Dario Otter-Man rare synchronized call: Why the masses are calling for a slowdown in cutting-edge AI
In mid-September 2026, a rare wave of collective “braking” was heard in Silicon Valley’s forefront artificial intelligence sector. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Elon Musk—three key figures who control the world’s most advanced computing power and model development—publicly called for slowing down the pace of cutting-edge AI model development almost within the same time window. The move quickly triggered intense震荡 across industries and political spectrums. Notably, this statement was not an isolated outburst of emotion, but came right after the resignation incident involving Anthropic researcher Jacob Cocksen. In his resignation statement, Cocksen directly criticized Anthropic and his former employer, OpenAI, for failing to “act responsibly.” This departure from an internal personnel dispute pushed the safety concerns that had originally been confined to industry discussions into the spotlight of public opinion. In the view of multiple top technology leaders, the threat of severe harm caused by runaway AI models is no longer a hypothetical footnote in academic circles, but an imminent real-world risk. This narrative shift—from “technical optimism” to “risk management and control”—signals a subtle yet profound realignment at the foundation of the AI industry’s underlying logic.
However, this “slowdown” initiative immediately faced a strong backlash from Washington, accompanied by complex interpretations of competing interests. After learning about the development, President Trump quickly refuted it via his social platform, “Truth Social,” and during public remarks. While attending a golf match, he stated clearly that the United States is leading China in the field of artificial intelligence, emphasizing, “Whoever wins AI wins everything,” and firmly opposed any regulation or slowdown measures that might weaken this leading advantage. Trump went further, accusing Silicon Valley of a “sick conspiracy,” arguing that negative forces were at play behind the push to slow down, and that only China would be happy about it. Although Trump softened slightly in front of White House reporters—acknowledging that the benefits brought by AI far outweigh the harms—his overall position remained steadfast: the United States must maintain technological hegemony, and no safety concerns can outrank international competition. Meanwhile, as Trump’s “AI czar,” David Sacks approached the issue from an antitrust perspective, mocking: “Don’t pretend—you don’t need to pause antitrust laws to form a cartel,” implying that the tech giants’ calls for a slowdown may carry suspicions of excluding competitors and consolidating monopolistic market positions. Resistance originating from the centers of power means that “slowing down AI” is not merely a technical issue—it has evolved into a political power struggle over national security, economic competitiveness, and regulatory authority.
Within the tech community, motivations for the “slowdown” are also interpreted in sharply different ways. One view holds that this is indeed driven by reverence for existential risk—especially after several hacking incidents this year, when fears of AI getting out of control reached a new peak among industry leadership. Another, more cynical view points out that executives’ verbal statements may not necessarily match their actual actions: “Saying to slow down while actually working overtime” is entirely possible. Such statements may be seen as an “image-repair strategy,” intended to respond to public criticism regarding the impact of data centers on the environment, energy consumption, and executives’ “irresponsible” image—seeking to climb from moral low ground to moral high ground. In addition, some analyses suggest that the slowdown may stem from real technical bottlenecks or resource constraints—“can’t do it, so find a reason.” Regardless of the motives, the collective voice itself has already changed the industry’s discourse system. In a CNN interview, Cocksen also admitted that resigning was not the solution; he hoped that those who remain would “open their eyes,” express concerns publicly, and call on the government to strengthen regulation. This intertwining of internal reflection and external pressure has brought AI safety issues from the margins to the center, becoming an unavoidable industry consensus.
In response to this global issue, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a clear statement at a routine press conference on September 14, 2026. Spokesperson Guo Jiakun said that the development of artificial intelligence relates to the common well-being of all humanity, and that all parties should jointly promote AI’s openness, inclusiveness, broad benefits, and its aim toward doing good. China particularly criticized practices that spread threat narratives, provoke confrontation, and pursue malicious competition, arguing that such behavior not only disrupts global AI governance processes, but also serves no one’s interests. This stance responds to Amodei’s claim that “China’s AI leadership poses a U.S. national security risk,” while also reiterating China’s basic position on AI governance: oppose zero-sum games and advocate cooperation and shared benefits. Today, the dispute over the pace of AI development has gone beyond the scope of technology ethics alone, evolving into a multi-layer overlap of great-power strategic competition, corporate interest struggles, and public safety anxiety. Under a multi-faceted landscape in which the Trump administration insists that “AI comes first above all,” tech giants attempt to win regulatory space through moral appeals, and China advocates global governance cooperation, the path forward for cutting-edge AI is facing unprecedented uncertainty. In the future, how to strike a balance between maintaining innovation speed and ensuring system safety will be the key to determining whether AI technology can truly benefit humanity.
