07. Mustafa Bilal-Deep-Dis-Chi-Oped thumbnail-April-2025-AP

Since its release two months ago, DeepSeek has prompted a reassessment of several assumptions regarding AI development, the United States’ technological dominance and the effectiveness of high-tech export controls.

To begin with, in June 2023, Sam Altman claimed that it was pretty hopeless to train an advanced AI model with USD10 million. However, his assumption would soon be challenged by a small startup in China. Liang Wenfeng founded DeepSeek in December 2023, which reportedly trained an open-source AI model with USD6 million in just over a year.

DeepSeek achieved performance comparable to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and undermined the assumption of US tech exceptionalism by plummeting the stocks of leading US tech and energy firms. The latter were affected because it was assumed that AI energy requirements would progressively increase. Consequently, the carbon emissions and water usage of AI infrastructure were projected to reach alarming levels in the coming years. However, DeepSeek’s reported energy efficiency raises doubts about the assumption that AI development requires a significant expansion of data centres and power plants.

While contrasting assessments of DeepSeek’s efficiency and performance initially complicated efforts to draw reliable conclusions, a turning point came on March 7 when the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a comprehensive report that offered novel insights on DeepSeek and its implications for the Sino-US AI competition. The report’s findings underscored that the hype surrounding DeepSeek being a ‘Sputnik moment’ for the US in the field of AI was justified, as Western researchers had verified its technological innovations.

Earlier, US President Trump stated that DeepSeek should serve as a wake-up call for the US AI industry and vowed to ensure the country’s AI dominance with initiatives such as Stargate. In response, US tech firms voiced their support for ‘winning the AI war’ with China. Meanwhile, Sam Altman initially conceded to being on the ‘wrong side of history’ as DeepSeek was ironically advancing OpenAI’s original altruistic goal of promoting AI adoption globally.  However, on March 13, OpenAI submitted a proposal to President Trump’s AI Action Plan, calling for bans on DeepSeek and other Chinese AI models.

This shift may reflect growing unease among leading US AI firms, as DeepSeek also challenged another key belief – that open-source AI models inherently lag behind the proprietary ones protected by Silicon Valley. Therefore, for most US tech executives, if it was not outright war, it was certainly an AI race with China, one they believed could be won by tightening export controls on advanced semiconductor chips. This belief has been rooted in the assumption that the US holds a decisive lead in AI development, and that restricting China’s access to cutting-edge hardware could preserve that advantage. DeepSeek has also challenged this notion. The CSIS report, in particular, highlighted that even the most stringent chip export restrictions are unlikely to halt China’s AI momentum. Instead, it highlighted that China’s self-sufficiency in AI advancement is on track to be the ‘most significant strategic challenge for the US’. Interestingly, contrary to long-held assumptions regarding the effectiveness of export controls, they have also inadvertently spurred technological innovation in China, according to US analysts and MIT.

Although DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng has publicly acknowledged the challenge posed by the ‘embargo on high-end chips’, he brushed aside the assumption of US policymakers and tech executives that they could curtail China’s AI advancements. Liang also called on Chinese tech firms to establish themselves as global leaders in developing cost-effective and efficient AI. This aligns with China’s national goal of becoming a global hub for AI innovation by 2030.

In this context, it is noteworthy that DeepSeek is just one startup in China’s booming AI industry. With nearly 600 universities and research labs dedicated to AI research, China’s burgeoning local talent has the potential to garner global attention, similar to DeepSeek. This trend is further illustrated by the emergence of advanced AI agents like AutoGLM Rumination and Manus, developed by lesser-known Chinese startups, challenging the belief that only tech giants can push the frontiers of AI.

DeepSeek and other Chinese AI startups have thus disrupted the AI ecosystem in both China and the US. This was also evident in how China’s tech giants, including Baidu, ByteDance, Tencent, and Alibaba, each launched their latest AI models following the release of DeepSeek and plan to invest billions in AI infrastructure. Consequently, US Big Tech is also accelerating development and release of its respective AI models.

As more advanced Chinese and American AI models are increasingly launched at lower prices, the AI efficiency race initiated by DeepSeek is expected to significantly reduce the global cost of adopting AI across all fields. It has already been embraced by European companies and tech firms, which consider ‘China’s DeepSeek moment’ a driving force for facilitating the global adoption of AI.

Ultimately, DeepSeek has upended several long-held assumptions: that building powerful AI models demands vast financial resources; that open-source models cannot compete with proprietary technologies; and that US-led export controls can slow China’s technological ascent. Its success suggests that these assumptions no longer hold, and perhaps never did. In doing so, DeepSeek has not only redefined the trajectory of AI development but also confirmed Sam Altman’s own prophecy: the AI revolution cannot be stopped. DeepSeek was only the start; China’s AI revolution has just begun.

Mustafa Bilal is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »