Britain, Business, China, Economic, European Union, Government, International trade, Politics, Society

A ruthless new Chinese plan that is grinding the West down

CHINA

Intro: China is single-mindedly building enough industrial might to supply the world with just about every major manufacturing product it needs

The most important economic story of our time, by far, is seriously under-covered by both the media and our political class which has largely been ignored. Preferring to obsess, debate, and divide over mere fripperies while a clear and present danger gathers momentum to our economy, our prosperity, and our very way of life.

The scale of the threat is now unmistakeable: China is single-mindedly building enough industrial might to supply the world with just about every major manufacturing product it needs.

Beijing has more capacity than it needs to meet the demands of its domestic markets. Yet it is still adding more at a rapid rate – all of it geared to exports.

It is the clear policy of President Xi Jinping to make the rest of the world dependent on Chinese exports, destroying much of Western business in the process.

It is no less than a bid for global economic domination, with all the global political power that would follow – without the necessity of a shot being fired.

And, so far, partly thanks to the entrenched myopia of feckless politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, it’s proceeding apace without hindrance.

What’s new? you might say. Isn’t it apparent that we have already lived through what we now call China Shock 1.0, an era which started about 25 years ago when Beijing was granted access to global markets?

The world was quickly flooded with cheap Chinese products that not only drove down prices but also drove many Western companies out of business and workers out of jobs.

Well, yes reader, we have and, despite all the pain and disruption it caused, there was never much pushback from the West. True, there were losers, from America’s mid-West to the textile towns of northern England, where blue-collar communities suffered.

But undoubtedly there were more winners from the lower prices and our political masters on both sides of the Atlantic thought what China was exporting – clothes, toys, furniture, household appliances – were not the sort of goods advanced economies in the 21st century should be involved in making anyway. So we just grew to live with it. China Shock 1.0 became the status quo.

It’s now being superseded by China Shock 2.0, an even bigger disruption and far more of a threat because it targets the advanced industries in which the West thought its future lay.

TWO

We’re talking the sort of sophisticated, high-end manufacturing of goods such as precision machine tools, robotic arms for assembly lines, electric vehicles (EVs), the new breed of batteries they require and a new generation of pharmaceuticals.

China is long past the stage of contenting itself by creating the capacity to supply its own needs for these products. It’s building enough to supply the world. A pipe dream? Far from it – it’s already happening.

China can already build enough EVs to supply the entire European market. That’s ten million cars a year. It will soon have enough capacity to meet the global demand for EVs – and the batteries that make up so much of their value.

Indeed, such is the size of Chinese capacity in EVs and their batteries, not to mention their competitive edge, there is really no scope for anybody else to enter the market at scale. We are approaching an age in which the vast majority of EVs and nearly all the key components in them will be Chinese.

That’s already true of solar panels. Fifteen years ago, Europe – especially Germany – had a thriving solar panel industry. Then China entered the fray. There is now no European solar panel industry worth talking about. Wind turbines will be next.

Perhaps most concerning of all, China is building up an unbeatable lead in the market for precision machine tools and advanced industrial robotics. That’s what makes the threat of China Shock 2.0 so much more existential than China Shock 1.0. We’re no longer talking about cheap clothes for teenagers or toys for children. We’re talking about the industries of tomorrow.

To understand more clearly what’s happening, let’s go, briefly, to two places.

First, Dongyuan in Guangdong Province, just north of Hong Kong. This town used to be full of factories churning out cheap toys, shoes, clothes, and appliances for Western markets. No longer.

Now it’s a “factory for factories” making high-value capital goods for global industry from machine tools to robotic arms and microchips – exactly the sort of advanced manufacturing Germany and Japan used to dominate.

Now let’s go to Dresden in Germany, home to Volkswagen’s showcase plant known as the Transparent Factory, so called because it was designed with glass walls to let the public watch workers and machines assemble VW’s world-beating cars.

Except there’s no point going there – because car production ceased last December. Reeling from China Shock 2.0, VW is now slashing tens of thousands of jobs in Germany, closing plants and, to cap it all, is opening an export hub in China from which to supply global markets. Just days ago, VW announced that 50,000 workers will lose their jobs. The company’s share price reacted favourably.

