CNA Explains: Why AI leaders are calling for a slowdown – and what makes it so difficult

The two countries could potentially reach narrow agreements where their interests converge – such as prohibiting the development of AI-enabled bioweapons – but a broader consensus on slowing the pace of AI development is less likely, Prof Hanh said.

“A broad agreement runs into a real zero-sum problem. If you hold back and the other side doesn’t, you lose,” he told CNA.

Mr Enriquez said diplomats may even have faced an easier task negotiating Cold War-era nuclear treaties than they would trying to incentivise a global AI slowdown.

Unlike the nuclear arms race, the AI race is not driven solely by military dominance. Economic gain is also a major incentive, with proponents arguing that AI will accelerate economic growth, create jobs and generate value.

While the Cold War nuclear race revolved around deterrence and the concept of mutually assured destruction, the value proposition of the AI race is different, Mr Enriquez said.

The range of parties driving the competition is also far broader.

“This is not only statewide competition. This is also corporate industry competition, and that can get really ruthless as well,” he said.

“The list of players that need to be aligned is so much bigger than what they were when the nuclear treaties were being signed.”

Mr Ang said the current level of distrust between nations could mean cooperation emerges only after a more serious incident.

“It may take a major AI-related incident, with serious impact to life, to bring them together to cooperate, assuming it does not drive them further apart,” he said.

Are major AI companies exaggerating the risks to slow competition?

There is also a more cynical interpretation of the calls for caution.

Critics have questioned whether the recent warnings from Anthropic and OpenAI are partly intended to generate hype around the capabilities of their products.

Both companies had been expected to launch their first IPOs this year, although OpenAI said last week that it would not go public in 2026 because of safety concerns surrounding AI.

An industry-wide slowdown could also protect today’s leading firms from new competition, Mr Ang pointed out. 

That does not mean efforts to slow development should be rejected, he said. But any internationally agreed rules and enforcement mechanisms would need to ensure that the biggest players themselves remain subject to scrutiny.

“While techno-libertarians often argue that rules slow innovation, and techno-determinists often argue that technology cannot be controlled, the reality is that society has always had to develop rules, law, and norms to shape how we use technology,” he said.

Mr Enriquez said that even if some of the risks raised over the past week prove to be overstated, stronger safety infrastructure and independent oversight of AI development are still needed.

“We are in a moment where at least they (leading AI companies) look like they are open to that regulation … (and) oversight, which is sorely lacking,” he said.

“It would be remiss to not capitalise on the moment.”

At the same time, experts said it was important to consider who would ultimately benefit from a slowdown.

Larger companies have the money, legal resources and influence to absorb compliance costs more easily than smaller players, said Mr Dutt.

“If the result (of a slowdown) is a rulebook smaller players cannot meet, the language of safety starts functioning as a market barrier,” he said.

“That does not make every call for caution cynical, but it is worth asking each time: who is actually being asked to slow down, and who is still free to keep moving?”