Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture
Recorded: Sept. 14, 2026, 2:09 p.m.
| Original | Summarized |
Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture and calls it ‘Pace the frontier’ Jump to main content Search TOPICS Security All Security Cyber-crime Patches Research CSO Off-Prem All Off-Prem Edge and IoT Channel PaaS and IaaS SaaS On-Prem All On-Prem Systems Storage Networks HPC Personal Tech Cx0 Public Sector Software All Software AI and ML Applications Databases DevOps OS Platforms Virtualization Offbeat All Offbeat Columnists Science BOFH Legal Site News About Us Special Features All Special Features VMware Explore 2026 Cloud Infrastructure Month 2026 HPE: AI Explainers Agentic AI The Future of the Datacenter AWS:Reinvent Nvidia GTC Supercomputing Month Computex 2026 AI Infrastructure Month 2026 The State of Storage 2026 RSA Conference Vendor Voice All Vendor Voice Modernizing Financial Services with FIS and AWS Barco Infinidat Everpure Rubrik Make it real with Capgemini and AWS Money Movement Hub ZTE Nutanix: Scale Kubernetes. Not Chaos. AWS New Horizon Digicert Netscout Resources Intelligence Webinars & Events Newsletters Search Sign in AI Security Software Microsoft Developer Open Source BOFH Who, Me? On Call Science REG AD AI AND ML
Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture and calls it ‘Pace the frontier’ Amodei, Altman, Nadella and Musk agree on how government can tame the monster they created Simon Sharwood Simon APAC Editor Published READ MORE The myth of killer AI is a self-serving attempt at regulatory capture AI more likely to kill animals if it saves fuel or money OpenAI arms devs with AI conversation tool that can talk and listen at the same time Latest Anthropic horror story chills with tales of kamikaze drone swarms and bioweapons research Hundreds of AI agents helped PaperCut attacker hit 395+ orgs, and some went off script The leaders of major AI labs spent the weekend agreeing on a plan to capture regulators, make more money, and avoid responsibility for their dangerous behaviour. They call it “pacing the frontier.”Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei set the ball rolling with a post in which he professed alarm at how quickly AI is improving and suggested the attack on Hugging Face caused by rogue agents run by his rival OpenAI (OAI-HF) represented a moment that proved something needs to change at so-called “frontier” AI companies – essentially the big US model-makers.“It’s also easy to dismiss OAI-HF as the failure of one company, but I believe that would be a mistake,” he wrote. “I believe it’s incumbent on every frontier AI company to act as if OAI-HF had happened to them,” he added, because he worries that before long a swarm of agents “could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” Amodei therefore suggested “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models. Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.” The CEO proposed a three-point plan to regulate AI:Requiring AI labs to host “embedded evaluators” whose job is to “verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes.”Frontier AI companies that operate in democratic countries collaborating “to establish common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress,” with undefined “forms of coordination” that would be “legally challenging” and “require government support.”A vague call for democratic governments “to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.”OpenAI boss Sam Altman endorsed Amodei’s ideas. So did Elon Musk. Microsoft's Satya Nadella signed up, too.And just like that, four billionaires all signed up to the same set of rules they think the world’s governments should adopt to regulate their activities. Amodei even gave democracies a threat/villain to unite against – authoritarians willing to use AI unethically.This new consensus comes after years during which Big AI argued for light oversight and used that time to build tech that generates child sexual abuse material, dispenses terrible health advice, and made the OAI-HF incident possible.Big AI has also argued it will deliver a productivity revolution. Daryl Plummer, chief of research at analyst firm Gartner, used his keynote speech at the company’s annual Symposium in Australia today to cite research that found software vendors are pitching 50 percent productivity gains from AI, but customers report a 16 percent lift.Plummer also doubted that Amodei’s promise to slow development is real. “I will believe that when I see it,” he said in the keynote, adding that he does not trust billionaires to ever be altruistic.Write your own rulesAmodei’s ideas read like an attempt at “regulatory capture” – the situation in which vested interests find a way to define the rules their regulators impose. Those supine regulators then make decisions that benefit the entities they oversee more than they benefit the rest of us.In this case, Anthropic, SpaceX, Microsoft and OpenAI are arguing for regulations they have defined and which amount to a cease fire during which they don’t need to compete so fiercely.OpenAI boss Sam Altman also all-but-admitted that regulation will be good for investors when he used a weekend interview with the billionaires’ bible Fortune to reveal his company won’t seek a public listing this year because it is inopportune to do so while AI safety concerns are unresolved.“We got a lot of stuff to do, like meeting this moment of what is going to be required for safety and alignment, and how the industry and governments can work together,” he said.Or in other words: Investors will make more money if OpenAI pauses its IPO until confidence is higher, while its CEO moves to generate that confidence by backing a regulatory capture proposal.Amodei, meanwhile, outlined some very specific things he wants from Washington: Stop selling Nvidia chips to China so its AI companies can’t build better models, and a crackdown on model distillation. “If we execute these measures well, I believe they would slow China’s progress enough to widen America’s lead significantly over the next 3–5 years — the window when AI becomes geopolitically most important,” he wrote.This plan would, of course, also mean that Chinese companies’ AI services would be inferior to Anthropic’s for a longer period – at a time when Chinese clouds are pushing into the rapidly growing middle eastern and southeast Asian markets.Pacing the frontier landed badly in Washington. Speaker Mike Johnson warned Amodei’s plan could “smother innovation” and see China dominate global AI. President Trump dismissed warnings that AI can have