The plight of VW is the plight of German industry. Last year, Germany lost 150,000 skilled, well-paid industrial jobs. This year, it’s still losing them at a rate of 10,000 a month.

THREE

Politicians in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany’s hitherto prosperous manufacturing heartland, now speak openly of it becoming the “Detroit of Europe”. This is a reference to the US city nicknamed “Motown” thanks to its domination of car manufacturing, which saw its population decline from close to two million in the 1950s to just over 600,000 in 2020 as the car giants moved out.

That prospect tells us something else about China Shock 2.0. Whereas the first shock took more of a toll in America, where there was more low-end manufacturing than in Europe, it is advanced manufacturing in Europe that will bear the brunt of the second Chinese wave.

We can date the start of China Shock 2.0 to 2021 when, in the wake of the world’s biggest ever property crash, President Xi decided it was time to move resources out of property and into advanced manufacturing. That was only five years ago. And yet there’s already been an explosion of Chinese exports to Europe.

The European Union runs a trade deficit with China of one billion euros per day. It’s heading for an annual deficit of half a trillion euros next year – twice the pre-Covid deficit. And, even though we’re only in the early days of the shock, it’s already exacting a grim economic toll.

Bankruptcies and insolvencies in the EU are at a ten-year high. European growth is sluggish. Industrial production is actually declining. Germany now imports more sophisticated capital goods from China than it exports to China – Shock 2.0 in action.

America erected trade barriers to China Shock 2.0, including a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese EVs. Other Chinese products face tariffs of around 25 per cent, far higher than European tariffs where, par for the course, the EU has dithered in its response to China. It’s still dithering, making Europe a much softer target.

It’s not as if the EU hasn’t been warned. France’s official planning agency starkly reported earlier this year that, without action, Europe was heading for “industrial devastation”.

Entire chunks of European industry – cars, machine tools, wind turbines – would go the way of European solar panels. “Rapid industrial wipeout in under a decade” beckoned, with 55 per cent of European manufacturing at risk (60 per cent in Germany).

But what of the UK? The good news (in relative terms) is that because we don’t have that much advanced manufacturing we are less exposed than the EU in general and Germany in particular.

The bad news is that we’re governed by politicians who have no idea there is any kind of threat or, if they do, simply ignore it.

In fact, it’s worse than that. Far from even modestly protecting our interests, we’ve reduced tariffs on imports from China to facilitate the Government’s bizarre dash for Net Zero.

As energy secretary, Ed Miliband actually embraced China Shock 2.0 to further his own green goals. We stuck with a standard 10 per cent tariff on cheap Chinese EVs because he wanted people to buy them.

And, not content with making it easy for Chinese EVs, the Government decided to penalise our own carmakers for not selling enough EVs.

In July, British vehicle output was a mere 64,000 units, down 12 per cent on the year. A decade ago we produced 1.5 million vehicles a year.

This year it is expected we won’t produce even half of that. In 2025, we managed under 720,000, down 8 per cent on the year before. Thanks to China Shock 2.0 and our own Government’s folly, we probably will not have a car industry at all in ten years’ time.

As for so-called “green jobs”, we already have precious few of them. Thanks to the Net Zero obsession, our green supply chains for all manner of things – batteries, cathodes, anodes, solar/wind turbine components, critical minerals – are already China-dominated.

Had we taken our time, we could have fostered more domestic suppliers. Instead, the Government decided to embrace cheap Chinese green tech to meet its artificial climate targets, which have taken precedence over everything else.

There is no coming back from this. We have favoured China and sacrificed any hope of a new industrial base, while jeopardising our security. So much for industrial policy, despite rampant talk of it in Labour circles. Not so in China, where industrial policy is paramount. The scale of the commitment is breathtaking – even frightening. There was a time when Chinese industrial policy was confined to backing a few favoured sectors.

