The United States and China are weighing a new mechanism for notifying each other about major artificial intelligence incidents, opening a potential channel for cooperation on AI safety even as the two countries remain locked in a broader technology and trade rivalry.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that Washington proposed establishing an AI dialogue with Beijing during talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in New York. The proposed system would allow the world’s two leading AI powers to share information about incidents involving artificial intelligence that rise to the level of national security concerns.
The proposal is expected to be considered by U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping when they meet later this week.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
“We think that, just like with any cross-border activity, that moving from opaque to more transparency between the number one and the number two AI powers in the world is very important,” Bessent said after the talks.
The proposal represents an attempt to create a limited form of communication around AI risks at a time when the technology is becoming increasingly intertwined with national security, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure and military capabilities.
Yet the initiative remains preliminary. China’s state news agency Xinhua gave only a brief account of the AI discussion, saying the two sides exchanged views on AI without indicating whether Beijing had accepted the proposed notification mechanism.
Washington and Beijing have previously discussed establishing an AI consultation channel. Trump and Xi discussed potential consultations on AI development in May, but they never formally established the forum.
George Chen, a partner and chair of digital practice at The Asia Group, said the latest talks could provide a foundation for further discussions on more sensitive issues, including AI weaponization, safety principles, critical infrastructure protection and cyberattack prevention.
But he also pointed to the central obstacle: trust.
“AI talks will move forward, with future sessions expected to tackle more sensitive topics such as the weaponization of AI, principles for AI safety, protection of critical infrastructure, and cyber-attack prevention,” Chen said.
He added that prospects for deeper cooperation remain limited because of the low level of trust between Washington and Beijing and China’s perception that the United States is seeking to constrain its AI development.
AI Cooperation Amid Technology Rivalry
The proposed notification system would create an unusual channel of cooperation between two countries that are simultaneously competing for leadership in advanced AI and restricting each other’s access to critical technologies.
Bessent said the proposed mechanism would focus on “common goals and common threats” and cover AI-related incidents that reach a national security threshold. That could eventually give officials a way to communicate during an AI-related crisis without requiring the two countries to resolve their much wider disagreements over technology policy.
For now, however, the most contentious issues remain outside the proposed mechanism. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Washington’s restrictions on exports of advanced AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment were not part of the AI discussions.
That separation is deemed necessary because semiconductor controls remain one of the central pressure points in the U.S.-China technology relationship. Washington has sought to restrict China’s access to the most advanced computing hardware used to develop frontier AI systems, while Beijing has pushed to strengthen its domestic semiconductor industry.
The talks instead appear to be pursuing narrower areas where both governments could have an incentive to maintain communication.
“The fact that both sides agreed to continue the dialogue is significant,” Chen said.
The immediate test will be whether that dialogue can survive the strategic tensions surrounding the technology itself. A notification system would require both governments to share information about potentially sensitive AI incidents, making its effectiveness dependent on a level of transparency that neither side has consistently demonstrated in the broader technology relationship.
Trade Talks Offer Another Channel
AI was only one part of the New York discussions. Bessent and Greer also said the two sides discussed how to implement a process agreed in May under which Washington and Beijing would identify potential tariff reductions on a limited group of non-strategic goods.
Greer described the proposed “Board of Trade” as a mechanism for identifying a relatively small group of American and Chinese products that could be traded on more balanced terms.
Potential Chinese exports could include consumer and other low-tech goods, while U.S. exports could include energy, agricultural products and medical devices, according to Greer.
The discussions did not produce a public breakthrough on critical minerals, another major unresolved issue. U.S. officials have continued to argue that China’s easing of restrictions on critical-mineral exports has not gone far enough. Nor did Bessent and Greer provide updates on commitments discussed during the May Trump-Xi meeting, including China’s pledge to increase purchases of U.S. agricultural goods by $17 billion a year and its reported commitment to purchase more than 200 Boeing aircraft.
Nevertheless, the limited progress illustrates the broader character of the talks. Rather than resolving the underlying disputes between Washington and Beijing, the negotiations are creating narrower areas where both sides can keep trade and technology channels open.
Analysts believe that approach may be necessary for AI. The technology is simultaneously an economic opportunity, a source of national-security risk, and an arena of strategic competition. The proposed notification mechanism would not resolve those competing interests, but it could provide a communication channel if an AI incident threatens to escalate beyond the technology sector.