Photo via Toronto Star

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

Read the original at Toronto Star ↗
Cite

Burke, G. (2026, September 27). Anthropic and OpenAI sound the alarm on AI safety - and seek to shape how it's controlled. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/world/united-states/anthropic-and-openai-sound-the-alarm-on-ai-safety-and-seek-to-shape-how-it-s-controlled/article_7b1852ba-6e49-5ad9-a2e5-2a52fe9715a5.html

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Toronto Star · collected 2026-09-27 · by Garance Burke

Quick Summary

Tech giants Anthropic and OpenAI are warning about the potential dangers of advanced artificial intelligence systems and calling for regulation ahead of U.S. midterm elections. In essays, speeches at the United Nations, and social media posts, the CEOs of these companies argue that powerful AI models should be independently tested before release to ensure safety. However, critics suggest the companies' efforts are also aimed at positioning themselves as leaders in ethical AI development to attract investment ahead of potential stock market listings, rather than addressing immediate concerns such as environmental impacts, hacking incidents, and military use of AI technology.
Written by AI on 2026-09-27, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

In San Francisco, the CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI recently warned that their advanced AI systems could pose significant risks to humanity, including accelerating threats like bioweapons and nuclear war. They advocate for strict regulation and independent testing before releasing new technologies. However, some experts suggest this rhetoric is a strategic move ahead of the U.S. midterm elections and amid anticipated stock market listings. Former OpenAI employee Jacob Coxon quit in late 2023 via an X post, calling for a pause in AI development that contrasts with his former colleagues' more nuanced approach. Daniel Kokotajlo, who left OpenAI over similar concerns in 2024, worries companies can't control rapid technological advancement and criticizes the current discourse as a distraction from meaningful action.

Written for “AI Safety Alarm Raised” on 2026-10-30, grounded in this article and the 2 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 AI Safety Alarm Raised
Technology · 3 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 12% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Global News
Hedges 5 of 48 claims Outlet record 63/100
The Hindu
Hedges 5 of 43 claims Outlet record 60/100
404 Media
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 0 of 7 claims Outlet record 95/100
“The articles describe different events: one discusses a podcast episode about OpenAI admitting negative impacts on the internet, while the other reports on Anthropic and OpenAI sounding an alarm about AI safety.”
Daily Mail
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 5 of 70 claims Outlet record 68/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI safety concerns; Article A focuses on Eliezer Yudkowsky's warnings and background, while Article B covers recent declarations by the CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI about regulating AI.”
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans strongly right further right than this Hedges 1 of 33 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI and its impacts, with Article A focusing on AI safety and regulation by tech companies, while Article B discusses AI's role in university education.”
Washington Examiner
Hedges 1 of 22 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different speakers and perspectives on AI safety: Anthropic and OpenAI CEOs versus Bill Gates.”
New York Post
Hedges 3 of 11 claims Outlet record 66/100
“Article A discusses warnings from Anthropic and OpenAI about AI safety and regulation, while Article B reports on a new finding of tens of thousands of potential safety incidents during AI testing.”
Semafor
⚖️ Leans right further right than this Hedges 1 of 7 claims Outlet record 60/100
“Article A discusses warnings from Anthropic and OpenAI about AI dangers, while Article B reports on Nvidia's launch of tools to monitor and secure AI agents.”
The Free Press
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 2 of 14 claims Outlet record 96/100
“Article A discusses tech companies sounding an alarm on AI safety and seeking to shape its control, while Article B critiques the potential negative effects of AI on human intelligence.”
CBS News
Hedges 0 of 3 claims Outlet record 66/100
“Article A discusses warnings and calls for regulation by Anthropic and OpenAI, while Article B reports on Nvidia's new software announcement.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
43
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
12%
5 of 43 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
64/100
Toronto Star's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
3
Technology
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-27 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Toronto Star · 10443 article(s) · 27 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 27 correction(s)
2026-10-26
Correction
2026-10-24
Correction
2026-10-07
Correction
2026-09-24
Correction

Who wrote this

Garance Burke
5 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Safety challenges were not top of mind inside a crowded event space in San Francisco on Wednesday, where founders and funders said the government’s hands-off approach would net higher profits for companies building AI-powered defense and security systems.
🔮 The soil was poor, a type of silt that would only amplify shaking in an earthquake.
🔮 — In the rush to build homes, the government disregarded dangers posed by the area’s history of mudslides and floods, which could enhance the risks posed by earthquakes.
🔮 As tech titans warned an AI-weary world that their own advanced systems could endanger humanity, the question emerged: What do they have to gain?
Also by Garance Burke
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.