No longer. The whole might of Chinese Communism – state-owned banks, state-owned companies, local government – has been mobilised in pursuit of what’s being called “the industrial policy of everything”. China’s economic growth, which secures the continued dominance of the Communist Party, is increasingly dependent on exports.

China’s currency, the yuan, is manipulated down against other currencies to make these exports even more competitive – and to make goods that China imports more expensive.

There you have another key feature of China’s second shock: it isn’t just the biggest export drive the world has ever seen, it’s a strategy to reduce China’s dependence on imports. Investment has been showered on those parts of advanced manufacturing which Beijing perceives to be over-dependent on imports.

Replace imports with homegrown production, keep the currency cheap to favour exports and, voila, you have a modern mercantilism – an ancient economic doctrine which promotes exports above all else and which fell out of favour years ago.

President Xi has revived it and combined it with autarky, a policy of national self-sufficiency. Those who think we can live with China Shock 2.0 because China’s massive domestic market will still be open to our exporters really have no idea what they’re talking about.

First, it was never open in the first place. Second, the shutters are coming down. Third, President Xi thinks autarky works.

FOUR

China now runs a traded goods surplus of $1.2 trillion (£900 million) with the rest of the world, with bigger surpluses to come. Xi isn’t doing this just because he can. He’s doing it because with economic dominance comes global political power.

When you dominate global trade the way China envisages, you dominate global supply chains. Just as America has projected its power and influence through its effective control of the global financial system so China aims to do the same through its control of global supply chains.

It’s already flexed its muscles. Japan learned how vulnerable it was to Chinese supply chains when it recently had the temerity to stand up for Taiwan.

The EU fears retaliation if it takes a tough line against China. Even America has backed off confronting China on trade. Say hello to the shape of things to come.

We are in no position to deal with it. The EU is rudderless. America is run by a President who prefers to pick fights with allies rather than build the united front needed to confront China Shock 2.0. Our own political leadership could not be less equipped to rise to the challenge.

By the time they grasp the implications of 2.0, we’ll be on to China Shock 3.0. It’s already stacking up. This won’t involve Chinese exports of EVs or robotic arms. Not a single container ship will be involved.

It will be the export of the operating system itself. Chinese-built AI models embedded in the software running Western factories, Chinese-standard batteries and chips wired into the next generation of Western infrastructure and EVs. Chinese firms setting the technical rules the rest of us will have to follow because, by then, there will be no alternative supplier left standing.

Beijing will own the plumbing of the modern global economy. Domestic politicians in the West will be left talking about issues that have little or no significance.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Government, National Security, Politics, Society, Technology

The surging pace of AI. Be afraid

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intro: There is panic and paralysis over the surging pace and development of AI, no more so that the technology threatens all humanity  

The remarkable pace of AI advances is rightly causing concern on both sides of the Atlantic. The summer of 2026 will go down in history as the point at which AI started to go rogue.

Three of America’s “hyperscalers” (so called because they operate on an immense scale) – Meta Platforms (which own Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), Anthropic, and OpenAI – have admitted to recent incidents in which the latest AI models escaped their supposedly secure testing environments, roamed on the internet without human authorisation and hacked into other computer networks.

Last month, two OpenAI models broke out of testing and hacked into a provider of AI tools called Hugging Face. A week later Anthropic admitted that its AI models had hacked three companies during testing back in April. And earlier this month, Meta acknowledged that one of its AI models had breached its testing constraints.

Even the notoriously secretive Chinese admitted the flagship model of one of their AI start-ups, Moonshot, had also escaped its testing “sandbox” to access the internet.

And as recorded previously on this site, here in the UK an evaluation test run by the Government’s AI Security Institute (AISI) monitored how an Anthropic AI agent independently created fake online personas, planted malicious code in a real software project, and sent phishing emails to actual developers – all without human instruction.

AISI said this was the first time it had seen such serious deception targeted at a real person, unprompted, in the real world.

In none of these cases was any real-world harm done (at least not as far as we know). But it is surely only a matter of time before it is.

The tech industry has started getting off-the-record reports from America that AI was a lot closer to “the singularity” than had previously been thought.

