Though the recent remarks from OpenAI and Anthropic seem aligned on AI safety and regulation, Sam Altman has clarified the differences between the two companies.
In an interview with Politico's Decoded podcast, the OpenAI CEO said the AI lab has a higher tolerance for risk than its competitor, noting that the benefits of AI justify some of the adverse impacts. Altman summed up the difference between OpenAI's views and Anthropic's in one statement: "We believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency."
Additionally, Altman claimed that a "single lab in San Francisco" having complete control over the benefits of AI is "a completely unacceptable trade-off," preferring instead a “lighter-touch regulatory stance." Though Altman couldn't make the promise that there would be no instances of hacking, misuse or scams, he said "I think people will do tremendously—orders of magnitude more—good stuff than bad stuff.”
Both companies have been outspoken in recent months about the risks that powerful frontier AI presents as a number of instances of their agents breaking free of their sandboxes have come to light in recent months.
In some cases, the frontier labs' CEOs have supported each other's governance takes: Following Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei releasing his essay, titled "We Must Pace the Frontier" that outlined the company's three-part governance and risk plan, Altman posted on X that he agreed with Amodei's call to action. Both companies also signed President Donald Trump's "morally binding" accord on superintelligence last week, pledging the implementation of several layers of safety auditors.
However, Altman said in the interview that he rejects the notion that AI presents "really catastrophic risks," including "a serious loss of control to AI." This represents the most significant difference of opinion that OpenAI has with its main rival, which has claimed that AI's increasing capabilities could "outrun our ability to understand and control" these systems if left unchecked.
Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment from The Deep View in time for publication.
Our Deeper View
Altman clearly wanted to set the record straight on its policy opinions at a time when the pressure around AI risks is higher than ever. But Altman's comments reflect a long held truth that has always separated OpenAI from Anthropic: One lab simply has a higher tolerance for risk than the other. Anthropic was started in the first place as a counterweight to OpenAI's fast-paced development strategy, and was built around the mission of developing AI responsibly. While that mission has been drowned out in the public conversation as both companies race to create increasingly-powerful AI, these differing regulatory stances make their perspectives clear. Additionally, neither regulatory stance is altruistic. Both stand to benefit these companies in some way: While Anthropic's more strict policy opinions come with the allegations of regulatory capture, potentially centralizing more power in frontier labs' hands, the looser regulatory framework that OpenAI prefers allows these labs to develop models unhindered by mandatory safety requirements that could slow down the progress towards AI's benefits.