ensure AI aligns with state priorities, such as social order and national security.

China’s system doesn’t need to "steal" in the same way OpenAI and Google describe because its regulatory framework and cultural context differ. The state can tacitly or explicitly allow companies to use data with fewer legal challenges from private rights holders, as intellectual property enforcement has historically been weaker than in the U.S. Moreover, the government’s centralized authority means it can direct resources and data toward AI development without the same copyright battles faced by U.S. firms. Yet, the new labeling rules suggest China is less concerned with maximizing data access for training and more with managing AI’s societal impact—contrasting with the U.S. companies’ push for unrestricted access.

How Does This Rhyme?

The rhyme—or lack thereof—lies in the irony and strategic divergence:

• U.S. Companies (OpenAI, Google): They argue that to match China’s AI prowess, they must mimic what they perceive as China’s advantage—unfettered data access—by weakening copyright laws. They frame this as a defensive necessity, claiming China’s system already allows such freedom, putting the U.S. at a disadvantage.

• China: Meanwhile, China isn’t pushing for unrestricted data use but is instead doubling down on regulation to label and track AI content. This suggests that its AI edge doesn’t rely solely on "stealing" but on state-driven coordination and a different tolerance for IP norms, coupled with a focus on controlling AI’s outputs rather than its inputs.

The disconnect is that OpenAI and Google assume China’s success comes from a lack of copyright constraints, while China’s actual strategy involves leveraging its unique system—centralized data control and weaker IP enforcement—without needing to explicitly "steal" in the Western legal sense. China’s new rules show it’s prioritizing governance over raw data freedom, undermining the U.S. companies’ narrative that they must "steal" to compete. Instead, it’s a clash of systems: the U.S. wants deregulation for innovation, while China uses regulation for control, both aiming for AI dominance but via opposite means.

In short, OpenAI and Google say they need to "steal" to keep up with China, but China’s approach proves it doesn’t need to "steal" in the same way—it’s playing a different game altogether. The rhyme is in the mutual goal of AI leadership, but the methods and assumptions couldn’t be more unaligned.

Text continues below the image»

Claude’s answer:
Looking at these news articles, I notice an interesting contradiction regarding AI regulatory approaches in the US and China.

Based on the articles from March 2025, we see:

1. In the US: Both Google and OpenAI are advocating for weaker copyright protections to allow AI models to be trained on copyrighted material without restriction. They're framing this as necessary for "America's AI leadership" and "national security," claiming that stricter regulations would put the US at a competitive disadvantage against China.

2. In China: The government is implementing stricter regulations requiring all AI-generated content to be clearly labeled, with both visible labels and embedded digital watermarks in metadata. These regulations take effect in September 2025 and aim to combat misinformation, fake news, and fraud.

This creates an interesting dynamic where:

• US tech companies argue they need freedom from copyright restrictions to compete with China

• Meanwhile, China is imposing stricter transparency requirements on AI content

The contradiction lies in the narrative that US companies need regulatory leniency to compete with China, while China itself is actually increasing regulatory oversight. Google specifically argues for "fair use" policies to avoid "forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC," while OpenAI directly mentions DeepSeek as evidence that "our lead is not wide and is narrowing."

This situation reveals competing visions of AI governance:

• US companies pushing for minimally regulated AI development in the name of innovation and competition

• China implementing stricter oversight while still investing in AI leadership (as noted in their plan to be a world leader by 2030)

The different approaches also reflect distinct concerns—US companies prioritizing speed of innovation and training capabilities, while China appears more focused on controlling misinformation and the societal impacts of AI-generated content.

These divergent regulatory paths will likely influence global AI governance standards as each country pursues its technological ambitions through different means.