Why might U.S. AI lose to China? British media pointed out a hidden danger

Abstract:

The AI ​​craze is currently raising questions in the United States, and the construction of huge data centers has been boycotted by the public. Nur Laiq, a researcher at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the Financial Times,

If Americans believe that this technology was imposed on them rather than built with them, the United States will fall behind China in this race.

AI boom raises questions in the United States

The following is the full text of the article:

The United States has finally begun to seriously reflect across the country: Who should make the rules for a technology that has a transformative impact?

Last Wednesday, Meta reached a settlement agreement to pay up to $18 billion to 48 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., to compensate for the harm it caused to children.

The United States should not repeat the mistakes of social media when it comes to AI. Fundamental questions about the responsibility of Big Tech cannot wait until their platforms have changed the lives of an entire generation. The United States should learn from this lesson and take action before this new technology becomes more deeply integrated into work, education, government, and daily life.

This also raises a core question in the AI ​​era:

Who will decide how AI will shape the future of the United States?

So far, the answer is

Tech companies and politicians

. The public has been left out, relegated to the role of spectator, even as concerns about AI have cut across the political divide between Democrats and Republicans.

Polls show that

American people’s suspicion and distrust of this technology are growing

. Protests against data centers are spreading. Some tech CEOs were booed and even had their homes attacked.

It’s not a promising start for governing a technology that’s expected to impact every aspect of life. America needs a governance process that matches the scale of this revolutionary moment. It requires a national conversation about AI, one that can guide the country through a period of upheaval.

Building such a future is not just a technical issue, but also a social and ethical issue. Costa Rica offers a model worth learning from as it was the first country to start a democratic dialogue about AI.

In 2025, Costa Rica organized a national AI dialogue, inviting civil society, government, business and academia to participate. This dialogue is grounded in ethics and emphasizes balancing national competitiveness with human dignity, regulation and transparency. Iceland is taking a similar approach and plans to hold a national AI dialogue this fall.

In 2026, the United Nations held the first Global AI Governance Dialogue, which brought together representatives from governments, the private sector, and civil society to discuss issues such as AI's accessibility, security, accountability, and human supervision. But a dialogue at the global level cannot replace a national dialogue.

America needs a national dialogue

The White House and Congress should launch a year-long, bipartisan national dialogue on AI. This process requires formal government support, but the specific work should be carried out by an independent committee with members from politics, science and technology, business and labor, and support from research, education and civil society institutions.

The committee should first adopt an agenda-setting process to clarify transparent work mandates and ground rules. Relevant consultations should cover all groups and different voices in American society. It is necessary to not only listen to public opinions through extensive contacts, but also establish channels to truly incorporate public opinions into the entire decision-making process.

This dialogue needs to go beyond a Costa Rican discussion and ultimately develop a national AI roadmap to translate consensus into action. The roadmap should be integrated into legislation and accompanied by clear outcome targets, timetables and implementation and monitoring mechanisms.

Some people may say that AI is too complex for public discussion; or that AI is developing too fast, and neither the market nor China will wait for a town hall-style debate. Others will warn that the national dialogue could devolve into partisan showmanship or become a tool to legitimize decisions already made by power brokers in Silicon Valley and Washington.

These concerns do deserve to be taken seriously. But the public does not need to understand every detail of the operating mechanism of AI, and it also has the ability to participate in deciding the development direction of this technology and the future of American society.

A well-designed dialogue can actually benefit not only citizens, but Silicon Valley and the U.S. government. It would provide the tech industry with legitimacy and predictability to replace the growing number of ad hoc regulations at the state and federal levels. In 2025, state legislatures passed 196 AI-related laws. In 2026, 137 AI-related bills have been passed.

For the U.S. government, a dialogue would provide a public mandate for setting a national AI agenda. AI governance based on democratic legitimacy will also bring advantages to the United States.

The United States cannot win the AI ​​race if the American people believe that the AI ​​revolution is being forced upon them rather than being built with them. Public recognition is not an obstacle to U.S. competitiveness; it is precisely what is necessary for the U.S. to remain competitive.