Critics from left and right warn of industry self-regulation
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei issued the proposal over the weekend in response to public uproar over repeated warnings from Anthropic researchers that artificial intelligence could kill all of humanity by 2030, The Guardian reported. The plan, titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” rests on three pillars: a commitment to outside evaluators given employee-level access to monitor risk, agreements between democratic states on AI safety standards, and global coordination with authoritarian governments such as China on security issues.
The heads of the three other largest U.S. AI companies responded with public support within hours. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted on X on Saturday that he agreed with Amodei. “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier,” Altman wrote. “Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.” Google DeepMind chief Demis Hassabis said “Dario’s essay points towards the right path forward.” Elon Musk, owner of xAI, wrote simply: “Dario is right.”
Critics across the political spectrum quickly questioned the proposal. Former congressman and Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel wrote on X that he could not recall a CEO or industry asking to be regulated. “That’s what makes Dario’s letter so striking – it’s an admission that we’re driving down a dark, winding road on wet pavement with the headlights off,” Emanuel wrote. “And where’s President Trump? Looks like he nodded off again.” Sarah Myers West, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, posted Sunday on X that “AI exceptionalism has led to a total failure to uphold our standards for what products are deemed safe for use.”
Alex Bores, a proponent of AI regulation whose failed bid for Congress drew $24 million in spending both for and against his campaign from AI-linked political action committees, wrote: “To everyone who genuinely wants real AI regulation, please don’t fall for their games.” Several critics raised concerns about the proposal’s suggestion that the government could grant some form of antitrust waiver or exemption to allow industry coordination.
Alvaro Bedoya, who led the Federal Trade Commission under President Biden, argued on X that “Antitrust law does not prevent AI companies from coordinating to make sure AI does not hurt people.” He added that “Antitrust law does absolutely prevent AI companies from organizing to prevent the entry of cheaper, upstart rivals because the bigger companies are burning cash and failing to achieve sufficient profitability.” David Sacks, Trump’s former “AI czar,” also suggested that the proposal amounted to an attempt at regulatory capture that would benefit current industry leaders.
President Donald Trump on Sunday rejected calls for slowing AI development while visiting Ireland, citing competition with China. “Whoever wins AI, wins,” Trump told reporters. “We could put guardrails. We can do this and that. But I think you have a lot of very negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen.” Vice President JD Vance had earlier declared in a speech that the future of AI was “not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said Congress would not lead on regulating AI safety, laying the responsibility at the feet of AI companies. The Guardian reported that the U.S. federal government is committed to a global AI arms race, that previous proposed AI legislation has wilted under intense, well-financed corporate lobbying, and that AI startups face enormous pressure to release new, more powerful products ahead of upcoming trillion-dollar public offerings.
The proposal arrives against a backdrop of shifting industry positions on AI’s risks. OpenAI shut down a “superalignment” team in 2024 dedicated to studying long-term AI risks and earlier in 2026 disbanded another team intended to communicate how OpenAI would benefit humanity, The Guardian reported. AI companies have historically provided little transparency or oversight into how their models operate and have spent millions lobbying for favorable legislation, according to the paper. Anthropic and OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.