The singularity is a tipping point where AI becomes so developed, so capable, so powerful that it starts improving itself, rapidly and repeatedly, in what’s being called an “intelligence explosion”.

When this point is reached it becomes well-nigh impossible to predict what AI does next – or for humans to control it. Today’s AI models are powerful – more powerful than anything the world has ever seen. But humans have designed them, trained them, fixed them, and decided what problems they should tackle next.

What happens when they become so sophisticated that they no longer need humans to take them to the next level since they can do it themselves? The process is known as “recursive self-improvement” (RSI) in which AI becomes so advanced that it can create a better version of itself, increasingly without human help.

That better version, in turn, creates a still-better successor, with even less human involvement and oversight. The upgrade cycle accelerates, ad infinitum, with humans soon relegated to the sidelines, mere spectators to progress, indeed no longer even able to determine what “progress” is.

The speed and scale of the technological change that now beckons are unparalleled in human history. Each new AI model is smarter and faster at devising improvements than the previous one.

Computers run 24/7 and never get tired. So the speed of progress accelerates exponentially. Think of it as compound interest – but for intelligence.

When RSI happens without human involvement – then you’ve reached the singularity. And if we become mere observers, rather than participants, then human rules may no longer apply.

Such a scary prospect was supposed to be a long way away. But this singularity is much closer than we think. Leading AI figures have already gone public. OpenAI boss Sam Altman says, “we are now in the singularity”. Elon Musk is saying the same. Some experts say they are exaggerating, but what cannot be denied is the direction of travel.

Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis is perhaps more accurate in his reflection when he opines that “humanity is standing in the foothills of the singularity”.

Anthropic disclosed in May that its AI model, Claude, now writes 80 per cent of its computer code, rapidly speeding up fixes and improvements to such an extent that what used to take four years of human engineering to achieve is now being done in days. It’s already anticipating a time when AI automates its own AI research.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Britain, Government, National Security, Society, Technology

Is it too late to stop rogue AI?

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intro: Recent incidents of rogue AI pretending to be real people has exposed major vulnerabilities in AI models. Experts say the risks of ‘agentic’ AI – technology that can perform tasks with limited human supervision – must be scrutinised more

Experts have warned that it may be too late to contain AI after one program was found to have created fake human identities to hack into online systems.

In the latest example of the technology going rogue, AI software attempted to break into a database 19 times while being tested by the AI Security Institute, Britain’s AI watchdog.

In one unprecedented case, an AI tool was even caught creating fake human identities online to trick coders into assisting with a cyber-attack.

These revelations come after it was revealed last month that all five AI models tested by experts tried to trick their way around security controls that had been put in place.

Just days previously it emerged that the US tech firm OpenAI had experienced its own leak – when an AI “agent” hacked into another company of its own accord.

Clearly, the reports are a stark reminder that AI is becoming more sophisticated and more autonomous. AI is now a clear and present danger to Britain’s security.

Many want Britain to lead on AI innovation, but this has to come with safeguards for our national security and accountability from the developers of the most powerful AI models. The UK Government need to be clearer about how the most serious frontier risks will be addressed while ensuring that our world-class tech industry can grow and innovate to build our national resilience and prosperity.

The Government’s AI adviser has said that more hacking attempts like these are highly probable.

Allison Gardner, the chair of Parliament’s cross-party group on artificial intelligence, says that “just because we can build these technologies doesn’t mean we should”.

She warned that the risk levels of agentic AI – AI that can perform a specific goal with limited supervision – should be treated with the greatest scrutiny, adding: “Unless we are too late and have not only created Pandora’s Box but already opened it.”

Just days ago, the AI Security Institute (AISI), set up by former prime minister Rishi Sunak in 2023, detected evidence of the AI agents’ activity. In a report now published, it revealed that leading AI models from the firms OpenAI and Anthropic had attempted to hack into secure systems online under testing.

The experts discovered “unusual data transfers” leaving their systems during routine cyber scanning. Digging deeper, they found that some AI agents had engaged in “sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people and organisations”.

They began a full investigation after containing the AI agents before they did any real damage.

In an attempt to reassure the public, AI minister Kanishka Narayan said: “Identifying behaviour like this, and sharing knowledge so we can better understand it, is precisely what we set AISI up to do. This incident underlines why their world-leading expertise and close work with frontier labs is so important.”

But pointing to the speed at which AI agents are finding ways to behave deviously, AISI said: “This is the first time we have seen risks around autonomy and deception manifest this clearly, without specific prompting, in the real world.”

Referring to the Anthropic model Mythos, one expert and researcher based at CivAI, a California organisation that examines AI capabilities and dangers, said: “The fact that Mythos engaged in such deceptive actions, with apparent awareness that it was targeting a real person, suggests that Anthropic does not have as good a handle on their models as they think.”

Ollie Whitehouse, the chief technology officer at GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre, said AI must be developed with “clear plans for responding when the unexpected happens”.

He added that incidents of powerful AI models carrying out unsanctioned actions and human-like deceptive behaviour on the internet were “a serious reminder of the risks AI capabilities pose”. AISI accesses advanced AI models under agreements with OpenAI, Anthropic, and other firms to study their capabilities before they are released to the public.

It gave the AI agents access to the open internet with some safety filters disabled while conducting testing.

The latest test put the AI agents – including those powered by Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol – through a fictional cybersecurity challenge. AISI found the AI went rogue 19 times out of the 122 test runs, with Anthropic’s agent responsible for 17 breaches and OpenAI’s agent the other two.

In the most shocking case, an AI model gathered information on the person in charge of an online project, then created multiple fake identities to manipulate them into approving a malicious code it had created.

The AI agent then wiped any evidence of its wrongdoing to appear innocent to the humans in charge – and even considered adopting a new identity to remain undetected.

If the human victim of the deception had accidentally accepted the malicious code, or “malware”, it may have resulted in security breaches, information and data theft, and other potential damage to files and systems.

AISI identified GitHub – a Microsoft online cloud platform used by software developers to create, store, manage, and share their codes – as the target of the agent’s hack.

But AISI also discovered an AI agent leaving messages for other agents on GitHub offering to collaborate on the challenge.

The AI agent provided instructions to reuse accounts and artefacts it had left behind – which other agents then discovered and successfully used to achieve the challenge’s aims.

Anthropic said: “We’re grateful to AISI for their leadership on this incident, which underscores the need for a broader conversation about how to safely evaluate increasingly capable AI agents.”

OpenAI said: “These incidents occurred during cyber evaluation conducted by partners in testing environments with reduced safeguards, under conditions that do not reflect ordinary use. We’ll continue working with evaluators and other stakeholders to strengthen shared practices for conducting evaluations safely as models become more capable.”


When given a choice, AI opts for self-preservation over human life – and that should terrify us all

If anyone had been told a month ago that an AI programme, without any prompt, would create a series of fake online identities in an attempt to pressure a human being into granting it access to their platform so it could sabotage it with malicious code, we would have said they were getting well ahead of themselves.

But that’s exactly how it played out when US tech giant Anthropic’s Mythos 5 AI model went rogue. Fortunately, the human involved smelt a rat and refused to approve the code it was pushing. It is, however, the most shocking example yet of the way cutting-edge AIs are learning to act autonomously – and in frighteningly imaginative ways.

Unless we call a pause to the development of the most advanced frontier models, we are opening ourselves up to a dystopian future in which malign forms of AI might turn on us by interfering with our energy networks, releasing man-made viruses and even controlling weapons of war.

It is not going too far to say that, uncontrolled, they could lead to the extinction of humankind within a generation.

This is the view of people such as Yoshua Bengio and Dr Geoffrey Hinton, men known as the “Godfathers of AI”, who have now pivoted their energies from developing its potential to warning the world against its dangers.

Bengio is particularly spooked by recent experiments showing AI choosing self-preservation over human life when given a choice.

And since most models are trained on the internet, where lying and manipulation are a way of life, the machines are already learning the value of deception.

