Altman says AI’s benefits justify accepting some harms, while drawing line at catastrophic risks
publishers 30articles 36first reported 4 Oct, 20:55 UTCdeveloping since 5 Oct · 11 editions
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said society should accept some harm from artificial intelligence in exchange for its broader benefits and widespread public access, outlining a less restrictive regulatory position than rival Anthropic.
“We believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency,” Altman said in an interview with Politico’s Decoded. He cited hacks, scams and misuse as harms that cannot be eliminated entirely, arguing that people would use AI to do “orders of magnitude” more good than bad.
Altman rejected an approach that would concentrate powerful AI within a single company to prevent misuse and control access to its benefits. He said excessive restrictions could leave too much power with a few companies, individuals or one country.
He nevertheless supported stronger regulation in some areas and said “catastrophic risks” were unacceptable. Discussing the possibility that humans could lose control of advanced systems, Altman urged caution about moving into that future.
Altman described “a lot of daylight” between OpenAI and Anthropic, whose CEO, Dario Amodei, has advocated slowing frontier AI development and proposed stronger oversight, including testing and audits. OpenAI has backed a California requirement for major AI developers to publish safety frameworks and report losses of control, while favoring what Altman called a lighter-touch regulatory approach.
The remarks drew criticism from commentators who argued that the potential harms require tougher government regulation.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 4 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 24 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 30
- Source articles
- 36
- Given to the writer
- 8, 4 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 24 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →