Beijing Pushes Back Against U.S. Allegations on Chinese AI, Warns Against Politicising Technology Competition

Abinash Sharma

China has firmly rejected U.S. allegations that Chinese artificial intelligence companies copied or improperly used American technology, urging Washington not to turn technological competition into a campaign of political accusation and reputational damage.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a regular press briefing on September 9 that China’s advances in artificial intelligence are the result of high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and sustained domestic research and development.

The Chinese response followed reports that U.S. authorities and related institutions had accused some Chinese AI companies of using technologies associated with leading American models inappropriately. Beijing has rejected such claims and has called on the United States to avoid making what it describes as false accusations against China.

Mao said China has consistently supported consultation, joint development, shared benefits and open cooperation in artificial intelligence. She stressed that AI should develop in an open, inclusive and beneficial direction and serve the interests of humanity as a whole.

She also urged the United States to seriously implement the important understandings reached between the leaders of the two countries and to stop making what Beijing regards as unfounded allegations and attempts to discredit China.

The central weakness in the U.S. argument is that it risks blurring the distinction between common AI research practices and proven intellectual property theft. Techniques such as model distillation are widely used across the AI industry. Whether a particular use is lawful or improper depends on the specific method, licensing terms, access conditions and intellectual property rules involved.

For that reason, broadly portraying the development of China’s AI sector as the product of copying or theft, without transparent technical and legal evidence, risks turning a complex technological issue into a geopolitical accusation.

The dispute also comes against the backdrop of expanding U.S. export controls designed to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductors, chipmaking equipment and high-end AI technologies. In that environment, Chinese companies have invested heavily in domestic chips, large language models, cloud computing and AI infrastructure.

Washington’s restrictions have, in practice, accelerated China’s drive for technological self-reliance. The rapid progress of Chinese AI companies has also intensified competition with major U.S. technology firms and challenged assumptions about long-term American dominance in the sector.

This makes the current dispute more than a narrow question of intellectual property. It is also part of a broader strategic contest over leadership in artificial intelligence, computing power, semiconductor supply chains and the future rules governing digital technology.

If there is credible evidence that a particular company violated laws, contractual obligations or intellectual property rights, that evidence should be presented through transparent legal and technical procedures. But treating the technological development of an entire country as inherently suspicious because of nationality risks undermining fair competition and global scientific cooperation.

China’s position is that its AI progress is rooted in scientific research, a vast domestic market, a large pool of engineering talent, industrial capacity and sustained investment in technology. Beijing therefore views sweeping U.S. accusations as an extension of strategic pressure rather than an objective assessment of China’s innovation capabilities.

Artificial intelligence presents both major opportunities and serious risks for humanity. Cybersecurity, data protection, intellectual property, biological risks and the misuse of advanced AI all require dialogue between the world’s two largest technology powers.

Against that background, politically charged accusations without publicly demonstrated evidence are unlikely to strengthen global AI governance. They are more likely to deepen technological fragmentation and accelerate the division of the global digital economy into competing blocs.

As Mao Ning emphasised, China and the United States are both major powers in artificial intelligence. Rather than framing every technological advance through suspicion and restriction, the two countries would serve broader global interests more effectively by establishing clearer rules for competition, transparency, security and cooperation.