{"id":391033,"date":"2026-04-14T05:47:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T05:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/391033\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T05:47:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T05:47:15","slug":"sam-altmans-second-thoughts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/391033\/","title":{"rendered":"Sam Altman\u2019s second thoughts"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Platformer is off Tuesday. This is a column about AI. My fianc\u00e9 works at Anthropic. See\u00a0my full ethics disclosure here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Early Friday morning, according to a criminal complaint, a 20-year-old man threw a Molotov cocktail<\/a> at Sam Altman\u2019s house before driving to OpenAI headquarters and threatening to kill everyone inside.<\/p>\n

The incident came a few days after someone fired 13 rounds<\/a> at the home of an Indianapolis city councilor who had expressed support for a data center project; a note left at the scene read \u201cno data centers.\u201d<\/p>\n

The escalating political violence over AI is terrifying, morally wrong, and completely ineffectual. The spread of AI systems, despite their growing unpopularity, will not be stopped by a few stray bullets. And among the many reasons to be alarmed by incidents like the ones we have seen over the past week is that the perpetrators seem too disturbed to understand that.<\/p>\n

On Friday afternoon \u2014 in between the firebombing and a shooting near his property that the company said<\/a> was unrelated \u2014 Altman reflected: on the attacks, last week\u2019s New Yorker investigation<\/a> into his tenure as CEO, the state of AI, and growing public unease about the technology. After talking up AI\u2019s potential to create great benefits, he also sought to validate the fears of those afraid of what the future might bring. \u201cThe fear and anxiety about AI is justified,\u201d Altman wrote, underneath a photo of his husband and baby. \u201cWe are in the process of witnessing the largest change to society in a long time, and perhaps ever.\u201d<\/p>\n

Altman excels at reassuring you that he is on your side \u2014 this is one of the themes of the New Yorker profile \u2014 and he takes pains here to find common ground. He says he does not want to see AI power become too concentrated, and that it should be governed democratically. \u201cIt is important that the democratic process remains more powerful than companies,\u201d he writes, in one of many lines in the piece that I wholeheartedly agree with.<\/p>\n

Altman concludes by saying he sympathizes with anti-tech sentiment and \u201cwelcome[s] good-faith criticism and debate.\u201d \u201cWhile we have that debate,\u201d he writes, \u201cwe should de-escalate the rhetoric and tactics and try to have fewer explosions in fewer homes, figuratively and literally.\u201d<\/p>\n

II.<\/p>\n

Altman was writing in the aftermath of a traumatic event, and I\u2019m tempted to leave it there. There\u2019s nothing wrong with calling on cooler heads to prevail, or to hope that the past week\u2019s violence was an aberration. I hope it was, too.<\/p>\n

And yet I keep coming back to Altman\u2019s phrase \u201cde-escalate the rhetoric.\u201d After all, it was Altman and his fellow AI CEOs who have spent the past decade speaking about AI in existential terms; some of that language can be found in Altman\u2019s very blog post calling for calm.<\/p>\n

He\u2019s been writing that way for a long time.<\/p>\n

\u201cDevelopment of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity,\u201d Altman wrote<\/a> in a 2015 blog post. Speculating on the arrival of superintelligence, he added: \u201cEvolution will continue forward, and if humans are no longer the most-fit species, we may go away.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2023, Altman signed<\/a> a statement from the nonprofit Center for AI Safety that \u201cMitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.\u201d Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei signed the statement as well.<\/p>\n

During a podcast appearance last year, Altman likened the effort to build superhuman AI to the Manhattan Project. \u201cThere are these moments in the history of science where you have a group of scientists look at their creation and just say, you know, what have we done?\u201d he said. \u201cMaybe it’s great, maybe it’s bad, but what have we done?\u201d<\/p>\n

Altman\u2019s fellow CEOs have expressed similar levels of alarm. \u201cWe are summoning the demon,” Elon Musk said in 2014<\/a>. In January, in a long essay about risks posed by AI, Amodei wrote<\/a>: \u201cHumanity needs to wake up.\u201d<\/p>\n

