The Infinite Game
Reflections on US-China Relations and Technology Development
I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow, I did not breed or perfect the seeds.
I do not make any of my own clothing.
I speak a language did not invent or refine.
I did not discover the mathematics I use.
I am protected by freedoms and laws I did not conceive of or legislate, and do not enforce or adjudicate.
I am moved by music I did not create myself.
When I needed medical attention, I was helpless to help myself survive.
I did not invent the transistor, the microprocessor, object oriented programming, or most of the technology I work with.
I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am totally dependent on them for my life and well being.
— Steve Jobs sent an email to himself before he passed away on October 5, 2011
I thought about the above quote a lot lately. Partially because it was so beautifully written, and partially because we seem to be entering into a world of division.
About two weeks ago, I was catching up with our friend Chery Kang at CNBC on the topic of US-China trade war and AI policy implications. As someone born in China who spent my formative years there before immigrating to the United States, these conversations place me in a unique position. I understand perspectives from both sides yet feel the growing tension between my two homes.
This dual perspective has become increasingly valuable as I've watched rhetoric harden and fears escalate. When I arrived in America years ago, I was struck by its openness and confidence – a country that led through innovation rather than restriction.
I remember an America that was open, daring, and confidently leading the world. Throughout US history - from the Declaration of Independence to establishing the UN - America has acted on its conviction in an open world. Today, I sense a shift toward fear-based policies, a posture more focused on containing others than advancing ourselves.
The Historical Perspective
Forty years ago, China debated whether to embrace the world. Thirty years ago, as the internet emerged and China joined the WTO, it took significant steps toward global integration. The results have been remarkable: hundreds of millions lifted from extreme poverty and the creation of iconic companies like Alibaba and ByteDance. China is also home to DeepSeek, which represents a major advancement in open-source AI development.
I don't intend to engage in political debate here. People have various belief systems and the right to hold them. My point is simpler: it matters tremendously when an ecosystem, country, or civilization decides to open up, despite the discomfort of facing insecurity head-on.
What worries me now is how taboo it has become to discuss any positive or even neutral aspects of China. For most Americans who have never visited China, it's easy to accept the prevailing mainstream narrative. For Asian American minorities, many of us seem to hesitate to speak up, either from limited knowledge or fear of being singled out.
But fear is the opposite of love, courage, and growth. More importantly, fear distorts truth. It causes us to fixate on playing defense rather than focusing on the opportunities.
The Infinite Game
This fixation reminds me of my first swimming class in the US. My coach gave me advice I've never forgotten:
"Don't look at the swimmers in the other lanes. Focus forward and swim your best race."
This wasn't just swimming advice; it was life wisdom.
This approach mirrors how America traditionally approached innovation: by focusing on moving forward faster, not by watching competitors. When Apple created the iPhone, they weren't obsessing over Nokia - they were reimagining what a phone could be. When Google developed their search algorithm, they weren't obsessing over AltaVista or Yahoo—they were reimagining what search could be.
Then AI happened. I began sensing a shift in this dynamic - a move from forward focus to side-glancing, from acceleration to restriction1. The shift and disconnect troubled me.
I struggled to articulate why until I listened to a podcast where Bill Gurley discussed this exact topic and said:
"…A finite game has a beginning, an end, and a winner—like a basketball game. Infinite games are different—they just go on forever, with no clock that ends and no one who declares a winner."
"Almost everyone in the AI space that I see with a microphone in front of them says the US has to win the AI war. Yeah, I don't know what that means... because it's an infinite game."
"...No one that I talked to would argue we're going to somehow prohibit (China) from moving forward in AI… let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that OpenAI said they borrowed or copied the innovation that happened at at Google and DeepSeek. This is how innovation works - spread like the wind, they move fast. People study what other people do. It happens all the time..."
The concept of the "infinite game," drawn from James Carse's book, distinguishes between finite games (with beginnings, endings, and winners) and infinite games that continue indefinitely with no final victors - just continuous play.
The infinite game concept has helped me reconcile what I've observed from my vantage point. When I first came to America, I was inspired by a country so focused on swimming forward that it didn't need to look sideways.
That America, the one that attracted me and countless other immigrants, understood that success in innovation isn't about winning a finite contest but about sustaining excellence indefinitely. And that “infinite game” mentality had helped create iconic US companies founded by immigrants like Sergey Brin at Google, Elon Musk at Tesla / SpaceX, and Jensen Huang at Nvidia.
We can be stuck in a zero-sum mentality or we can choose to embrace the infinite game. And in this game, we all have the opportunity to contribute and thrive together, not as competitors in adjacent lanes, but as participants in humanity's most important step forward.
That’s the world that I want to live in.
Of course, countries must develop thoughtful AI policies that protect legitimate national security interests. No reasonable person would argue against safeguarding truly sensitive technologies or preventing adversarial use of AI. However, these targeted protections differ fundamentally from broad, fear-based policies that attempt to restrict global innovation out of competitive anxiety. The former acknowledges specific, concrete risks; the latter misunderstands the infinite nature of technological development.