Bloomberg reports that AI developers OpenAI and Anthropic are at odds over Massachusetts AI regulation. The bill in question has passed the state Senate and now awaits approval from the House and state governor.
According to Bloomberg, both companies have hired lobbying firms to influence the bill. So what is it that has the two leading AI companies on opposite sides of proposed regulation?
The bill requires that AI companies share information with third-party evaluators. The reviewers would assess company practices for “catastrophic risks,” defined as at least 50 deaths or $1 billion in property damage caused by a frontier AI model. It also protects whistleblowers and mandates that companies report “critical safety incidents” to the state.
Independent review seems to be the sticking point for OpenAI, which previously endorsed a narrower bill that lacked this requirement. Bloomberg says the company “is warning that the reviews will slow the release of cybersecurity models that might protect against the very risks lawmakers fear and prefers states adopt a uniform standard in line with the Illinois law.” (Illinois recently passed bipartisan regulations that were marginally stricter than previous laws.)
Anthropic disagrees, calling the bill “the clearest and strongest AI safety legislation in the country.” Bloomberg adds:
Anthropic believes the more intensive third-party evaluations are needed because “we ultimately don’t think the industry should grade its own homework,” said Cesar Fernandez, the company’s head of US state and local government relations. While Anthropic endorses the Massachusetts proposal, states may need to adopt even tighter oversight in the future as the technology advances, he said.
I have previously expressed my mixed feelings about Anthropic’s public messaging, but I respect the position it’s taken here. A cynic might argue that it benefits Anthropic to demand a test it thinks it is better equipped to pass than its competitors. But I think a truly independent risk assessor would be deeply unimpressed by the competence displayed by Anthropic and its competitors alike; previous assessments have found major gaps in everyone’s plans. Maybe Anthropic knows this, and hopes for a mutual slowdown that’s in everyone’s interests; or maybe it’s just institutionally overconfident in its practices.
OpenAI’s stance seems much easier to understand. It has said outright that its strategy of “reverse federalism” involves enshrining industry-friendly state laws as a de facto national standard. It seems to be taking the position that the light-touch Illinois regulation is plenty, thank you very much. I’ve called the strategy an attempt to set the ceiling where the floor should be, and OpenAI’s stance in Massachusetts looks like more of the same.
I also find the claim that the law will weaken cybersecurity protections by slowing model releases to be hypocritical and self-serving in the extreme. OpenAI has consistently peddled the assumption that the development and release of highly cyber-capable AI is inevitable, so of course the only way to prevent catastrophic incidents is to use its models in defense.
But that assumption is false; pausing is not impossible. The U.S. government has temporarily paused or rolled back releases already, and could do so in a more lasting and consistent way if it chose. OpenAI has itself slowed development after cyber incidents exposed “critical cybersecurity” risks posed by its own models, and this is exactly the sort of risk the law is intended to expose and mitigate. When the attacks and the defense come from the same source — and attacks seem to be winning — it’s the height of double-speak to claim that slowing that source is bad for defense.
It’s not a perfect law. For one thing, there’s zero funding set aside for evaluators, which means that they’d have to be paid by the developers themselves. The law bars companies from making payment contingent on results, but you can’t simply legislate away a conflict of interest like that. And the law only enters effect in January 2028, which is awfully slow for the world of AI. More is needed.
Despite some gaps that make the Massachusetts bill less effective than it could be, it’s still a step forward for government visibility and oversight of frontier AI labs. Ultimately, I suspect that’s all it takes for OpenAI to stand against it.
The analyses and opinions expressed on AI StopWatch reflect the views of the individual contributors and the sources they cover, and should not be taken as official positions of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute.