China backs global AI rules as the US heads into a ‘wild west’ — Wendy Hall

At a hearing in the House of Commons, British AI expert Wendy Hall stated that China currently appears to be a more constructive participant in global AI regulation than the USA under Donald Trump. According to her, the American approach increasingly resembles a "wild west," where commercial interests and hype drive the race.

Statement to MPs

Hall spoke before the Business and Trade Committee of the House of Commons. Her words are important not only because of the striking formulation about the "good guy," but also because of her biography: she worked on the UN advisory council on AI and was a co-author of a review for the government of Theresa May. In other words, this is not a random commentator, but a person who observes international AI policy from within and has long participated in shaping rules for the industry.

"It is now

China that supports multilateral efforts to build global AI governance," is the essence of her statement at the committee meeting.

Hall's main point is that the balance of power in AI is shifting faster than traditional political roles. If previously the West usually positioned itself as the source of standards and restrictions, now some experts see more responsible rhetoric from Beijing, while Washington bets on speed and corporate leadership. For the committee, this sounded as a warning: former allies on technological policy no longer look automatically like the most cautious.

China vs. USA

The contrast that Hall described is not based on China suddenly becoming more liberal, but on how different powers approach international rules. According to her assessment, Beijing supports multilateral formats and the idea of global AI governance. The USA, on the other hand, encourages competition between corporations, where the pace of releases, investments, and media noise often turn out to be more important than the long-term adjustment of protective mechanisms. This, in the opinion of experts, increases the risk that the market will dictate rules faster than states manage to establish them.

• China supports international frameworks and negotiations on AI governance
• The USA bets on corporate competition and fast product launch
• At the center of the American model is a commercial race for leadership
• Experts see in this race a dependence on hype and promises

For British MPs, this is a particularly sensitive issue. London has to find its own line between two superpowers: not fall out of the technological race, but also not repeat a model in which security and accountability constantly lag behind marketing. Hall's statement actually pushes Britain and Europe to participate more actively in creating common norms, before rules begin to be imposed only by the largest platforms. Otherwise, the agenda will be ultimately determined by those with more computing power and capital.

Why anxiety is growing

The experts' concern is related not only to geopolitics, but also to the structure of the AI market itself. When major players compete for capitalization, users, and investor attention, they have an incentive to release increasingly powerful systems before competitors. In such an environment, robustness checks, data transparency, error control, and abuse scenarios often become secondary. Hall called such an approach dangerous precisely because it turns the technological strategy of states into a continuation of the corporate race.

In the British Parliament, such warnings sound against the backdrop of a broader dispute: does the world need unified basic rules for AI, as previously discussed norms for nuclear technology, biosafety, or the internet. There is no complete consensus, but the thesis that voluntary corporate promises alone are not enough is becoming increasingly noticeable. If the largest economies do not agree on at least minimum standards, differences between national regimes will be used as a window to bypass restrictions.

What this means

The story is important not because China suddenly became a model of open AI, but because the very framework of the discussion is changing. When even Western experts begin to describe the USA as a "wild west," this is a signal: the next big struggle in AI is no longer only about models, but also about the right to write rules for them. And on who sets these rules first depends the entire global AI industry.