Anonymous (ID: dnpcdFOC)
09/12/26(Sat)13:54:21 No.542480398

File: 1784486631550530.jpg (1.83 MB, 1250x1618)

1.83 MB JPG

Anonymous (ID: dnpcdFOC) 09/12/26(Sat)13:54:21 No.542480398

If we use the benchmark, dual use for cyber, intel, autonomous systems, surveillance, then both US and China are openly doing planning to use AI for military. It is not secret, it is doctrine.

By military and state power benchmark

#1 US is ahead on raw capability and containment. The proof is in the government actions themselves. GPT 5.6 was delayed by US gov for national security risks, GPT 6 Astra was flagged as first model to hit Critical cybersecurity threshold, and Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos were pulled from market for a month in June for security review. That only happens if the models can do things like find zero days, automate exploit chains, or scale cyber ops. The US approach is build the most powerful model, then keep it closed and put a national security gate on it. Advantage is still six to twelve months ahead on frontier reasoning and autonomous cyber.

#2 China is ahead on proliferation and state integration. Official policy is Military Civil Fusion, any big model can be requisitioned. Their play is opposite, make the most powerful open weight model in the world, Kimi K3 at 2.8 trillion params, and give it a 1M context window so anyone can download and fine tune it for their own state or military use. You do not need to contain it if your goal is mass proliferation. Advantage is faster deployment into surveillance, censorship, and field systems at low cost. A model that is 95 percent as good but costs 10 percent to run wins for large scale authoritarian use.

So if the race is who has the most dangerous single model, US is ahead. If the race is who can put AI into every camera, drone, and cyber unit cheapest and fastest, China is ahead.

That is why the US is trying to control chips and force closed models, and China is flooding the world with open weight models. Two different paths to the same end.