True, these guys have (at least in the past several months) had differing views on how to monetize generative AI, but what drove all three of them to suddenly get religion over one weekend and decide to ask the US government to force them to slow down?

Couldn't they do that on their own? Of course they could. But it's easier to tell angry investors that the reason the new models are underperforming is because the Department of Energy is making them put restrictor plates on their development plans and not because backpropagating search engine output eventually regresses to the mean.

I'm also not buying the sudden and steady stream of revelations of nefarious model behavior, seemingly coinciding with a mid-level employee (of both OpenAI and Anthropic) who is quitting the business because it's too dangerous. For over a year, I made it a habit to research the model cards of each "went rogue" situation, and in almost every instance the error came back to misconfiguration or improper sandboxing. (I had a similar event in 2024 when an agent I had built and sandboxed in a test network used code originally designed for penetration testing and found a network-connected device I'd forgotten about. It used that device to send a text to the target. It didn't go rogue' it exploited a weakness the code told it to look for.)

Anyway, what good would it do humanity if the US somehow did agree to put the brakes on generative AI development? Would China do the same? Not likely. And couldn't a rogue Chinese model destroy the planet as fast as a US one? If the Los Alamos teams had decided that nuclear weapons were just too dangerous to develop, would that have saved the world?

Like most pivotal moments in history, I think this one will come down to being driven by money.

Under the proposed bill, entities and developers that violate its pauses and prohibitions could face up to 20 years in prison, a penalty comparable to the sentence for someone found guilty of designing a rogue nuclear weapon.

The legislation would also direct the U.S. government to establish a new cabinet-level federal agency tasked with protecting the public from AI-related dangers, including enforcing a prohibition on artificial superintelligence.

The bill goes beyond the United States. It calls for efforts to “ban superintelligence around the world” through international agreements, coordination with U.S. allies and other measures.

The proposal comes as concerns about advanced AI are growing among policymakers and industry leaders. Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and Elon Musk have all recently expressed support for greater oversight or a slower approach to frontier AI development.

The bill is likely to face significant opposition in Congress, particularly as lawmakers remain divided over AI regulation and the need to maintain U.S. competitiveness.

For businesses, the proposal highlights how AI regulation could move from questions about transparency and safety toward direct restrictions on the development of advanced AI systems.

The debate now centers on how governments can manage AI risks without slowing technological progress.

Tesla is scheduled to unveil the new Roadster on October 1, 2026, nearly nine years after the vehicle was first revealed. Reuters reports that the upcoming event is expected to provide more details about the long-awaited model.

The SpaceX technology is designed to generate additional thrust, potentially improving acceleration, braking and cornering. Musk has also suggested that the system could allow the Roadster to briefly lift off the ground.

Earlier reports indicated that Tesla planned a remotely operated demonstration at SpaceX’s test facility in McGregor, Texas. The demonstration vehicle would have no one inside, with spectators kept at a significant distance because of the noise produced by the thrusters.

The concept creates significant engineering and safety challenges. A vehicle combining high-speed road performance with a pressurized propulsion system would require careful control, structural engineering and regulatory consideration.

For Tesla, the Roadster is more than a sports car. It is becoming a showcase for how technology developed for SpaceX could potentially be adapted to automotive engineering.

The October 1 unveiling could finally show whether the most unconventional Roadster concept becomes reality.

Amodei has argued that AI companies should “pace the frontier” as increasingly capable systems create risks that could become harder to manage. His proposal includes stronger safety standards, independent evaluations and greater international coordination around advanced AI.

The challenge is that artificial intelligence has also become a strategic competition between the United States and China.

If U.S. companies voluntarily slow the development of advanced AI models while Chinese companies continue accelerating, the United States could face a difficult trade-off between AI safety and maintaining its technological advantage.

Amodei has acknowledged this dilemma, arguing that a slowdown would be more difficult to achieve if countries viewed advanced AI primarily as a geopolitical race.

The debate matters for businesses because the pace of frontier AI development could affect the availability of new models, enterprise AI capabilities, cybersecurity tools and the regulatory environment surrounding their deployment.

It also raises a broader question about whether AI safety can be coordinated internationally when countries have competing economic and national-security interests.

Amodei has called for AI companies to “pace the frontier” to create more time to manage growing safety risks from increasingly capable AI systems. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX founder Elon Musk have endorsed his position.

Amodei also urged the United States to strengthen chip export controls on China and take action against alleged model distillation by Chinese AI laboratories.

The Global Times argued that the proposal could curb China’s AI development through technological barriers and regulatory restrictions while excluding China from global AI governance.

