In response to a joint statement issued by U.S. intelligence and cybersecurity agencies on September 8, which accused Chinese artificial intelligence companies of conducting "industrial-scale" distillation to obtain advanced U.S. frontier model capabilities, China's Ministry of Commerce issued a strong rebuttal.

The Ministry stated that the accusations are factually unfounded and legally baseless. The move by Washington politicizes and weaponizes distillation—a standard technical and commercial practice—while applying double standards in its implementation. The U.S. announcement represents further proof of its attempts to exercise technological hegemony, dominate computing power, and suppress competition in the AI sector. Beijing firmly opposes such actions.

Distillation is a common method used globally for mutual learning among AI models, including those developed by American firms. It is essentially a neutral technical tool that enhances model learning efficiency and facilitates more effective use of human knowledge. This approach positively impacts the development of AI industries worldwide, unlocking the technology's potential, bridging development gaps, and broadly benefiting developing nations and the public.

The U.S. stance is a textbook case of double standards. China encourages open-source, collaborative, and shared development in AI. Chinese open-source models are available to global enterprises, including U.S. companies, facilitating their research and development. Reports from U.S. model developers themselves acknowledge extensive distillation from Chinese models. Meanwhile, Washington unilaterally labels Chinese firms' activities as "industrial-scale" theft, portraying common industry practices as attacks—a reflection of both anxiety and hypocrisy.

In reality, the U.S. is leveraging the anti-distillation narrative to advance industrial monopolization. By having security agencies release such announcements, it ties individual corporate interests to national security, using state power to interfere with normal business activities. Notably, some U.S. AI companies abuse their dominant market positions by imposing broad geographic restrictions and other coercive clauses in user agreements. The recent U.S. accusations appear to endorse these overbearing terms.

This approach exemplifies using national machinery to uphold technological dominance and computing monopoly while stifling competition. Throughout this year, U.S. administrative and legislative branches have repeatedly threatened sanctions over alleged distillation by Chinese enterprises. The underlying goal is to suppress rivals and preserve U.S. hegemony over computing resources and data—seeking a scenario where only America wins, not the world. Such tactics aim to convert globally accessible AI resources into exclusive assets for select companies, preventing other nations from sharing in AI innovation benefits.

Currently, the large-model industry is at a critical juncture of rapid iteration, emerging risks, and growth. As major powers, China and the United States should address AI challenges and risks with a responsible attitude. The leaders of both nations have agreed to initiate intergovernmental AI dialogue. China is prepared to engage in constructive, professional discussions with the U.S. based on principles of equality, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation. However, if Washington pursues actions to suppress Chinese AI enterprises under the guise of anti-distillation, Beijing will take firm countermeasures. China hopes the U.S. will work in the same direction, managing risks through dialogue and communication to ensure AI benefits the entire globe.