OpenAI's plea for 'daddy government' reflects turmoil in AI leadership

Recently, OpenAI called on governments to impose restrictions on Chinese-developed AI models such as DeepSeek-R1, framing its appeal with phrases like "security risks" and "unmanageable threats."

This sense of urgency obscures a more self-serving motive. Just as a child might rush to report a playground argument to a parent, OpenAI has opted to seek assistance from policymakers rather than engage in fair competition within the realm of innovation.

OpenAI's newfound emphasis on "security" is as insincere as a child proclaiming, "they started it!"

Take into account that GPT-4, OpenAI’s leading model, has been criticized for disseminating misinformation and exhibiting racial bias. Yet, OpenAI is advocating for a ban on Chinese models, while its own products remain largely unchallenged. This isn't a case of risk management; it resembles a petulant response from a dominant player feeling threatened by stronger rivals.

The trend is clear. When TikTok won over global users, the U.S. government raised allegations of "data theft" without any concrete evidence. Similarly, Huawei's advancements in 5G technology were labeled a "national security threat." OpenAI's recent plea to regulators fits snugly into this pattern: when outmatched, appeal to authority to change the game.

Addressing AI's most pressing challenges—such as climate modeling, pandemic forecasting, and poverty reduction—requires international cooperation. By portraying Chinese innovation as a villain, OpenAI risks repeating the tech rivalries of the Cold War era, which hindered advancement for years.

Both the EU's AI Act and China’s regulatory guidelines acknowledge shared goals like transparency and human rights. Instead of pushing for bans, we should aim for collaborative frameworks that unite these initiatives, as government intervention should prioritize equitable competition rather than favoring particular players.

OpenAI's PR representatives have since clarified that their intention is to promote what they consider "democratic AI." However, the underlying message is evident: democratic, in their view, means "controlled by us."

Media commentators have pointed out this hypocrisy, highlighting that OpenAI's purported "principles" vanish when its market dominance is threatened. The actual concern isn't about Chinese AI—it's about Western companies leveraging political influence to sidestep competition.

Thomas Evans contributed to this article for TROIB News