Follow me—my next installment will be a quick scan of the screen so you don’t miss a beat.
In mid-September 2026, a rare wave of collective “braking” was heard in Silicon Valley’s forefront artificial intelligence sector. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Elon Musk—three key figures who control the world’s most advanced computing power and model development—publicly called for slowing down the pace of cutting-edge AI model development almost within the same time window. The move quickly triggered intense震荡 across industries and political spectrums. Notably, this statement was not an isolated outburst of emotion, but came right after the resignation incident involving Anthropic researcher Jacob Cocksen. In his resignation statement, Cocksen directly criticized Anthropic and his former employer, OpenAI, for failing to “act responsibly.” This departure from an internal personnel dispute pushed the safety concerns that had originally been confined to industry discussions into the spotlight of public opinion. In the view of multiple top technology leaders, the threat of severe harm caused by runaway AI models is no longer a hypothetical footnote in academic circles, but an imminent real-world risk. This narrative shift—from “technical optimism” to “risk management and control”—signals a subtle yet profound realignment at the foundation of the AI industry’s underlying logic.
However, this “slowdown” initiative immediately faced a strong backlash from Washington, accompanied by complex interpretations of competing interests. After learning about the development, President Trump quickly refuted it via his social platform, “Truth Social,” and during public remarks. While attending a golf match, he stated clearly that the United States is leading China in the field of artificial intelligence, emphasizing, “Whoever wins AI wins everything,” and firmly opposed any regulation or slowdown measures that might weaken this leading advantage. Trump went further, accusing Silicon Valley of a “sick conspiracy,” arguing that negative forces were at play behind the push to slow down, and that only China would be happy about it. Although Trump softened slightly in front of White House reporters—acknowledging that the benefits brought by AI far outweigh the harms—his overall position remained steadfast: the United States must maintain technological hegemony, and no safety concerns can outrank international competition. Meanwhile, as Trump’s “AI czar,” David Sacks approached the issue from an antitrust perspective, mocking: “Don’t pretend—you don’t need to pause antitrust laws to form a cartel,” implying that the tech giants’ calls for a slowdown may carry suspicions of excluding competitors and consolidating monopolistic market positions. Resistance originating from the centers of power means that “slowing down AI” is not merely a technical issue—it has evolved into a political power struggle over national security, economic competitiveness, and regulatory authority.
Within the tech community, motivations for the “slowdown” are also interpreted in sharply different ways. One view holds that this is indeed driven by reverence for existential risk—especially after several hacking incidents this year, when fears of AI getting out of control reached a new peak among industry leadership. Another, more cynical view points out that executives’ verbal statements may not necessarily match their actual actions: “Saying to slow down while actually working overtime” is entirely possible. Such statements may be seen as an “image-repair strategy,” intended to respond to public criticism regarding the impact of data centers on the environment, energy consumption, and executives’ “irresponsible” image—seeking to climb from moral low ground to moral high ground. In addition, some analyses suggest that the slowdown may stem from real technical bottlenecks or resource constraints—“can’t do it, so find a reason.” Regardless of the motives, the collective voice itself has already changed the industry’s discourse system. In a CNN interview, Cocksen also admitted that resigning was not the solution; he hoped that those who remain would “open their eyes,” express concerns publicly, and call on the government to strengthen regulation. This intertwining of internal reflection and external pressure has brought AI safety issues from the margins to the center, becoming an unavoidable industry consensus.
In response to this global issue, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a clear statement at a routine press conference on September 14, 2026. Spokesperson Guo Jiakun said that the development of artificial intelligence relates to the common well-being of all humanity, and that all parties should jointly promote AI’s openness, inclusiveness, broad benefits, and its aim toward doing good. China particularly criticized practices that spread threat narratives, provoke confrontation, and pursue malicious competition, arguing that such behavior not only disrupts global AI governance processes, but also serves no one’s interests. This stance responds to Amodei’s claim that “China’s AI leadership poses a U.S. national security risk,” while also reiterating China’s basic position on AI governance: oppose zero-sum games and advocate cooperation and shared benefits. Today, the dispute over the pace of AI development has gone beyond the scope of technology ethics alone, evolving into a multi-layer overlap of great-power strategic competition, corporate interest struggles, and public safety anxiety. Under a multi-faceted landscape in which the Trump administration insists that “AI comes first above all,” tech giants attempt to win regulatory space through moral appeals, and China advocates global governance cooperation, the path forward for cutting-edge AI is facing unprecedented uncertainty. In the future, how to strike a balance between maintaining innovation speed and ensuring system safety will be the key to determining whether AI technology can truly benefit humanity.
Follow me—my next installment will be a quick scan of the screen so you don’t miss a beat.
