DeepSeek mirrors framework that empowers all

For the best part of the last four decades, US Big Tech has in effect been global Big Tech. US companies have stamped their leadership in hardware, software and applications — delivering and controlling key operating systems, platforms and services that by and large made up the global technological ecology.

United States-based research labs have cornered the market for global talent, enabling the perspectives of US companies to dominate the mechanisms by which global technology standards have been set.

READ MORE: DeepSeek is reshaping AI industry

The hallmark of US Big Tech has been a business model that incorporates proprietary technologies with substantial linkages to government finance. Silicon Valley would not be what it is today without deep and lasting connections to the US military-industrial complex. Pentagon contracting laid the groundwork for Silicon Valley’s renaissance in the 1990s, launching the current generation of dominant players.

Dominance of the technological landscape has enabled the US to exercise considerable influence over the institutions that enable global commerce, enabling the US state to weaponize foundational digital infrastructure.

The expansion of US Big Tech over the past three decades enabled technologies to be turned into “tools of domination” by Washington, as documented by US researchers Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman in their book Underground Empire.

And now, as we head into an era that is likely to be dominated by the development and application of artificial intelligence, a similar pattern of institutional configuration is evident in the US.

While much of the Pentagon’s annual appropriations still goes to conventional weapons systems, and the usual grab-bag of defense sector contractors, a new political economy is emerging that entangles the threads of Big Tech, venture capital, and private equity.

According to a 2024 study by Roberto Gonzalez for the Costs of War Project, the centrality of data has focused the minds of Pentagon planners. This, “coupled with years of ‘AI hype’, generated by tech leaders, venture capitalists, and business reporters … played a crucial role in sparking the interest of military leaders who have come to view Silicon Valley’s newest innovations as indispensable warfighting tools,” he noted.

It is no surprise that the “Princes” of Silicon Valley occupied pride of place at Donald Trump’s inauguration in January as the 47th US president.

The development of AI in the US has largely been cloistered within a proprietary environment. Venture capital and private equity finance promote a technology business model that aims for sector dominance. “Category killer” is the catchphrase, which encapsulates the idea that technology platform monetization is premised on the ability to eradicate competition.

Under the new Trump administration, the US is doubling down on this foundational political-economic model. It sees US AI dominance as central to maintaining global primacy and is willing to exploit its control over key elements of the total technology stack to enforce its own priorities and imperatives.

Control over key semiconductor design technologies, critical algorithms, and applications through corporations such as OpenAI (the developer of ChatGPT), Alphabet, Meta and Elon Musk’s various firms is seen as pivotal to dictating who can access what technologies and under what conditions.

The US speaks of a need to enable AI development to flourish in a low-regulation environment, believing that concerns about AI and “safety” would be impediments to its development.

Minimal regulatory constraints in this case are a proxy for US Big Tech being relieved of the need to comply with regulatory requirements demanded by non-US jurisdictions. Again, the modus operandi is to enforce an environment in which US technology becomes de facto global technology.

The US speaks of a world of AI free of ideological bias all the while promoting an AI vision that is fully invested in the biases of US exceptionalism and primacy.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks of unipolarity as an unnatural state, and the reality of multipolarity, while US Big Tech and associated government policies and strategies remain trained on a model that seeks to perpetuate US technological dominance. This dominance underpins the US’ ability to exert control over the affairs of other countries and expropriate resources and wealth from others.

Modern-day sanctions and associated punitive efforts are made possible because of US domination of the technological systems that enable global trade and finance. The US has successfully prosecuted regime change operations across the globe, enabled by its control over the information production and distribution networks, as recently revealed in the US Agency for International Development imbroglio. A proprietary AI, aligned to the interests of the US state, untrammeled by global governance norms, is a means of perpetuating these capabilities under new conditions.

If the US’ intentions are insufficiently clear or are too opaque behind the glossy rhetoric of innovation, freedom and the absence of censorship, its fundamental strategic intent is laid bare by the fact that the US and the United Kingdom refused to sign the Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable AI for People and the Planet.

Signed by 60 others, including France, China and India, the declaration pledged an “open”, “inclusive”, and “ethical” approach to AI’s development, “making AI sustainable for people and the planet”.

ALSO READ: AI needs global consensus on its governance

The US approach is not interested in accessibility, except on its own terms. National sovereign development including the area of AI requires a different framework. China has advanced a framework that aims to promote a genuinely open approach to AI development and adoption.

This is a genuine contribution to global discussions about multilateral governance of critical public infrastructure and capabilities. Rather than seek to impose another ideological vision on other countries, China’s proposal lays the foundation for countries around the world to be empowered to explore and pursue their own vision of AI development within a framework that underscores a responsible approach.

Nations now face distinct visions for the governance of the development and use of AI. On the one hand, there is the model of the techno-rentier, anchored by proprietary technology models, aligned with the interests of a single nation-state.

This is US exclusivity in practice. On the other hand, the launch of China’s DeepSeek as an open-source platform, coupled with the fact that the model can run on non-US developed and manufactured chips, proves that the world now has real options.

The author is an adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology and a senior fellow at the Taihe Institute. The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.