OpenAI and Anthropic Tell British Lawmakers: Regulate Us

Representatives for OpenAIandAnthropictold a British parliamentary hearing that voluntary pledges were no longer enough to ensure safety and that new laws should be introduced, deepening a public schism withGoogle DeepMindandMeta, both of which declined to back new legislation.

The Business, Innovation, Science, and Trade Committee, comprising a cross-party panel of MPs, held an evidence session on Tuesday with appearances from four frontier AI firms, four former staff of the firms turned whistleblowers and senior British civil servants.

“The rules should be binding,” Anthropic’s head of Europe Liam Booth-Smith told the committee, when asked if the company’s view was thatAI safety now needs a statutory framework. The company, he said, has “consistently believed that there should be binding rules on companies and that voluntary commitments are not enough.”

OpenAIvice president Tom Duff Gordon was more cautious but still supportive, backing astatutory frameworkand an international convention. Duff Gordon said “there should be some elements that should be mandatory,” starting with incident reporting. “We don’t think basing everything on voluntary commitments for frontier risk is a good long-term plan,” he said.

However, their rivals would not follow. Asked directly whether he supported a statutory framework, Google DeepMind’s Owen Larter said: “Focus on the standards is what we would be doing.” Meta’s Rob Sherman pointed to Britain’s existing regulators, telling MPs they were “not writing on a blank page.”

The hearing exposed an existing divide on the subject of regulation, putting the conflicting approaches of AI leaders on the British parliamentary record. Exposing this divide in a second jurisdiction was the point, according to select committee chair Liam Byrne. The committee set out “to light up the wide differences in opinions between some of the wealthiest firms on Earth,” he told WIRED after the hearing, and to show “that you couldn’t rely on voluntary self-regulation.”

While the four executives gave evidence to the committee on AI safety, only a few hundred meters away, Britain’s security service director issued a warning about the dangers of AI.

MI5 director Ken McCallum used his annual threat update to warn of bioweapon misuse as a significant threat from AI. “Not yet realized, but the misuse case to which I’d attach greatest weight, is AI’s potential to change the stakes on existing or even new bioweapons,” McCallum said.

Responding to this comment, Byrne told WIRED: “The fact that the head of MI5 is warning about incredibly dangerous capability uplifts for bioterrorists in one part of Whitehall, and then in another part of Whitehall the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office is basically admitting that our regulatory regime for AI is voluntary, tells you everything you need to know.”

In the final part of the evidence session, civil servants conceded to the committee how little the current system compels. Britain’s AI Security Institute (AISI) tests frontier models before release, but only when companies choose to hand them over.

Henry de Zoete, director of AISI, acknowledged that the institute was entirely reliant on the cooperation of the companies and foreign governments in order to gain access. Cat Little, the top civil servant at the Cabinet Office, which houses AISI, was pressed on whether the whole regime was voluntary. “At the moment, yes, it is,” she said.

When asked what would happen if AISI judged a model to be too dangerous, but it was released by a company anyway, de Zoete acknowledged AISI had no ability to prevent them from doing so.

“What we’re not doing is kite marking,” de Zoete said, using the British term for a safety certification. “We’re not saying yes or no to any sort of model.” He added: “These companies are either American or Chinese who are building at the frontier … There’s only so much we, as the UK, can do in that kind of context.”

The frontier executives also made plain that British access runs through Washington. “We provide our models predeployment to CAISI,” OpenAI’s Duff Gordon said, referring to AISI’s US counterpart. “We will continue to provide our models pre-deployment to AISI in the UK … and as long as we’re able to do that under theUS government, we will continue to do it.”

The tension of the existing arrangement was made clear to British officials by Anthropic’s Booth-Smith. “We unfortunately were not able to provide full unrestricted access to [Mythos 5.1] to UK AISI at that time ... That’s a question for the US government,” he said before addingthat AISI now had access.

The session also heard from four former lab researchers, among them ex-OpenAI staffer Daniel Kokotajlo. “I don’t think the companies can be trusted to self-regulate,” he told MPs. Steven Adler, who left OpenAI in late 2024, said he was “not confident in the safety culture across the industry.” Geoffrey Irving 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.”

Following the hearing Byrne told WIRED that his committee would now dedicate a lot of time examining the UK’s path forward as a middle power on AI. He wants ministers to use Britain’s coming G20 presidency, alongside South Korea, which follows it in the chair, to broker an international convention that does not depend on the current White House. “The G20 presidency will outlive the US presidency of Trump,” he said.

“The risks,” he added, “are multiplying faster than our safety regime can control.”

Comments

Comments

You Might Also Like

• Introducing the app:More ways tomake the most of WIRED

• Meta failed to catch hundreds ofAI child abuse ads

• Big Story:The search forSilicon Valley’s most powerful woman

• Hackers gotinside a Flock camera—its data shows how the system really works

• In your inbox:Go inside the world of digital security withKernel Panic

is a freelance reporter based in London, covering politics, policy, and business. ...

Contributor

Topics

Sam Altman and Elon Musk backed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s weekend plea for regulation. The White House seems unlikely to oblige.

Isabella Ward

The bloc wants to curb Big Tech’s grip on children with its new EU Kids Act, but age checks, parental oversight, and privacy concerns could make its plan difficult to implement.

Isabella Ward

Officials discussed setting up a mechanism for the two countries to notify each other of AI incidents which could threaten national security.

Isabella Ward

By framing their efforts as a “slowdown” rather than an industry-wide push for better security standards, AI labs may have set themselves up for years of regulatory headaches.

Maddy Varner

Six major AI companies signed a voluntary agreement with the White House this week vowing to implement safeguards. It’s unclear how much that matters.

Maddy Varner

Even if big AI companies agree to a pause, ensuring that nobody tries to sneak ahead could prove tricky.

Will Knight

The US and China agree that advanced AI poses serious risks. But Beijing is deeply skeptical of a deal that prioritizes keeping US companies ahead.

Louise Matsakis

Andy Burnham once kept Palantir out of Greater Manchester. His first test as prime minister is whether to cut the company’s £330 million NHS contract—and risk a rupture with Big Tech and Washington.

Ben Gartside

The company said its latest Astra model would undergo more work to meet safety standards, and issued an apology for the way it handled the hacking of an Australian government website.

Isabella Ward

The company also disclosed previously unreported incidents in which its AI models behaved in misaligned ways, including uploading files to the internet without being asked.

Maxwell Zeff

The Dreamforce conference became an unlikely battleground for the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Nvidia to debate whether AI development should slow down.

Maxwell Zeff

The US government filed an application to support the company’s legal challenge against a fine issued under the bloc’s Digital Services Act, which Trump has described as “overseas extortion.”

Isabella Ward