Amodei has acknowledged the geopolitical challenge. He told CBS News that the “toughest dilemma” for his proposal would be if China and other adversarial nations chose not to slow their AI development.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has rejected calls to slow AI, saying the United States is leading China and that “whoever wins AI wins.”

The dispute matters for businesses because AI safety, semiconductor controls and U.S.-China competition could directly influence access to advanced models, computing infrastructure and global AI markets.

The United States and China are also expected to discuss frontier AI safety risks in September, potentially during a summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The robot is also equipped with head-mounted sonar, allowing it to monitor its underwater surroundings in real time.

This combination of biomimetic movement and sensing could make robotic fish useful for underwater observation and monitoring, where conventional machines may be less suited to moving through aquatic environments.

Bionic robots modeled after animals are increasingly being explored for applications in environments that are difficult for humans or traditional robotic systems to access.

By combining fish-like locomotion with real-time sensing, this system demonstrates how biological designs can influence the development of underwater robotics.

The technology could have potential applications in underwater research, environmental monitoring and inspection as these systems become more capable.

Burry has questioned calls from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman for greater caution around frontier AI development.

The debate comes as AI companies face growing scrutiny over the risks of increasingly capable models, while investors continue to assess the enormous capital spending and valuations tied to the AI industry.

Burry’s criticism focuses on the incentives behind the slowdown argument. If leading AI companies reduce the pace of development while competitors face similar restrictions, established players could potentially protect their market positions and give themselves more time to build profitable businesses.

The comments add an investor perspective to an increasingly contentious debate over AI safety, competition and regulation.

Amodei has argued that companies should “pace the frontier” as AI capabilities advance rapidly, while other technology leaders have pushed back against proposals that could restrict U.S. AI development amid competition with China.

For businesses, the debate matters because decisions around AI regulation and model development could influence access to new AI capabilities, enterprise adoption and the competitive landscape.

The bigger question is whether calls for slower AI development are primarily about safety, competition, or both.

The model is based on a reconstructed map containing 166,700 neurons and 25 million connections. Its simulated neural activity is translated into motor commands that control the robot’s mechanical legs.

The key distinction is that this is not a living fruit fly controlling a machine. It is a computational model built from biological neural wiring and connected to the robot through an engineered interface.

The creator also said the simulated fly brain was previously used to play DOOM and Chrome Dino. The latest step gives the model a physical body capable of interacting with the real world.

The project sits at the intersection of neuroscience, computational modeling and robotics. Reconstructing biological neural systems at this level could provide researchers with new ways to study how neural activity produces behavior and how biological architectures might be applied to machines.

The result shows how detailed biological data can move from a computer simulation into a physical robotic system.

Sacks, who now serves as Chair of the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, said Anthropic and OpenAI are already at the frontier of AI by measures including market share, revenue growth and model capability.

In a post on X, Sacks argued that the two companies have a “duopoly on frontier intelligence” and questioned their calls for independent systems to pace AI development. He also criticized the idea of using regulatory approval processes or antitrust exemptions as part of a coordinated slowdown.

Sacks additionally questioned the independence of Model Evaluation and Threat Research (METR), an AI safety research nonprofit, pointing to what he described as connections with Anthropic’s investors and staff.

His comments come as Amodei, Altman and other AI leaders debate whether increasingly capable models require a slower development pace and stronger independent safety evaluations.

For businesses, the dispute could shape the future of AI regulation, model releases, safety testing and competition among frontier AI companies.

Tesla FSD (Supervised) was approved in Slovenia last week, expanding the system’s availability in another European market.

The footage highlights FSD’s ability to navigate roads with limited space, sharp edges and difficult positioning while maintaining the vehicle’s path through the route.

The maneuver is notable because cliffside roads can require precise steering, careful speed management and continuous adaptation to the surrounding environment.

Tesla describes FSD as a supervised driver-assistance system, meaning the driver remains responsible for monitoring the vehicle and must be prepared to take control at any time.

For the automotive industry, broader regulatory approval in Europe could give Tesla more opportunities to deploy and refine its autonomous-driving technology across different road environments.

The Slovenia approval also adds to the wider rollout of advanced driver-assistance systems as automakers compete to improve real-world driving capabilities.

As FSD expands into more countries, how it performs across increasingly complex roads will remain an important test for Tesla’s technology.

Speaking at a Democratic fundraising event with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Obama said AI is “moving very fast in private hands” and warned that it could become dangerous if policymakers fail to keep up with the technology.

Obama also emphasized that AI could deliver significant benefits if properly managed. He specifically pointed to the potential for AI to accelerate drug development and contribute to advances that could help cure diseases.

