Skip to content
Bramble

Technology

Ex-OpenAI researchers and AI firms give MPs evidence on AI risk and regulation

At a Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee session on Tuesday, former OpenAI staff warned of high industry risk-taking, while OpenAI and Anthropic backed binding rules and Google DeepMind and Meta did not. UK officials said the current testing regime is voluntary.

2 outlets · 1L · 0C · 1R First reported Account updated
Image: City A.M.
Image: Wired

1 / 2

The story, neutrally told

Right · 1Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher, told the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST) Committee on Tuesday that "the risk tolerance across the industry is catastrophically high". Right · 1Kokotajlo said he quit OpenAI after concluding it "would not behave responsibly around the creation of this technology". He also said he felt pressure to "mince my words a bit" in public communications and that some internal research and forecasts were stopped from being published, according to City A.M. Left · 1Wired reported that Kokotajlo also said "I don't think the companies can be trusted to self-regulate".

Mixed · 2Steven Adler, who left OpenAI in late 2024, said there had been resistance inside the company to calling its technology "dangerous", though he acknowledged its culture may have changed since. He told MPs he was "not confident in the safety culture across the industry" and urged governments to "set the ceiling" on the risk companies can impose. Right · 1Geoffrey Irving, a former researcher at OpenAI, Anthropic and the UK's AI Security Institute (AISI), said capability advances were far outpacing safety work. Asked about his earlier estimate of a 50 per cent chance of advanced AI destroying humanity, he said a "coin flip is roughly the right model to have"; City A.M. noted this is a personal assessment rather than an established scientific probability. Left · 1Irving said the labs believe they are locked in a race that governments will not interrupt and that they cannot leave. "Both of those are false," he said. "They could just stop."

Left · 1The session also heard from four frontier AI firms, four former staff and senior civil servants. Anthropic's head of Europe, Liam Booth-Smith, said "the rules should be binding" and that voluntary commitments are not enough. Left · 1OpenAI vice president Tom Duff Gordon backed a statutory framework and an international convention, saying "there should be some elements that should be mandatory", starting with incident reporting. Left · 1Google DeepMind's Owen Larter said the focus should be on standards, and Meta's Rob Sherman pointed to existing regulators, telling MPs they were "not writing on a blank page".

Left · 1Civil servants told the committee the current system is voluntary. AISI director Henry de Zoete said the institute relies on company and foreign-government cooperation for access and cannot stop a release, and Cabinet Office top civil servant Cat Little answered "At the moment, yes, it is" when asked if the regime was voluntary. Mixed · 2British access to models runs through Washington: OpenAI's Duff Gordon said it provides models pre-deployment to the US counterpart CAISI and will continue with AISI as long as the US government allows, and Booth-Smith said Anthropic could not initially give AISI full unrestricted access to Mythos 5.1, which he called "a question for the US government". He added that AISI now has access, and City A.M. reported Washington restored UK access after a temporary restriction. Left · 1Committee chair Liam Byrne told Wired the aim was to show "that you couldn't rely on voluntary self-regulation" and to expose differences between some of the wealthiest firms. He said the committee would examine the UK's path as a middle power and wants ministers to use Britain's coming G20 presidency to seek an international convention not dependent on the current White House.

Left · 1Nearby, MI5 director Ken McCallum used his annual threat update to name AI's potential to change the stakes on bioweapons as the misuse case to which he attaches greatest weight, though "not yet realized". Right · 1City A.M. added context that AI minister Kanishka Narayan warned on Monday that a major breach of Britain's cyber defences was likely inevitable, and that Anthropic warned its models may soon self-replicate and that its IPO filings reportedly cite "existential risks to humanity". It said OpenAI and Anthropic had been contacted for comment.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.

Left1 outlet

Framing
Wired leads on OpenAI and Anthropic asking to be regulated, and on the split with Google DeepMind and Meta, setting it against a largely voluntary UK regime.
Emphasis
Company positions on statutory rules, officials' admissions about voluntary testing, US dependence, and committee chair Liam Byrne's comments.
Leaves out or plays down
Gives less space to Kokotajlo's allegations of pressure to soften public statements and to Irving's 50 per cent estimate.
Charged language
“Regulate Us”“whistleblowers”
For example
“The hearing exposed an existing divide on the subject of regulation” — Wired
“civil servants conceded to the committee how little the current system compels.” — Wired

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right1 outlet

Framing
City A.M. leads on the former OpenAI researcher's warning of 'catastrophically high' risk, framing the hearing as a test of whether tech giants can regulate themselves.
Emphasis
Whistleblower testimony, existential-risk figures and wider UK AI security news.
Leaves out or plays down
Does not report the firms' own positions on binding regulation or the officials' admission that the regime is voluntary.
Charged language
“catastrophically high”
For example
“The world’s biggest AI companies are taking “catastrophically high” risks in their race to develop superintelligent systems” — City A.M.
“The figure reflects his personal assessment of a hypothetical future risk, rather than an established scientific probability.” — City A.M.

Ask about this story

Loading…