Anthropic and OpenAI told British MPs that frontier AI safety needs mandatory rules. Google DeepMind and Meta declined to endorse a new statutory framework, exposing a policy divide among four companies whose cooperation underpins government testing.
According to WIRED’s account of the hearing, Anthropic explicitly backed binding safety rules, while OpenAI supported a statutory framework with mandatory elements beginning with incident reporting. Google DeepMind emphasized technical standards; Meta pointed lawmakers toward Britain’s existing regulators.
The practical stakes emerged in testimony from government officials. The UK’s AI Security Institute, known as AISI, depends on voluntary cooperation to obtain models for evaluation. Its director acknowledged that the institute cannot prevent a company from releasing a model it considers dangerous.
Those are related but separate questions: whether companies must report incidents, whether government testers can demand access, and whether an adverse evaluation can affect a release. The hearing showed support for regulation without establishing agreement on how far any of those powers should extend.
Anthropic Backed Binding Rules; OpenAI Named a Starting Point
Anthropic’s position was the most explicit. Asked whether AI safety needed a statutory framework, its head of Europe, Liam Booth-Smith, told the committee:
“The rules should be binding.”
Booth-Smith said Anthropic had consistently supported binding rules for companies and considered voluntary commitments insufficient. That is a clear endorsement of legal obligations, rather than a request to improve the industry’s existing pledges.
OpenAI’s vice president, Tom Duff Gordon, also supported a statutory framework and an international convention. His account was more specific about an initial requirement: incident reporting.
“We don’t think basing everything on voluntary commitments for frontier risk is a good long-term plan,” Duff Gordon said.
The distinction between the two positions matters. Anthropic stated a broad principle. OpenAI identified an activity that should become compulsory. Neither statement, as reported, establishes agreement on a complete regulatory system, including which models it would cover, what enforcement powers it would create, or what penalties would apply.
Mandatory incident reporting would address one information gap: whether authorities learn about qualifying failures or dangerous events. Its effectiveness would depend on definitions that the reported testimony does not settle, such as what counts as a reportable incident and how quickly a company must disclose it.
