Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, discussed the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence on a recent podcast, asserting that societal progress should tolerate some negative outcomes in pursuit of technological advancement. This stance garnered criticism from politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and scholars such as AI skeptic Gary Marcus, who accused Altman of prioritizing profit over public safety. Altman advocates for lighter regulation to allow for the innovation brought by AI while acknowledging potential downsides, drawing comparisons to accepted risks associated with technologies like cars and the internet.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-06,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it +0.65, but 2 quote(s) could not be found in the article and the other 2 are attributed speech rather than the article's own narration, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph
rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 60473: no verified evidence · logged 2026-10-06
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has drawn scrutiny from across the political spectrum for his take on the future of AI.
asserted
Altman → draw → AI
On a recent podcast, Altman attempted to distance himself from more pro-regulation AI companies, such as Anthropic, arguing that society must think about the tradeoffs associated with slowing down AI advancement.
asserted
society → attempt → advancement
"I think one of the biggest differences between us and some of the stricter, let's say, AI safety people, is we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology," he said.
asserted
he → think → technology
This comment in particular drew criticism from the likes of Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said, "And a handful of tech oligarchs get to make that decision for the rest of us?
asserted
handful → draw → us
New York University professor and AI skeptic Gary Marcus joined in, saying that Altman was "saying the quiet part out loud: suck it up, so you can make us rich and powerful," and former diplomat Patrick Gaspard called it "freaking insane."
asserted
Gaspard → join → it
Some commentators resorted to describing Altman's comments as "sociopathic bullshit."
asserted
commentators → resort → bullshit
The argument Altman is making is one of tradeoffs.
asserted
Altman → make → tradeoffs
He rightfully points out that no technology is 100 percent safe, that "some bad things are going to happen," and that we ought to still have a "lighter-touch" regulatory approach.
asserted
we → point → approach
There's no way to guarantee a risk-free environment, that there will not be major hacks, scams, or negative consequences of AI, Altman says.
asserted
Altman → be → AI
Notably, the OpenAI CEO said that giving "a single lab in San Francisco" unchecked power is "a completely unacceptable trade-off from a perspective of liberty and human agency and people self-determining the future."
asserted
giving → say → future
The basic principle of Altman's argument is relatively ordinary: Society tolerates risk from virtually every transformative technology because zero-risk societies don't innovate.
asserted
societies → tolerate → technology
Cars, for example, killed over 36,000 people last year in the U.S., and yet there is a consensus that the benefits of cars far outweigh the risks—which are declining thanks to innovations like autonomous vehicles, which are far safer than human drivers and may eliminate car deaths (if the government allows them to operate).
uncertain
them → kill → deaths
The internet itself has enabled fraud, bullying, child exploitation, and countless other horrible crimes.
asserted
internet → enable → fraud
Medicines have side effects, and even electricity itself electrocutes hundreds of people every year.
asserted
electricity → have → people
The relevant question is not to ask whether something bad can happen, but whether the expected benefits outweigh the expected harms, and whether companies can mitigate those harms without destroying the benefits.
asserted
companies → ask → benefits
So far, AI has already proven to have an enormous number of benefits.
asserted
AI → prove → benefits
In medicine, AI has helped discover a new antibiotic, accelerate the drug discovery process, identify potential Alzheimer's disease causes, make strides in breast cancer treatments, and a whole host of other lifesaving advancements.
asserted
AI → help → advancements
AI has improved forecasts for hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, giving communities more time to prepare for disasters.
asserted
AI → improve → disasters
Of course, none of this means that harms should be ignored.
asserted
harms → mean → this
The point is that every technology involves tradeoffs, and the task is to reduce risks without regulating away the benefits.
President Donald Trump has, at least so far, largely rejected the notion that government regulation is necessary in the case of AI.
asserted
regulation → involve → AI
The administration's approach is reportedly going to focus on liability, meaning that companies can self-regulate but are directly liable for any harms they pose.
uncertain
they → go → harms
As this discourse around AI continues, Altman's broader point is certainly worth remembering.
asserted
point → continue → AI
Progress requires tradeoffs.
asserted
Progress → require → tradeoffs
In trying to eliminate every possible risk, we should be careful not to eliminate the benefits too.
asserted
we → try → benefits
The Aporia
