AI Giants Form Standards Body as Trump Dismisses Safety Warnings
Major AI companies are creating a private standards body to self-regulate the industry, a move driven by urgent safety concerns but complicated by the US government's refusal to impose federal oversight.
Leading artificial intelligence firms are moving to establish a private standards body, a significant shift in an industry that has largely operated without external guardrails. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are collaborating on this initiative, which would mimic the structure of financial regulators that oversee brokers and investment firms. The goal is to create a mechanism for testing the most powerful AI systems before they are released to the public, addressing growing fears about the technology's rapid expansion.
This push for self-regulation comes against a backdrop of increasing alarm from within the industry itself. Former researchers and executives have warned that current development speeds pose existential risks, with some describing the situation as a gamble with public safety. However, the US administration under President Donald Trump has consistently dismissed these warnings as hoaxes or conspiracy theories, leaving a regulatory vacuum that these companies now intend to fill themselves.
Modeling Regulation on Financial Standards
The proposed body, championed by Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis, is designed to operate similarly to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. This organization currently oversees US financial institutions, setting rules and enforcing compliance without direct government daily management. Under the new AI model, the industry would fund the body to attract top technical talent and provide the computing power necessary for large-scale safety testing. This approach aims to ensure that the most advanced models are rigorously evaluated before they reach the public.
Hassabis originally called for a federal organization in July, but the current proposal is a private-sector alternative. The funding would come directly from the participating AI companies, creating a self-sustaining regulatory ecosystem. This structure allows for specialized technical expertise that a general government agency might lack, but it also places the rule-making power squarely in the hands of the companies being regulated.
Growing Internal Pressure for Safety
The urgency behind this move is fueled by recent departures from key AI labs. Jacob Coxon, a former OpenAI employee who recently left Anthropic, warned that companies were gambling with lives. Similarly, Bilal Chughtai, a former researcher at Google DeepMind, stated that AI has the potential to cause catastrophic harm and that time is running out to prevent it. These voices have been joined by top executives, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who has called for a slowdown in development.
Even Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk of xAI have expressed support for the need to curb rapid development. This consensus among leaders suggests that the safety concerns are not fringe opinions but central to the industry’s future. The formation of a standards body is a direct response to these internal warnings, attempting to formalize safety protocols in a way that voluntary measures have not achieved.
Political Resistance and Industry Conflict
The initiative faces significant headwinds from Washington and within the tech sector itself. President Trump has labeled safety concerns as hoaxes, a stance supported by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who argues that the threat is not grounded in science. With Congress divided and midterm elections looming, federal legislation is unlikely to pass soon. This political apathy has emboldened the major labs to take control of the regulatory process, but it has also drawn criticism from smaller players.
Aidan Gomez, chief of Canadian AI company Cohere, has accused the dominant American labs of forming a cartel under the guise of safety. He argues that the dispute is not about whether guardrails are needed, but about who gets to write them. For smaller companies, the cost of compliance with a body funded and controlled by giants could be prohibitive. As reported by GN technics/ai (en-US), this creates a complex landscape where safety efforts may inadvertently entrench the power of the largest firms in the market.
