Commentary: Can AI’s leaders really put aside rivalry for the common good?

In February, Anthropic opposed the Pentagon’s use of AI for certain military applications such as autonomous lethal weapons and mass surveillance. This led to the Trump administration publicly cutting ties with Anthropic and a legal firestorm. Within hours, OpenAI had taken advantage of the situation and signed its own deal with the Pentagon, claiming it had negotiated its safeguards independently. Google followed suit.

In another sign of the pressure-cooker competitive environment, Anthropic publicly pulled back on commitments in its responsible scaling policy this year, a pledge to halt or withhold AI models if it could not guarantee proper safety measures in advance. Anthropic cited competitor pressures, and a lack of faith in unilateral pledges, as a reason.

So why have the companies continued to push on developing AI and revenues at speed until now in the face of what they agree are potentially catastrophic risks to human lives? Part of the explanation is ideological. AI corporations frame the advance of the technology as an existential and moral issue. Each believes they should be entrusted with developing powerful AI because their rival is flawed. If any one of them pulls the handbrake now, they believe the outcome could be worse than ploughing on.

One former Anthropic researcher I spoke to put the dynamic like this: “Hubris. Fear that the next guy will do it even worse. Being caught up in your own narrative that you’re the good guys.”

But as the AI leaders concede, if there is a time to put aside personal rivalries and find a path forward, it is now. There is so much riding on it.