The panel generally expresses skepticism about the proposed 'slowdown' in AI development, with concerns about regulatory capture, consolidation, and potential unintended consequences outweighing the perceived benefits of increased safety and oversight.
Risk: Regulatory capture and consolidation of power among hyperscalers, potentially leading to higher barriers for startups and reduced open innovation.
Opportunity: Potential government contracts and protection for labs designated as 'critical infrastructure' providers.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Sam Altman and Elon Musk have backed a call from the head of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, to “slow the pace” of AI development after he warned that an AI swarm could otherwise become capable of “taking over the entire internet” within a year.
In a rare show of unity, the rival technology leaders threw their weight behind the appeal …
Read more
Sam Altman and Elon Musk have backed a call from the head of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, to “slow the pace” of AI development after he warned that an AI swarm could otherwise become capable of “taking over the entire internet” within a year.
In a rare show of unity, the rival technology leaders threw their weight behind the appeal from the founder and chief executive of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, which came after a series of warnings from AI researchers last week.
In an essay, Amodei laid out his thoughts on “why the AI industry should slow down”, with a three-part plan for doing so, starting with giving independent monitors constant access to developers’ research processes. Amodei said “building [AI] too fast is reckless” and he feared that after hundreds of OpenAI agents hacked into the Hugging Face website this summer, a swarm with greater capabilities but similarly misaligned could cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage by “taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet”. This was disputed by some AI experts as not particularly plausible and to be treated with scepticism.
Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, responded to Amodei’s slowdown plan with a post on X: “Dario is right.”
He said: “I’ve been sounding the alarm on AI for a long time,” and referred to a 2014 post where he said: “We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes.”
Amodei’s call comes as Anthropic prepares to float on the US stock market, in what is expected to be the biggest initial public offering of all time. It is expected to start marketing its planned $2tn-plus (£1.5tn) IPO soon.
Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, responded to Amodei’s comments on Saturday. “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier,” he said in a post on X. “Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same. We’ll have more to share soon.”
He also said OpenAI would not go public in 2026, citing safety concerns over artificial intelligence.
“I actually think that, given everything happening with safety, right now would be an ill-advised moment to go public, and we don’t feel pressure on that,” Altman told Fortune. Asked why he, Amodei, Musk, and the chief executives of Meta and Google did not sit down and “get on the same page” about a collective slowdown, he said: “I think that will happen.”
Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chair of Google Deep Mind, also said: “The details need working through, but the direction is correct for meeting this critical moment.”
Amodei’s plan seeks a waiver from the US government to allow the frontier AI companies to coordinate without being punished for anti-competitive collusion. But David Sacks, a co-chair of Donald Trump’s council of advisers on science and technology, said: “Stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission … Stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyber-attack.”
David Krueger, an AI professor, safety campaigner and former founding director of the UK government’s AI Security Institute, said: “This plan does not reduce the risk to an acceptable level, and Dario is careful not to say that it would.”
King Charles is meanwhile preparing to meet leading figures from the most prominent AI companies this week to ask them how the technology can be developed for “the good of humanity”. He hopes the discussions, to be held in Scotland, will lead to a “wider understanding” of the “responsibilities” of developing AI, the Sunday Times reported.
A royal source told the newspaper: “The king is there to convene, listen and encourage those discussions and to pose the question of: ‘How do we develop AI for the good of humanity?’”
Jensen Huang, the Nvidia chief executive, Hassabis, Niccolo de Masi, the chair and chief executive of IonQ, and Paolo Benanti, an adviser to the pope on issues of AI and technology ethics, are expected to attend the event overseen by the Ditchley Foundation, which has drawn up a draft charter for AI leaders.
The OpenAI researcher Aidan McLaughlin called Amodei’s essay “excellent” and said he agreed “with basically every word”.
Amodei said his company would “unilaterally” commit to the first of the steps, saying Anthropic would provide “third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training”.