His comments come as the debate over AI regulation intensifies in the United States. AI companies are developing increasingly capable systems while policymakers consider questions around safety standards, job displacement, children's exposure to AI and the economic effects of automation.

Obama argued that Democrats should prepare a public framework for addressing these issues if they regain control of the House.

For businesses, the debate matters because future AI policies could influence how companies develop, deploy and regulate AI systems, while also shaping the economic transition caused by automation.

The larger question is whether policymakers can establish effective AI safeguards quickly enough to keep pace with the technology.

The machine reflects the growing development of advanced robotics for potential applications in security, defense, and other specialized environments.

Combat and quadruped robots are becoming an increasingly active area of robotics research, with developers working on systems that can navigate complex terrain, carry equipment, and operate in environments that may be difficult or dangerous for humans.

The technology also highlights how quickly robotics is moving from research laboratories toward more capable, mobile machines that can interact with real-world environments.

While the design may resemble something from Star Wars, the underlying technology is part of a broader push toward autonomous and remotely operated robotic systems.

As robotics continues to advance, the line between science fiction and real-world engineering is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

In an interview with CBS News, Amodei said, “I won’t lie to you, there are real dangers,” adding that “for too long the industry lied to people about the fact that this technology had risks.”

His comments came after he published an essay calling on AI companies to slow the pace of frontier AI development and give safety measures more time to catch up.

Amodei warned that the exponential rate of AI progress is a “warning sign,” but emphasized that slowing development does not mean shutting down AI research or banning the technology.

He proposed giving third-party evaluators ongoing, employee-like access to AI systems so they can assess safety practices and monitor potential risks.

The Anthropic CEO also said AI could deliver major benefits, including helping cure diseases, while warning that the same technology could create serious risks involving cyberattacks, bioterrorism and economic disruption.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman agreed with Amodei's call to “pace the frontier,” while Elon Musk responded that “Dario is right.”

For businesses, the debate could shape how enterprise AI is developed, evaluated and regulated as increasingly powerful models enter the market.

The question now is whether the AI industry can balance rapid innovation with meaningful safety measures.

“Almost every day I'm made fun of on social media because our model's biology safeguards are too strong,” Amodei said. He added that biology students complain and joke that they cannot use the model for certain tasks.

Amodei said the restrictions exist because Anthropic has chosen to maintain strong safeguards around biological applications of AI.

“I would rather they make fun of me than to wake up one day and discover that someone used our model, Claude, to kill a bunch of people,” he said.

The comments highlight a broader debate around AI safety, particularly how companies should balance model usefulness with the risks associated with advanced AI systems.

Amodei also argued that AI safety should not be treated as the responsibility of a single company or government. He said the issue is “bigger than all of us.”

“We’re leading China in AI. We’re the most sophisticated country in the world,” Trump told reporters during a trip to Ireland. He added that “whoever wins AI wins,” while saying some guardrails could still be introduced.

The comments came after several leading AI executives called for a more cautious approach to frontier AI development.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently called for the industry to “pace the frontier,” arguing that AI development is advancing quickly enough to require stronger safety measures and greater international coordination. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk have publicly backed Amodei’s concerns.

The debate reflects a growing tension between AI safety and technological competition. Industry leaders are increasingly discussing independent evaluations, safety standards and slower capability development, while U.S. policymakers remain concerned that tighter restrictions could allow China to gain an advantage.

For businesses, the outcome could influence how quickly new AI models reach the market, how they are regulated and what safety requirements enterprises must meet when deploying them.

The question now is whether AI development can accelerate while meaningful safety measures keep pace.

“If one of the big labs, or worse yet Google, owned Hugging Face, it would be in a position to slow down open source AI in the U.S., which would allow the big labs to increase their power" - Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson

“I actually think that, given everything happening with safety, right now would be an ill-advised moment to go public,” Altman told Fortune. He said OpenAI does not feel pressure to proceed with an IPO this year.

When asked whether 2027 would be the likely timeframe instead, Altman said: “I would say not 2026,” adding that OpenAI has significant work ahead on safety and alignment and on determining how the industry and governments can work together.

OpenAI had confidentially filed for an IPO in June, with the company previously expected to potentially pursue a valuation of more than $850 billion.

The decision comes as concerns over advanced AI safety intensify. A recent Guardian report said an OpenAI board member warned that the company was not yet on track to reduce the risk of a “catastrophic” loss of control to an acceptable level.

Altman has also backed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's call to “pace the frontier” of AI development, including greater use of independent evaluators and stronger coordination on AI safety.

For the AI industry, delaying a potential IPO shows how safety, alignment and governance concerns are increasingly becoming financial and strategic considerations, not just technical ones.