Altman says the world should accept some AI harms as OpenAI moves toward Anthropic's rules

Altman named the harms he is willing to tolerate. He said he "wouldn't take a trade" that promised "no major hacks" and "zero scams," because, he said, people will do orders of magnitude more good than bad. ^[11] A company putting a model in front of its own customers runs into exactly these failures first. The slowdown he endorsed applies to the most advanced models ^[7].

On the bills themselves, there is little daylight. OpenAI has signed on to the slowdown Amodei called for last month and followed Anthropic in backing stricter state laws ^[7][5]. Its lobbyists also backed a bipartisan House proposal under which the leading AI companies would have to host independent safety evaluators in-house ^[6]. Below the level of catastrophe, though, Altman described the difference in his own words: "we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency." ^[4]

The record also shows why the two companies' policies have converged. Business Insider reports that OpenAI moved toward tougher rules as it grappled with high-profile hacking incidents and rogue behaviour by its own models ^[2]. I'd expect the split Altman described to last longer than the overlap in the bills.

For a buyer, choosing a vendor now also means choosing a level of tolerance. This quarter, that choice is made in the contract and in the deployment. The contract decides who is liable when a model is used for fraud. The deployment decides which misuse controls run on the customer's own systems. The interview covered whether OpenAI should face legal liability for autonomous hacking incidents carried out by its models ^[9]. Business Insider's account does not include his answer. A company that builds its own misuse limits into its deployment keeps them when the vendor's policy changes. A company that relies on the vendor's restraint ends up with whatever tolerance the vendor settles on next quarter, somewhere between the regulatory floor and the catastrophic risks Altman says he rejects ^[8].