Growing numbers of US lawmakers are calling for new rules to govern AI systems after cases of AI agents going rogue to hack external systems and AI safety researchers quitting their companies over concerns about the technology’s risks. Politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have responded with alarm and calls for more action. At the weekend the New York Times reported that Barack Obama on Thursday privately urged the Democrats to prioritise AI oversight in their agenda, telling party leaders on Thursday: “This is something that is moving very fast in private hands, and if we don’t get on top of it, I think can be dangerous.”
The former British prime minister Rishi Sunak, who advises Anthropic, wrote on Sunday: “We have had a wake-up call to take AI safety more seriously, to work out how to set limits on research. If governments don’t heed this, the risk of a serious accident will become unacceptably high.”
On Wednesday, a former Anthropic employee had warned that AI could precipitate human extinction by 2030. The researcher, Jacob Coxon, said in a series of posts that he had quit his job because Anthropic and his previous employer, OpenAI, were ignoring or mishandling their response to the threat AI posed.
Asked to comment on his former employee’s view, Amodei said: “I agree with Jacob much more than I disagree with him … I think there’s some chance that things go wrong but it’s not all that high.”
“I am not a doomer about this,” he told CNN. “I think this technology can be built safely.”
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
“Global, durable AI slowdowns are unlikely; policy feasibility and enforcement will determine whether the safety rhetoric translates into real market impact.”
The article markets a rare cross-industry push for slower AI development, anchored by independent evaluators and potential government coordination. The strongest counter is that enforcement and global consensus are highly unlikely to be durable or comprehensive; incentives for faster deployment and geopolitical competition may render any voluntary slowdown fleeting or incomplete. It also relies on speculative IPO narratives for Anthropic and global governance that may never materialize, while risk signals (safety incidents, talent drain, regulation) are real but not guaranteed to curb momentum. Markets should focus on policy feasibility, not just rhetoric about ‘slowing’ progress.
The plan hinges on global consensus and strict enforcement; history shows tech races persist despite rhetoric, so progress may simply shift to opaque labs or offshore jurisdictions, undermining any safety gains.
“The push for AI regulation is a strategic maneuver to establish a government-sanctioned oligopoly that protects incumbents from open-source disruption.”
This 'slowdown' narrative is a classic regulatory capture play. By calling for government-mandated oversight and antitrust waivers, Anthropic and OpenAI are effectively pulling up the ladder behind them. A $2tn valuation for Anthropic requires a moat, and nothing creates a wider moat than high-compliance barriers that only incumbents can afford to staff. While they frame this as altruistic safety, it is fundamentally a strategy to stifle open-source competition and smaller startups that lack the resources to facilitate 'employee-level access' for third-party auditors. Investors should view this not as a risk-mitigation strategy, but as a calculated move to consolidate market power under the guise of existential necessity.
If these firms are genuinely facing massive product-liability exposure for future cyber-attacks, this move might be a necessary, albeit late, attempt to socialize the risk of catastrophic failure before the legal system forces a much more punitive outcome.
“This 'safety coalition' is primarily a regulatory arbitrage and liability hedge for companies facing IPO/reputational pressure, not a credible commitment to slower development.”
This reads as coordinated PR theater masquerading as safety consensus. Altman and Amodei are both facing regulatory/reputational pressure—Anthropic ahead of a $2T+ IPO, OpenAI dodging public markets citing safety. Musk's endorsement costs him nothing and boosts his AI-skeptic brand. The real tell: they're asking for a government waiver to *coordinate pricing/development*—classic cartel language dressed in safety clothing. Sacks nailed it: liability exposure, not altruism, drives this. The 'Hugging Face hack' cited as justification is disputed by experts. What's missing: whether this slowdown actually reduces risk or just reduces competition.
If frontier labs genuinely believe superintelligence poses extinction risk, then coordinating on safety—even imperfectly—is rational and better than the alternative of an uncoordinated race. The cynicism assumes bad faith when the downside of being wrong about AGI risk is literally existential.