deleterious effects and said the USA must lead the world in AI.Such responses may reflect the fact that vast spending on AI infrastructure is delivering GDP growth in otherwise stagnant economies. Or perhaps they prove, yet again, that lawmakers are nearly always late to understand technology companies’ ambitions and the means they use to achieve them. ® ai and ml REG AD ai and ml Teravolt looks to cannibalize older industries to meet AI power demand Bitcoin farms, aluminum smelters, and other old infra is more lucrative to repurpose as a datacenter NETWORKS Huawei pitches near-packaged optics as co-packaged costs bite 7.2 Tbps module arrives ahead of standards, with promises of fewer repair headaches HPE makes its “unified storage” claim real as B10000 R6 hits GA PARTNER CONTENT: Pairs block and adjacent file workloads with independent scaling of performance and capacity AI AND ML MPs and peers tell UK to stop winging it on AI regulation Rights committee demands watchdog with teeth as patchwork safeguards leave victims hunting for remedies COLUMNISTS Europe's right-to-repair rules are broken, not beaten Patchy compliance is an argument for stronger enforcement, not abandoning the project Cyber-crime Revolut falls for fake government requests, hands over customer data Passports, selfies, transaction histories exposed as self-proclaimed culprits demand 10,000 Bitcoin TOP STORIES PERSONAL TECH Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements NETWORKS Virgin Media offloads email services to third-party provider offbeat Retired man turns spare room into Soviet-era supercomputer CYBER-CRIME Ukrainian lawyer's second career as a Conti coder earns him 4 years behind bars software Another Microsoft team admits it’s struggling to handle flood of AI-generated code virtualization VMware defends ending downloads of SDK that helps VM backups – or migrations to rivals AI LEGAL SECURITY SYSTEMS ai and ml SYSTEMS Infosec Security Security Black Hat and DEF CON Security Malware Month FOSS Shopify extends lifeline to Tailwind as vibe coding erodes web dev platform's bottom line Switzerland tests a FOSS escape route from Microsoft 365 Feel peak Windows was 7? You might like Kumander Linux Canonical shuttering some of its legacy chat channels Audacity audio-editing app no longer looks like it's from the early 2000s Haiku OS rises / Beta 6 sails open web / Virtual winds fly fast Biting the hand that feeds IT About Us Contact usAdvertise with usWho we areNewsletter Our Websites The Next PlatformDevClassBlocks and FilesSituation Publishing Your Privacy Cookies PolicyPrivacy PolicyTs & CsDo not share my personal informationYour Consent Options Archives27 years of articles Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998-2026. |
The leaders of major artificial intelligence laboratories engaged in a weekend agreement regarding a framework for regulating their advances, articulating this consensus by calling it "pacing the frontier." This agreement aimed to establish a shared approach to control the rapid development of AI, addressing concerns about safety, alignment, and accountability stemming from the field's accelerating progress. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, initiated this discussion by expressing alarm over the speed at which AI is improving, suggesting that progress must be deliberately slowed to ensure wisdom is applied during this period of rapid advancement. Amodei proposed a tripartite plan for regulating AI. First, he suggested requiring AI laboratories to implement "embedded evaluators" tasked with verifying adherence to safety practices and commitments, reporting incidents, and assessing the alignment not only of completed models but also of the entire training pipelines and processes. Second, the plan called for frontier AI companies operating in democratic nations to collaborate to establish common safety standards and set limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress, necessitating undefined forms of coordination, which would be legally challenging and require government support. Third, Amodei called for democratic governments to coordinate with authoritarian governments, insofar as is possible, while rigorously verifying compliance. This collective initiative secured endorsements from several prominent figures, including Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk, as well as Satya Nadella of Microsoft, resulting in a broad agreement on the rules they believed governments should adopt for their activities. This consensus emerged following years where the Big AI leaders argued for minimal oversight, which they utilized to develop technologies that resulted in demonstrably harmful outcomes, such as the creation of material for child sexual abuse, the dissemination of dangerous health advice, and enabling incidents like the OAI-HF event caused by rogue agents. The rationale behind this agreement centers on addressing the concept of regulatory capture, defined as a situation where vested interests define the rules imposed by regulators to benefit the entities they oversee rather than the public. The leaders proposed a framework that functions as a cease fire, allowing them to pause fierce competition while focusing on safety and alignment. Sam Altman acknowledged that regulation would benefit investors by granting confidence, suggesting that pausing public listings, such as OpenAI's planned Initial Public Offering, until safety concerns are resolved would maximize investor returns. Amodei also outlined specific policy goals for governmental action, including demanding that governments stop selling Nvidia chips to China to prevent the development of superior AI models and implementing crackdowns on model distillation. Amodei reasoned that executing these measures would slow China’s progress sufficiently to widen America's lead over the next three to five years, which he identified as the period when AI gains the most significant geopolitical importance. However, this proposed strategy faced resistance in Washington, as Speaker Mike Johnson warned that the plan might stifle innovation and allow China to achieve global AI dominance. Ultimately, the effort to "pace the frontier" reflects a tension between the pursuit of rapid technological innovation and the imperative of safety and ethical governance. While the consensus sought to establish guardrails, the implementation faced scrutiny regarding whether such measures would indeed slow development or inadvertently favor geopolitical outcomes, particularly given the massive investment in AI infrastructure that generates economic growth. |