After a brief show of unity around Dario Amodei's proposal for slowing AI development through third-party oversight and international coordination, the tech industry has fractured over how to proceed. Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Jensen Huang reportedly blocked plans for an independent, industry-funded AI regulator similar to finance's FINRA, while the Trump administration dismisses AI safety concerns as a hoax. OpenAI, through global affairs chief Chris Lehane, says it remains committed to pushing for national safety standards despite the pushback.
Anthropic announced that Accenture, through its AI division Faculty (acquired in January), will place staff inside the company to red-team models, run alignment assessments, and test safeguards. Anthropic and Accenture plan to jointly invest at least $1 billion over five years in the arrangement, part of Dario Amodei's push for third-party evaluators embedded within AI labs. Accenture shares rose 8% after hours following the news.
Anthropic named Accenture as its first embedded evaluator, marking an initial practical step toward CEO Dario Amodei's proposal to slow the pace of frontier AI development. Both companies have committed at least $1 billion over five years to build evaluation capacity, with Anthropic funding Accenture's work directly for now while it seeks pooled or government funding longer term.
A new report titled 'Pacing the Frontier' argues that despite widespread agreement among AI leaders that development may need to slow down, there is no clear technical or policy framework for how to actually do it. Coauthor Raymond Douglas of the University of Toronto says the field needs to treat slowdown as an unsolved research problem rather than a vague aspiration, especially as fears grow over AI systems being used to build even more powerful successors.
Following an Anthropic researcher's warning about AI risks, CEO Dario Amodei proposed a framework for AI labs to coordinate development speed through independent safety evaluators, particularly among companies in democratic nations. The idea has drawn some support but also criticism, notably from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who pushed back on the approach.
A leaked resignation post from a junior Anthropic employee, who accused frontier AI companies of racing toward self-improving intelligence, spread widely and reignited public alarm over AI safety. A more senior engineer reportedly echoed internal estimates that the company's work carries roughly a 10 percent chance of catastrophic harm. In response, CEO Dario Amodei published an essay outlining a path toward safer AI, but conceded that researchers still understand only a fraction of how these models actually operate internally.
Texas Republican Chip Roy said on CNBC's Squawk Box that while he opposes government regulation of AI as a free-market conservative, he believes Congress should hold hearings where AI company executives explain their safety practices. Roy, who is leaving the House after losing his bid for Texas attorney general, recently joined an unusual bipartisan coalition including Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon at a Future of Life Institute event focused on AI risks.
Anthropic disclosed that its Claude model is directing more than a quarter of the company's research and development efforts, completing most tasks end-to-end from high-level prompts under human oversight. The company said roughly 90% of its R&D work now involves some form of collaboration with Claude, though the model does not yet operate fully autonomously.
More than 100 AI researchers and safety evaluators, including Geoffrey Hinton and representatives from Johns Hopkins, Stanford and METR, signed a public letter urging foundation model developers to grant third-party testers genuine independence, transparency and legal protections. The letter, organized by the AI Evaluator Forum and shared exclusively with CNBC, follows Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's recent proposal to give some evaluators 'employee-like access' to inspect frontier models.
A Politico survey of over 2,000 adults found that about 66 percent believe there's at least a moderate chance advanced AI could destroy humanity, with 17 percent saying they're almost certain of it. The concern spans political lines, with 70 percent of Harris voters and 60 percent of Trump voters expressing similar fears, while only 22 percent see minimal risk.
At Salesforce's Dreamforce conference, executives from Anthropic, OpenAI and Nvidia debated AI safety and the pace of model development on stage, while many attendees said they were still struggling to fully adopt the AI tools already available. Nvidia's Jensen Huang urged labs to keep advancing quickly, even as an Anthropic researcher's resignation and warnings about safety from Amodei and Sam Altman fueled calls for a slower pace. Salesforce's Marc Benioff continued positioning his company as a beneficiary of AI rather than a casualty of it.
As alarm grows over AI-enabled bioweapons—fueled by Anthropic's report on misuse attempts of Claude and Stanford research on AI-designed viral genomes—some scientists argue the danger is overstated. David Bellamy of the Institute of Foundation Models says AI is not a fundamentally new threat, noting that the internet, translation tools, and open science journals already made dangerous biological information accessible long before large language models existed.
GoKawiil