Altman Says AI’s Benefits Justify Accepting Some Risks
publishers 33articles 39first reported 4 Oct, 20:55 UTCdeveloping since 5 Oct · 11 editions
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said society should accept some harms from artificial intelligence in exchange for broader access to the technology and its potential benefits, while drawing a distinction between ordinary misuse and catastrophic risks.
In an interview with Politico’s Decoded, Altman said OpenAI’s preference for “lighter touch” regulation reflects its view that AI should be widely available rather than controlled by a small number of companies or governments. He said preventing every AI-enabled hack, scam or misuse would require restrictions he considers unacceptable, arguing that people would use the technology to do “orders of magnitude” more good than harm.
Altman said there was “a lot of daylight” between OpenAI and Anthropic, whose CEO, Dario Amodei, has advocated slowing development to address safety concerns. However, Altman said stronger regulation is still needed and described OpenAI’s position as between Anthropic’s more cautious approach and calls for little or no regulation. He also said catastrophic outcomes, including a serious loss of human control over AI systems, should not be accepted.
The comments drew criticism from technology commentators and advocacy figures who argued that AI companies should face tougher oversight. They come amid debate over safeguards for increasingly capable systems, including proposals for mandatory testing, audits and public safety plans.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 5 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 48 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 33
- Source articles
- 39
- Given to the writer
- 8, 5 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 48 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 →