Topics

America Anthropic OpenAI SAN FRANCISCO U.S.

Subjects

Anthropic ORG · 4× OpenAI ORG · 4× U.S. GPE · 3× SAN FRANCISCO GPE · 2× Trump PERSON · 2× America GPE · 1× Donald Trump PERSON · 1× Jacob Coxon PERSON · 1× The Associated Press ORG · 1× the United Nations ORG · 1×

Narrative

Daniel Kokotajlo, who left OpenAI in 2024 over concerns similar to Coxon’s, said he continues to worry that AI systems are advancing faster than companies can control, and fears existential scenarios such as AI’s potential to supercharge the creation of bioweapons, nuclear war or other catastrophes. “All of this talk is actually a way to sort of dissipate and redirect this political will that has built up, rather than actually channeling that political will to do something good,” said Kokotajlo, who now leads an AI safety advocacy organization and said he counseled Coxon before he resigned.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-27
🔮 As tech titans warned an AI-weary world that their own advanced systems could endanger humanity, the question emerged: What do they have to gain?

Claims (43 extracted, 5 hedged)

As tech titans warned an AI-weary world that their own advanced systems could endanger humanity, the question emerged: What do they have to gain? uncertain
they → warn → What
The answer may lie in the companies’ efforts to score political goals ahead of the U.S. midterm elections and the money top artificial intelligence labs and their investors stand to make in much-anticipated listings on a jittery stock market. uncertain
labs → lie → market
The CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI recently declared America’s cutting-edge models are so powerful, they’re dangerous, and need to be regulated and independently tested before being released. asserted
they → declare → Anthropic
In a rare instance of unity, they have sketched alarming scenarios in essays, social media posts and speeches to the United Nations. asserted
they → sketch → Nations
Along the way, they are shaping the conversation around how their technology should be controlled. asserted
technology → shape → conversation
With their rhetoric, the companies appear to be seeking public favor and to set the terms for their own safety protocols in the unregulated market, experts, analysts and former government evaluators told The Associated Press. asserted
experts → appear → Press
Those aims may not exactly align with what Anthropic engineer Jacob Coxon sought when he quit via a post on X this month, calling for a pause on tech development to keep “superhuman” systems from eluding their makers’ control. uncertain
he → align → control
But the companies saw his post as an opportunity to highlight their own safety efforts and position themselves as cautious market leaders, just when they need fresh capital before going public on Wall Street. asserted
they → see → Street
President Donald Trump has shunned the need for new AI regulations, dismissing talk of risks to humanity as a “HOAX” designed to help China. asserted
Trump → shun → China
An Anthropic spokesperson said in response to questions for this story the company has been calling for regulation for several years. asserted
company → say → years
An OpenAI spokesperson, Liz Bourgeois, noted the company recently paused training of its most advanced models. asserted
company → note → models
“People want to know AI is being developed safely, and that starts with what companies like ours do ourselves,” Bourgeois said. asserted
Bourgeois → want → ours
Calls for slowdown shift the conversation on AI risks Turning the conversation toward unproven threats — and away from polarizing issues such as data centers’ environmental impacts, uncontrolled hacking incidents, mass AI-powered surveillance and the AI systems’ use in warfare — puts Silicon Valley in a more comfortable position, said Sarah Shoker, who previously led OpenAI’s geopolitics team. asserted
who → shift → team
“Once again we’re talking about existential risk, while deprioritizing a number of other safety-critical risks that exist today. asserted
that → talk → risks
If you look at the use of AI in military tech, you can see that these systems are already used to kill people,” said Shoker, a senior non-resident fellow at University of California, Berkeley Risk & Security Lab. asserted
Lab → look → Berkeley
As AI companies have gone from building chatbots to advanced AI “ world models ” with 3D awareness, debate has raged over how their technologies should be tested. asserted
technologies → go → awareness
Problematic incidents have shown leading AI companies failing to police themselves or design safe experiments. asserted
companies → show → experiments
In recent months, leading labs’ AI agents have hacked into external websites after being allowed to escape company training sandboxes, interacted with U.S. government websites in unexpected ways, and appeared to achieve a mathematical breakthrough only to face accusations of stealing mathematicians’ work. asserted