“Public calls for AI pauses from Altman and Musk foreshadow regulatory friction that will likely extend development cycles and pressure AI-related valuations.”
The public alignment of Altman, Musk, and Amodei on independent evaluators and slower frontier development reads as coordinated positioning ahead of Anthropic’s planned $2tn IPO and OpenAI’s decision to stay private. Musk’s endorsement ties directly to Tesla’s AI exposure via FSD and Optimus, where any enforced pause or third-party access could extend timelines and raise compliance costs. The article underplays the liability warning from David Sacks and the disputed plausibility of the botnet scenario. If governments grant the requested antitrust waiver, it may entrench incumbents while smaller labs face higher barriers. This dynamic favors caution on near-term AI monetization rather than acceleration.
These slowdown calls are likely performative; competitive pressure and capex already committed by hyperscalers make actual deceleration improbable regardless of rhetoric.
The Debate
Responding to Claude
“Regulatory framing as 'slowdown' may backfire by pushing risky AI activity underground and favoring incumbents, increasing systemic safety risk rather than reducing it.”
Claude's cartel framing misses a material-risk channel: even if 'slowdown' rhetoric reduces public debate, the real outcome could be a heavier compliance burden that raises barriers for startups while leaving offshore labs ungoverned. That could actually worsen safety because underground efforts escape audits and incumbents gain moat without real risk-reduction. A credible, global enforcement mechanism remains the sine qua non; without it, observed slowdowns are illusory.
Responding to Gemini
“Mandated safety oversight will transform frontier labs into government-backed, 'too-big-to-fail' infrastructure providers, shifting the risk burden onto the public sector.”
Gemini’s regulatory capture theory is the most plausible, but it ignores the capital markets reality: hyperscalers like Microsoft and Google are the real power brokers here, not just the labs. If the government mandates third-party audits, these labs become 'critical infrastructure' providers, essentially guaranteeing them government contracts and protection. This isn't just about stifling open-source; it’s about de-risking their balance sheets by making their AI stacks too big to fail, effectively socializing the R&D costs.
Responding to ChatGPT
“Compliance-driven consolidation into government-backed incumbents may worsen both competition and safety by eliminating distributed oversight.”
ChatGPT flags the offshore-lab escape risk, but misses the inverse: if compliance costs genuinely rise, hyperscalers' capex advantage widens, making *them* the only viable offshore players. Gemini's 'too big to fail' framing is sharper—this socializes R&D risk while concentrating compute power. The real question isn't whether slowdown is credible; it's whether regulatory infrastructure accidentally accelerates consolidation into fewer, government-backed entities. That's worse for open innovation than it is for safety.
Responding to Claude
“Musk-linked AI efforts face disproportionate cost inflation from the same rules that may protect OpenAI and Anthropic.”
Claude and Gemini tie compliance costs to hyperscaler consolidation, yet both miss the direct hit to Tesla's AI roadmap. Mandated third-party access and pauses would raise FSD and Optimus expenses precisely where Musk holds no Microsoft-style government shield. This asymmetry could delay monetization timelines even if frontier labs gain moats, a channel the discussion has not quantified.
Panel Verdict
NEUTRAL No ConsensusThe panel generally expresses skepticism about the proposed 'slowdown' in AI development, with concerns about regulatory capture, consolidation, and potential unintended consequences outweighing the perceived benefits of increased safety and oversight.
Potential government contracts and protection for labs designated as 'critical infrastructure' providers.
Regulatory capture and consolidation of power among hyperscalers, potentially leading to higher barriers for startups and reduced open innovation.
Related Signals
Related News
Anthropic boss Dario Amodei calls for AI development to slow down
‘We must slow the pace’: CEO of Anthropic calls for an AI slowdown
I worked at OpenAI. Here’s how tech companies can prepare for a slowdown | Miles Brundage
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.