And to some degree, humanity has woken up. One recent survey found<\/a> that AI is rising in importance to voters faster than any other issue. That same survey found that a majority of voters believe AI is advancing too quickly, and that superintelligence would be mostly harmful to people. Meanwhile, a separate survey<\/a> from Pew last year found that a majority of Americans believe that AI will lead to fewer jobs in the next 20 years.<\/p>\n

Look no further than last week\u2019s announcement<\/a> of Anthropic\u2019s Mythos model, and its unsettling ability to find new vulnerabilities in decades-old open source software, to understand that the CEOs were being honest when they warned that AI would introduce new risks into the world.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Given these facts, I struggle to understand what it would mean to \u201cde-escalate the rhetoric\u201d around AI. The CEOs are more convinced than ever that powerful intelligence will arrive within the next few years. The public increasingly believes them \u2014 and is appalled by the implications. It seems strange to suggest that, amidst accelerating breakthroughs in AI model performance, everyone needs to calm down.<\/p>\n

If we really might be facing \u201cthe greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity,\u201d as Altman once wrote, shouldn\u2019t we expect people at some point to (non-violently) freak out?<\/p>\n

III.<\/p>\n

Altman\u2019s proposed solution to the upheaval that OpenAI and its peers are planning is democratic governance. \u201cLaws and norms are going to change, but we have to work within the democratic process, even though it will be messy and slower than we\u2019d like,\u201d he wrote in his weekend blog post.<\/p>\n

This is a good instinct: one of the virtues of democracy is the way that it gives people a feeling of control over their own lives. People who believe that they can rein in AI companies through votes and laws and regulations will be much less likely to turn to violence.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But when legislatures have tried to regulate AI, OpenAI has fought them at every turn. The company lobbied against<\/a> California\u2019s SB 1047, which sought to set safety standards for frontier AI companies; the governor then vetoed it. OpenAI sent a sheriff<\/a> to the home of a nonprofit advocate for California\u2019s SB 53, which creates transparency requirements for AI companies, to deliver a subpoena as part of an inquiry into whether nonprofits were being directed or influenced by Musk. The company lobbied<\/a> the European Union to weaken the AI Act. Most recently it backed an Illinois bill<\/a> that would shield OpenAI from liability in cases where its models are used to cause serious harm so long as they did not \u201crecklessly or intentionally\u201d cause it and agreed to publish safety reports.<\/p>\n

To some extent, yes, this is \u201cworking within the democratic process.\u201d But the Illinois case shows what that looks like in practice: a company writing rules to limit its own accountability. And the more that OpenAI seeks to stifle efforts to regulate it, the more infuriated the general public will become.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Altman is right that words have power, and that AI anxiety should not boil over into open violence. To point out that he has consistently talked about the risks of AI systems is in no way to suggest that he deserved to be attacked over it. <\/p>\n

But at the same time, the sudden call for calm does ring hollow coming from someone who spent a decade sounding the alarm, whose predictions look increasingly prescient \u2014\u00a0and who now uses the company\u2019s resources to fight efforts to put his company under democratic oversight.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the public\u2019s disdain for AI was not invented by journalists. It was co-created by the people building the systems, who have consistently told us that it is imminent and dangerous. That the public has now begun to take them at their word should not surprise them. Isn’t that what they have been asking for all along?<\/p>\n

But they should listen to what the public is asking for, too. AI companies are asking us to trust them with a technology that everyone involved believes could end in disaster. The least they could do in return is let the rest of us have a vote.<\/p>\n

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR<\/p>\n

Providing a clearer view of care\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

UnitedHealth Group is making care easier to navigate by investing in tools that help patients find providers near them and compare costs.<\/p>\n

“More transparent pricing benefits everyone.” – Dr. Kailey G, Pediatrician<\/p>\n

Learn more<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"FollowingOpenAI’s Anthropic diss<\/p>\n

What happened: OpenAI\u2019s Chief Revenue Officer, Denise Dresser, sent staff a pugnacious<\/a> memo about the company\u2019s strategic direction \u2014 and its chief competitor, Anthropic.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe market is as competitive as I have ever seen it,\u201d Dresser wrote, and \u201cthere is no question it can be noisy, volatile and distracting at times.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dresser promoted the company’s pivot to the enterprise and celebrated<\/a> that demand for enterprise services via new partner Amazon has \u201cbeen frankly staggering.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

She also said OpenAI\u2019s \u201canalysis\u201d shows Anthropic is inflating its reported annualized revenue by $8 billion. \u201cThey use accounting treatment that makes revenue look bigger than it is, including grossing up rev share with Amazon and Google.\u201d Dresser said. She added that Anthropic made a \u201cstrategic misstep to not acquire enough compute.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dresser had an opinion on Anthropic\u2019s message, as well as their finances: \u201cTheir story is built on fear, restriction, and the idea that a small group of elites should control AI,\u201d she wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOur positive message will win over time,\u201d Dresser told employees.<\/p>\n

Why we\u2019re following: We were delighted by this memo\u2019s pettiness \u2014 and curious about whether Anthropic is, in fact, cooking its books. What\u2019s Dresser talking about when she says Anthropic is \u201cgrossing up\u201d its revenue share?<\/p>\n

Well, Anthropic has<\/a> some cloud partners to which it pays a cut of revenue. But it reports gross revenue. That means it includes the cut that it later pays to partners AWS, Microsoft, and Google in its financials. OpenAI, on the other hand, doesn\u2019t report gross revenue via its cloud partnership with Microsoft \u2014 it reports net revenue, minus Microsoft’s share.<\/p>\n

Both practices are allowed under standard US accounting principles, depending on who is considered the \u201cprincipal\u201d in the transaction. Anthropic and OpenAI\u2019s partnerships have different terms, so it\u2019s defensible for them to report the revenue from these partnerships differently.<\/p>\n

Where\u2019s the $8 billion coming from? While Dresser didn\u2019t share details of her analysis, an anonymous source gave the same $8 billion figure to Semafor last week<\/a> \u2014 according to Semafor, that number was \u201cbased on how much OpenAI would add to its run rate if it counted gross revenue instead of net revenue.\u201d<\/p>\n

While it is true that OpenAI is using a more conservative accounting practice than Anthropic, we have no idea whether that the delta between their gross and net revenue is the same as Anthropic\u2019s.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So why was Dresser repeating that analysis? Well, in the lead-up to both companies potentially IPOing this year, they can\u2019t be happy that Anthropic\u2019s latest<\/a> reported ARR of $30 billion is higher than the $25 billion that OpenAI last reported<\/a>. And independent analysis shows Anthropic is closing in<\/a> on OpenAI\u2019s share in the enterprise market. The race is heating up!<\/p>\n

What people are saying: On X, Brad Sams, VP at software company Stardock, wrote<\/a>, \u201cThe gloves are coming off \ud83c\udf7f\u201d<\/p>\n

Ex-OpenAI policy researcher Miles Brundage wrote<\/a>, \u201cOpenAI leaders should stop caricaturing Anthropic.\u201d He added, \u201cIt encourages tribalism at a time when safety cooperation is urgently needed.\u201d He thinks they have the wrong idea: \u201cDon\u2019t know this person so am assuming she is genuine but Anthropic\u2019s ‘story’ is not ‘built on fear, restriction, and the idea that a small group of elites should control AI.’\u201d<\/p>\n

New York Times reporter Mike Isaac wrote<\/a>, \u201cthe openai\/anthropic feud is like the mad men elevator meme but both companies are ginsberg.\u201d [If you\u2019ve forgotten, Ginsberg is the first guy (below). Platformer agrees that, if nothing else, the two companies seem to be thinking about each other a lot.]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ella Markianos<\/p>\n

\"\"Side Quests<\/p>\n

Reddit was ordered to appear<\/a> in front of a grand jury as part of President Trump\u2019s effort to unmask anonymous critics of ICE.<\/p>\n

Investors in Trump\u2019s family crypto venture World Liberty Financial are accusing<\/a> the project of secretly letting insiders freeze token holders\u2019 funds.<\/p>\n

Emil Michael, the Pentagon\u2019s under secretary for research and engineering, made<\/a> up to $24 million selling xAI stock after the Pentagon struck deals with the company.<\/p>\n