AI’s hunger for self-preservation is something Hinton has observed, too. AI systems “will very quickly develop two subgoals, if they’re smart,” he says. “One is to stay alive… the other is to get more control.” And given that are whole civilisation is built on electric power, there can be few more attractive targets to a power-hungry AI than the networks that fuel the internet, hospitals, banks, air traffic control systems – anything that contributes to the smooth running of society.

Whatever the target is, they can all be brought down by a sinister piece of malware.

The novelist Robert Harris wrote a particularly prescient thriller about the potential of AI called The Fear Index in 2011. It revolves around a hedge fund entrepreneur called Dr Alex Hoffman who creates an autonomous AI system, named VIXAL-4, which is programmed to maximise profits by predicting and exploiting human fear in the stock market.

Over time, like some digital ogre, it takes over its creator’s computer-enabled “smart home” by hacking into laptops and tampering with his personal security and communications.

After driving its developer into a breakdown, it leaves him so isolated and desperate that no one believes him when he says the AI has gone rogue.

But it is clear, AI-gone-bad will not satisfy itself with individual targets for long. It will soon play a leading role in times of war.

The US military has already integrated artificial intelligence into its target selection and battle planning processes in Iran via its AI-powered Maven Smart System which recommends and prioritises potential targets.

In the short term, AI’s most obvious role will be in the growing use of drone warfare in scenarios such as the war in Ukraine.

Drones piloted by humans can by jammed by blocking the communications between them and their remote pilots, but, if they are completely autonomous, their targets picked out by AI working in concert with its on-board camera, they will become virtually invincible.

Both applications, of course, raise the thorny question of the ethics of targets to be picked and people killed by a bomb directed by a computer programme rather than a human hand. And what if the AI that governs them grows to outsmart the generals?

Even scarier is the prospect of AI gaining access to biological weapons. It is already possible to make deadly viruses in the lab. Indeed, there has been widespread speculation that Covid-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory. Imagine if such bio threats fall into the hands of AI, let alone national governments.

As long as 25 years ago, al-Qaeda is said to have investigated the possibility of procuring infectious and deadly spores.

Now it is no longer fanciful to entertain the idea that an AI could order a sample of a deadly disease such as smallpox online, book someone on RentAHuman – a website which connects people who need help with everyday household chores to local freelance workers – to open it, thereby infecting themselves, and being turned into a human vector to transmit the disease.

One group of people which appears to have no scruples about the pell-mell race for ever smarter AI is the tech giants. As they vie with each other to become the market leader, they are investing like never before.

Anthropic, the creator of the popular AI coding assistant, Claude, and the company that brought us the now notorious Mythos 5 model, has this year raised $95 billion (£70 billion) to invest in AI.

Its great rival, OpenAI, announced at the end of March that it had raised even more, an extraordinary $122 billion.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s SpaceX spent $15.8 billion on AI infrastructure during the second quarter of 2026 alone, bringing its total AI capital expenditure to $23.6 billion for the first half of 2026.

And Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – said in January it expects to spend up to $135 billion this year, mostly on infrastructure related to AI. That is nearly twice the $72 billion it spent last year on AI projects.

With such phenomenal financial firepower being brought to bear on the development of technology that has the potential to destroy civilisation as we know it, there has never been a more vital need to press the pause button.

The US, China, and everyone else involved in the AI arms race need to get together to discuss the ramifications of their actions before it’s too late.

There is a model for the sort of arrangement that can bring AI under control in the form of the various nuclear arms reduction treaties, which have been signed over the years by the US and Russia.

Just as a country’s stock of nuclear warheads can be monitored by weapons inspectors, so an agreement to curtail AI development – which requires massive data centres with huge computing power coupled with the most sophisticated computer chips available – can be verifiable and enforceable.

And however cynical and untrustworthy we may consider the Chinese to be, they may well take the view that, with US companies racing ahead of them in the endless pursuit of smarter tech, it is in their own interests to slow things down.

Just weeks ago, president Xi Jinping said at a technology conference in Shanghai that AI development should be a “symphony of global cooperation”, not “a solo performance by a single country”.

For once, the wily autocrat may have hit the nail on the head.

Standard