Anthropic and OpenAI sound the alarm on AI safety — and seek to shape how it’s controlled

Leading AI executives are increasingly advocating for strict regulation and independent safety audits, framing their advanced models as existential threats to humanity. This strategic narrative serves a dual purpose: it attempts to shape the emerging governance framework while positioning these dominant firms as the responsible, "safe" choice for investors ahead of major economic and political shifts. By emphasizing catastrophic risks, they effectively divert attention from immediate, tangible harms such as environmental damage, surveillance abuses, and military applications. Critics argue this approach allows Silicon Valley to establish a self-regulatory moat, securing market dominance by setting the terms for oversight rather than submitting to impartial government standards. The industry’s push for private evaluation protocols raises concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest, as companies appear to select their own auditors. This dynamic creates a barrier to entry for smaller competitors, consolidating power among a few tech giants who can leverage safety credentials to attract capital and political favor. For the open data community, this development is critical because self-serving regulation may restrict access to the very data and model weights needed for independent verification and public accountability. If safety becomes a proprietary justification for opacity, it undermines the principles of transparency and collaborative governance essential to open data. The trend threatens to centralize control over AI infrastructure, making it harder for researchers and civil society to scrutinize systems that increasingly influence public information and democratic processes.

Source: adn.com
Published on 2026-09-28

Ammonnews : Hacking silence: When neural impulses become open data »

Open Data

Related news