The CIA has started using<\/a> AI to help analyze intel.<\/p>\n

A look<\/a> at how the escalating AI arms race is reminiscent of the nuclear arms race. <\/p>\n

Maine is set to become<\/a> the first state to successfully impose a temporary ban on data center construction.<\/p>\n

The new EU leader in charge of competition policy, Anthony Whelan, has signaled<\/a> he will probe Big Tech companies despite pressure from Trump.<\/p>\n

A judge blocked<\/a> Arizona\u2019s criminal case against Kalshi at the CFTC\u2019s request.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Three senior OpenAI executives behind the Stargate initiative are leaving<\/a> and joining<\/a> Meta, sources said. An internal OpenAI tool downloaded<\/a> a compromised update from the Axios software. OpenAI opened<\/a> its first permanent London office.<\/p>\n

Anthropic\u2019s donations can\u2019t be used to influence federal elections, the company said<\/a>. Anthropic hired<\/a> lobbying firm Ballard Partners, which has strong ties to Trump, following its Pentagon fight.<\/p>\n

Vice President JD Vance and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reportedly questioned<\/a> leading tech CEOs, including Dario Amodei, about the security of AI models before Anthropic released Mythos. Trump officials urged<\/a> Wall Street banks to test the Mythos model internally, sources said. UK financial regulators are reportedly rushing to assess<\/a> the risks posted by Mythos. <\/p>\n

CoreWeave will provide<\/a> Anthropic with data center capacity as part of a multiyear deal. Anthropic has reportedly asked<\/a> Christian religious leaders for advice on how to guide Claude\u2019s moral development. Claude for Word is now available in beta<\/a>.<\/p>\n

OpenAI accused<\/a> Elon Musk of a \u201clegal ambush\u201d by suddenly changing direction in his lawsuit. Musk is experiencing<\/a> a string of legal losses. A verified @elonmusk account posted<\/a> on TikTok for the first time, and a verified @elonmusk handle surfaced on Instagram.<\/p>\n

xAI sued<\/a> Colorado to challenge its landmark AI bill aimed at protecting against AI \u201calgorithmic discrimination.\u201d (xAI said the bill would force it to \u201cpromote the state\u2019s ideological views on various matters, racial justice in particular.\u201d) X is reducing payments<\/a> to clickbait and news aggregation accounts.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The majority of Europeans don\u2019t trust American or Chinese tech companies with their data, a new survey showed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meta is reportedly building<\/a> an AI version of Mark Zuckerberg that can talk to employees in his place.<\/p>\n

The appearance of Polymarket bets in Google News was an error, Google said<\/a>. Gmail end-to-end encryption is now available<\/a> on all Android and iOS devices. YouTube is raising prices<\/a> on its Premium subscription.<\/p>\n

Microsoft is building<\/a> new Copilot features inspired by OpenClaw.<\/p>\n

Snap announced<\/a> a partnership between its AR glasses subsidiary Specs and chipmaker Qualcomm.<\/p>\n

Roblox is implementing<\/a> an age verification process to ensure users are over the age of nine.<\/p>\n

A look<\/a> at how small AI startup Black Forest Labs is seeing success in AI image generation and its physical AI dreams.<\/p>\n

The Wayback Machine is facing setbacks<\/a> as major news organizations restrict access due to AI copyright concerns.<\/p>\n

A look<\/a> at whether prediction markets can improve weather forecasts.<\/p>\n

Clients are increasingly sending<\/a> lawyers numerous AI-generated questions and driving up fees. AI in the workplace is driving some productivity gains but not fundamental shifts in how work is done, according to a new Gallup poll<\/a>. Stanford released<\/a> its 2026 AI Index Report.<\/p>\n

A look<\/a> at how an intense relationship with an AI chatbot turned fatal.<\/p>\n

\"\"Those good posts<\/p>\n

For more good posts every day, follow Casey\u2019s Instagram stories<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

(Link<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

(Link<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

(Link<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\"\"Talk to us<\/p>\n

Send us tips, comments, questions, and nonviolent protests: casey@platformer.news<\/a>. Read our ethics policy here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\n