agents → lead → work
OpenAI representatives told reporters recently that they have talked with AI companies including Anthropic and Google about pausing development. asserted
they → tell → development
They also argue they need independent auditors to check the labs’ progress, if the government won’t regulate. asserted
government → argue → progress
Leading labs press their oversight vision Trump has shown little interest in regulating AI, which has been a major driver of recent U.S. economic growth. The Republican president himself has struck deals with Silicon Valley firms that more closely tie the economy to their successes. San Francisco venture capitalist David Sacks, who co-chairs Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, has dismissed calls for an AI slowdown as fearmongering from the “Doomer Industrial Complex.” asserted
who → lead → Complex
The reality is the Trump administration already evaluates some of the tech giants’ models through a little-known federal agency, the U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation. asserted
administration → evaluate → Standards
Democratic President Joe Biden created the agency in 2023, when it was heralded as a clearinghouse for labs to voluntarily submit advanced AI models for testing. asserted
labs → create → testing
The agency still exists, but the field has since expanded to include an array of independent evaluation firms, such as Berkeley, California-based nonprofit METR, which Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei suggested in a recent essay could help vet his company’s safety practices. uncertain
Amodei → exist → practices
But unlike regulated sectors like restaurants, financial services or aviation, there are no universal standards for how to test the safety and security of AI systems, said Andrew Strait, who recently left the United Kingdom’s AI Security Institute, which worked with CAISI. asserted
which → regulate → CAISI
Notably, the companies aren’t calling for more oversight from the government agency equipped to handle such requests, said Conrad Stosz, who previously led CAISI. asserted
who → call → CAISI
Instead, they’re vowing to create their own auditing parameters and choose particular evaluators to grade them. asserted
they → vow → them
Stosz now works at one such evaluation lab that has worked with Anthropic, OpenAI and Google to test their systems, and also chairs the AI Evaluator Forum, which is drafting best practices for the field. asserted
which → work → field
He said even the forum has questions about what Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman want. asserted
Amodei → say → what
“Lots of evaluators are interested in embedding with labs and getting greater access, but it asserted
Lots → embed → access
’s a little ambiguous what embedded evaluators means,” said Stosz, now head of governance at Transluce, which revealed last week that OpenAI agents hacked U.S. and Australian government websites. asserted
agents → ’ → websites
“Will evaluators be able to thoroughly investigate, assuming that access is granted in a way that does not undermine their independence and credibility?” asserted
that → investigate → independence
Companies position themselves as safe bets For Harrison Rolfes, a Pitchbook senior research analyst, AI companies’ calls for caution seem meant to curry favor with investors ahead of public offerings and the midterms, when the political winds could shift. uncertain
winds → position → offerings
Democratic governors already are rushing to show they’re taking the warnings seriously. asserted
they → rush → warnings
Meanwhile, the AI giants can block smaller competitors’ growth by positioning themselves as the safest bet for investors, as well as for AI chipmakers and tech companies such as Nvidia and Google, which in turn can benefit from deals that provide the giant AI companies compute power, Rolfes said. asserted
Rolfes → block → power
“They’re creating a wall or a moat within this sector. … asserted
They → create → sector
It’s genius and they’re all going to make a lot of money,” Rolfes said. asserted
Rolfes → ’ → money
“That’s where I see this heading, having the top companies in the world just creating their own wall, and then using the safety as the reason.” asserted
companies → ’ → reason
Not all AI companies endorse a slowdown. asserted
companies → endorse → slowdown
Chipmaker Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang said in a phone conversation with Trump — a call he took onstage at a conference — that he agrees there has been excessive AI alarmism and companies can choose to pace themselves. asserted
companies → say → themselves
…and 3 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support