OpenAI has asked members of Congress whether rival AI companies could legally agree to slow development together, according to a WIRED report. The question matters because it shows top AI labs see safety coordination as a possible antitrust risk, one that new legislation might need to fix.
What actually happened
OpenAI asked lawmakers in recent weeks whether an agreement among AI companies to slow development could violate antitrust laws, according to Decrypt, which cited a WIRED report. The outreach follows OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki's call for voluntary slowdowns until safety can be better demonstrated. Sens. Adam Schiff and Jim Banks introduced legislation to protect certain security collaborations, subject to advance notice to the Justice Department. 'Commercial and geopolitical competition in the AI space is incredibly intense,' Miranda Bogen, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told Decrypt. Duncan Sabien, head of communications at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, said stepping back just means the other guy gets a lead, without coordination.
How we got here
The debate intensified after Anthropic engineer Jacob Coxon publicly resigned this week, citing fears that AI could kill everyone by the end of the decade. In August, OpenAI paused internal Astra work over cybersecurity concerns. Both OpenAI and Anthropic relaxed safety commitments in February, with Anthropic chief science officer Jared Kaplan arguing that slowing down alone made little sense while rivals kept advancing. The dispute also unfolds against a US-China race for AI leadership. President Donald Trump delayed an AI executive order in May over fears it could weaken America's lead, then signed a revised version in June creating a voluntary safety review process.
Why this matters for you
For builders, the exchange signals that voluntary safety pauses face real legal uncertainty, not just competitive risk. A company that slows down alone could lose funding and talent to faster rivals, according to Sabien. For users of AI products, the outcome could shape how quickly new models reach the market and how much testing happens before release. For policymakers, the Schiff-Banks bill offers one possible legal path, but it requires advance notice to the Justice Department, adding friction. Builders working with AI tooling in hardware should watch whether antitrust clarity arrives before or after the next major model release.
The bigger question
If competition makes it commercially risky for any single company to slow down, can meaningful safety coordination happen without government protection first? The question extends beyond AI language models. As smart glasses, wearables, and AI hardware advance together, builders across the industry face the same tension: move fast to stay competitive, or pause to test safety, knowing a slower rival might simply take the lead instead.
What to watch
Lawmakers have not set a date for a vote on the Schiff-Banks bill. The Justice Department has not commented on OpenAI's antitrust question. Watch for further statements from Pachocki on shared safety standards, and for whether Anthropic or OpenAI announce new safety commitments following Coxon's resignation. Bonuz will track how any antitrust clarity affects AI tools built into wearable and AR hardware.
