Who Gets to Define the Rules for AI?

Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez argues that proposals by leading AI labs, including Anthropic’s call for antitrust exemptions to coordinate safety standards, could concentrate regulatory power among a small group of dominant companies and create barriers for competitors under the banner of public safety. While recognizing significant AI risks in areas such as cyberattacks, fraud, critical infrastructure, and defense, he contends that safety rules should be developed through an open, international, evidence-based process rather than by selected firms with commercial interests. He proposes a framework centered on publicly defined risk criteria, mandatory developer transparency and incident reporting, proportionate testing based on an AI system’s capabilities and deployment context, and independent assurance mechanisms modeled on regulated industries. Gomez also questions the emphasis on speculative existential-risk scenarios, arguing that current harms such as voice-cloning fraud, unsafe automated decisions, and insecure AI deployments deserve greater attention. He concludes that AI governance should promote technological diversity, local control of sensitive systems, broad participation from governments, researchers, civil society, and smaller developers, and safety standards that apply equally regardless of a developer’s size or market position.

Use this post, company, and trend context to find content marketing opportunities, perform competitive analysis, or address product feature gaps via the Plushcap MCP server or the Plushcap API.