Connect with us

News

OpenAI expands lobbying team to influence regulation

Published

on

OpenAI expands lobbying team to influence regulation

OpenAI is building an international team of lobbyists as it seeks to influence politicians and regulators who are increasing their scrutiny over powerful artificial intelligence.

The San Francisco-based start-up told the Financial Times it has expanded the number of staff on its global affairs team from three at the start of 2023 to 35. The company aims to build that up to 50 by the end of 2024.

The push comes as governments explore and debate legislation around AI safety that risk constraining the start-up’s growth and the development of its cutting-edge models, which underpin products such as ChatGPT.

“We are not approaching this from a perspective of we just need to get in there and quash regulations . . . because we don’t have a goal of maximising profit; we have a goal of making sure that AGI benefits all of humanity,” said Anna Makanju, OpenAI’s vice-president of government affairs, referring to artificial general intelligence, or the point that machines have equivalent cognitive abilities to humans.

While forming a small part of OpenAI’s 1,200 employees, the global affairs department is the company’s most international unit, strategically positioned in locations where AI legislation is advanced. This includes stationing staff in Belgium, the UK, Ireland, France, Singapore, India, Brazil and the US.

Advertisement

However, OpenAI remains behind its Big Tech rivals in this outreach. According to public filings in the US, Meta spent a record $7.6mn engaging with the US government in the first quarter of this year, while Google spent $3.1mn and OpenAI $340,000. Regarding AI-specific advocacy, Meta has named 15 lobbyists, Google has five while OpenAI has only two.

“Walking in the door, [ChatGPT had] 100mn users [but the company had] three people to do public policy,” said David Robinson, head of policy planning at OpenAI, who joined the company in May last year after a career in academia and consulting for the White House on its AI policy.

“It was literally to the point where there would be somebody high level who would want a conversation, and there was nobody who could pick up the phone,” he added.

OpenAI’s global affairs unit does not deal with some of the most fraught regulatory cases, however. That task goes to its legal team, which handles issues related to UK and US regulators’ review of its $18bn alliance with Microsoft; the US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into whether chief executive Sam Altman misled investors during his brief ousting by the board in November; and the US Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection probe into the company.

Instead, OpenAI’s lobbyists focus on the spread of AI legislation. The UK, the US and Singapore are among many countries dealing with how to govern AI and consulting closely with OpenAI and other tech companies on proposed regulations.

Advertisement

The company was involved in the discussions around the EU’s AI Act, approved this year, one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in seeking to regulate powerful AI models.

OpenAI was among AI companies that argued some of its models should not be considered among those that provide a “high risk” in early drafts of the act and would therefore be subject to tougher rules, according to three people involved in the negotiations. Despite this push, the company’s most capable models will fall under the remit of the act.

OpenAI also argued against the EU’s push to examine all data given to its foundation models, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

The company told the FT that pre-training data — the data sets used to give large language models a broad understanding of language or patterns — should be outside the scope of regulation as it was a poor way of understanding an AI system’s outputs. Instead, it proposed the focus should be on post-training data used to fine-tune models for a particular task.

The EU decided that, for high-risk AI systems, regulators can still request access to the training data to ensure it is free of errors and bias.

Advertisement

Since the EU’s law was approved, OpenAI hired Chris Lehane, who worked for President Bill Clinton, Al Gore’s presidential campaign and was Airbnb’s policy chief as vice-president of public works. Lehane will work closely with Makanju and her team.

OpenAI also recently poached Jakob Kucharczyk, a former competition lead at Meta. Sandro Gianella, head of European policy and partnerships, joined in June last year after working at Google and Stripe, while James Hairston, head of international policy and partnerships, joined from Meta in May last year.

The company was recently involved in a series of discussions with policymakers in the US and other markets around OpenAI’s Voice Engine model, which can clone and create custom voices, leading to the company narrowing its release plans after concerns over risks of how it might be used in the context of global elections this year.

The team has been running workshops in countries facing elections this year, such as Mexico and India, and publishing guidance on misinformation. In autocratic countries, OpenAI grants one-to-one access to its models to “trusted individuals” in areas where it deems it is not safe to release the products.

One government official who worked closely with OpenAI said a different concern for the company was ensuring that any rules would be flexible in future and become outdated with new scientific or technological advancements.

Advertisement

OpenAI hopes to address some hangovers from the social media age, which Makanju said has led to a “general distrust of Silicon Valley companies”.

“Unfortunately, people are often seeing AI with the same lens,” she added. “We spend a lot of time making sure people understand that this technology is quite different, and the regulatory interventions that make sense for it will be very different.”

However, some industry figures are critical of OpenAI’s lobbying expansion.

“Initially, OpenAI recruited people deeply involved in AI policy and specialists, whereas now they are just hiring run-of-the-mill tech lobbyists, which is a very different strategy,” said one person who has directly engaged with OpenAI on creating legislation.

“They’re just wanting to influence legislators in ways that Big Tech has done for over a decade.”

Advertisement

Robinson, OpenAI’s head of planning, said the global affairs team has more ambitious goals. “The mission is safe and broadly beneficial, and so what does that mean? It means creating laws that not only let us innovate and bring beneficial technology to people but also end up in a world where the technology is safe.”

Additional reporting by Madhumita Murgia in London

Video: AI: a blessing or curse for humanity? | FT Tech
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending