San Diego, CA
OpenAI and Anthropic agree to let U.S. AI Safety Institute test and evaluate new models
- The U.S. AI Safety Institute on Thursday announced it had come to a testing and evaluation agreement with OpenAI and Anthropic.
- The agreement allows the institute to “receive access to major new models from each company prior to and following their public release.”
- A number of AI developers and researchers have recently expressed concerns about safety and ethics in the increasingly for-profit AI industry.
OpenAI and Anthropic, two of the most richly valued artificial intelligence startups, have agreed to let the U.S. AI Safety Institute test their new models before releasing them to the public, following increased concerns in the industry about safety and ethics in AI.
The institute, housed within the Department of Commerce at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), said in a press release that it will get “access to major new models from each company prior to and following their public release.”
The group was established after the Biden-Harris administration issued the U.S. government’s first-ever executive order on artificial intelligence in October 2023, requiring new safety assessments, equity and civil rights guidance and research on AI’s impact on the labor market.
“We are happy to have reached an agreement with the US AI Safety Institute for pre-release testing of our future models,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote in a post on X. OpenAI also confirmed to CNBC on Thursday that, in the past year, the company has doubled its number of weekly active users from late last year to 200 million. Axios was first to report on the number.
The news comes a day after reports surfaced that OpenAI is in talks to raise a funding round valuing the company at more than $100 billion. Thrive Capital is leading the round and will invest $1 billion, according to a source with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named because the details are confidential.
Anthropic, founded by ex-OpenAI research executives and employees, was most recently valued at $18.4 billion. Anthropic counts Amazon as a leading investor, while OpenAI is heavily backed by Microsoft.
The agreements between the government, OpenAI and Anthropic “will enable collaborative research on how to evaluate capabilities and safety risks, as well as methods to mitigate those risks,” according to Thursday’s release.
Jason Kwon, OpenAI’s chief strategy officer, told CNBC in a statement that, “We strongly support the U.S. AI Safety Institute’s mission and look forward to working together to inform safety best practices and standards for AI models.”
Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic, said the company’s “collaboration with the U.S. AI Safety Institute leverages their wide expertise to rigorously test our models before widespread deployment” and “strengthens our ability to identify and mitigate risks, advancing responsible AI development.”
A number of AI developers and researchers have expressed concerns about safety and ethics in the increasingly for-profit AI industry. Current and former OpenAI employees published an open letter on June 4, describing potential problems with the rapid advancements taking place in AI and a lack of oversight and whistleblower protections.
“AI companies have strong financial incentives to avoid effective oversight, and we do not believe bespoke structures of corporate governance are sufficient to change this,” they wrote. AI companies, they added, “currently have only weak obligations to share some of this information with governments, and none with civil society,” and they can not be “relied upon to share it voluntarily.”
Days after the letter was published, a source familiar to the mater confirmed to CNBC that the FTC and the Department of Justice were set to open antitrust investigations into OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia. FTC Chair Lina Khan has described her agency’s action as a “market inquiry into the investments and partnerships being formed between AI developers and major cloud service providers.”
On Wednesday, California lawmakers passed a hot-button AI safety bill, sending it to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. Newsom, a Democrat, will decide to either veto the legislation or sign it into law by Sept. 30. The bill, which would make safety testing and other safeguards mandatory for AI models of a certain cost or computing power, has been contested by some tech companies for its potential to slow innovation.
WATCH: Google, OpenAI and others oppose California AI safety bill
San Diego, CA
Former City Manager, Jack McGrory: Straight Talk About San Diego, Part 2
Skip to content
San Diego, CA
Feds Will Finally Help Oceanside 73 Years After Admitting Fault for Its Disappearing Beaches
When the U.S. military built the Camp Pendleton Harbor complex just north of Oceanside in 1942, it didn’t set out to steal Oceanside’s beaches for decades to come.
But that’s exactly what’s been happening for the past 73 years.
In 1953, the federal government admitted that construction of harbor jetties at Camp Pendleton was directly contributing to the erosion of Oceanside’s beaches. The jetties block the ocean’s currents that carry sand along the coast, which causes Oceanside’s beaches south of the military base to lose out on sand that would have naturally flowed to them.
Rising sea levels caused by climate change also play a part, but in Oceanside, naturally occurring erosion has been exacerbated by the military base.
But the military is only just now stepping in to help. While the government’s admission of guilt seemed like a win, it somewhat backfired; because the federal government was on the hook for the entire cost, the project got swallowed by a bureaucratic black hole. Tired of waiting, Oceanside launched its own plan to save its beaches, one the military now refuses to help fund.
What Took so Long
In 2000, Congress passed a law mandating the Army Corps to study how it could restore Oceanside’s beaches to pre-harbor conditions.
The government was supposed to pay for the study and complete it in 44 months. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finally released the draft report of the study earlier this month – 26 years later.“Studies require both authorization and funding,” said Shawn Davis, public affairs specialist for the Army Corps, via email. “While the study was initially authorized in 2000, there have been gaps in funding that have impacted the timeline to complete the study.”
Those funding gaps happened until 2022 when Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, whose district includes much of North County’s coastal cities, helped secure $1.8 million in federal funding and another $2.27 million in 2025 to complete the study.
So, why did the funding dry up for so long at the federal level? According to Davis, “federal projects can only proceed and continue with appropriations from Congress.”
In other words, the project was stuck in bureaucratic limbo; it had the legal authorization to exist, but it couldn’t secure funds in a highly competitive budget that favored bigger projects.
Jayme Timberlake, Oceanside’s coastal zone administrator, told Voice of San Diego that the city and its representatives tried lobbying Congress for years, but there are often a lot of unknowns when it comes to Army Corps projects.
“It’s very political. It’s very much dependent on what the rest of the nation is going through and where the funds are going and how they’re getting allocated,” Timberlake said. “It’s very tough to navigate and there’s a lot of risk associated with it, meaning we can’t really rely on it.”
Other coastal cities received a plan before Oceanside did: The Corps completed similar studies for two sand replenishment efforts. One is a joint effort in Encinitas and Solana Beach, the other in San Clemente. Congress has already approved both of these projects for sand deliveries every seven to 10 years for the next 50 years.
“The difference is that the … projects that are happening in Encinitas, Solana Beach and San Clemente were initiated by a request to the Army Corps from these cites, and they were cost shared,” Timberlake said.
That means these cities are paying 35 percent of the costs, and the federal government is paying 65 percent. That also applies to sand deliveries every seven to 10 years. These types of projects can cost upwards of $100 million.
“In Oceanside, our mitigation project, at least the study was not cost shared. It was the full responsibility of the federal government because they admitted fault,” Timberlake said. “So, it’s really unfortunate that the mitigation for Oceanside beaches didn’t happen before those requested projects.”
Meanwhile, Oceanside’s Sand Was Disappearing

While Oceanside officials and residents waited for the government’s help, the city’s beaches were rapidly disappearing before their eyes.
Previous Army Corps studies estimate the Harbor has caused a loss of 1.4 to 1.6 million cubic yards of sand volume from Oceanside’s beaches since 1942, with some areas retreating at a rate of 6.6 feet per year. That’s 84 years of consistent and severe sand loss.
El Niño conditions over the years have also exacerbated the problem.
“There was such a dramatic loss of sand that the community really started asking for solutions,” Timberlake said. “There’s a whole generation that has been able to use the beach and then have it be gone, so it has triggered a lot of community interest.”
After 20 years of waiting, Oceanside decided to take matters into its own hands.
“Once there was momentum to fix the problem itself and not rely on the Army Corps any further, the city did a feasibility study in 2020, and that study really unearthed all the possible things that Oceanside could do in the short and long term to fix its beaches,” Timberlake said.
A few years later, city officials held a competition that brought together three design teams from around the world to develop sand retention pilot projects. They chose a concept that includes the construction of two headlands that will aim to stabilize sand on the back beach, with an offshore artificial reef aimed at slowing down nearshore erosive forces.
The project is called RE:Beach and it’s already funded up to the construction phase, Timberlake said. The city has applied for a few different grants to cover construction, which will cost upwards of $60 million.
Timberlake said the city asked the Army Corps to help fund the rest of the RE:Beach project, and the Army Corps denied the request.
The Government’s Plan

Oceanside’s RE:Beach project and the federal government’s recent recommendations won’t conflict with each other, Timberlake said. In fact, the two projects will complement one another.
The Army Corps’ draft feasibility report identified beach nourishment (a lot of sand) as the tentatively selected plan to restore Oceanside’s beaches.
It calls for dredging 4 million cubic yards of sand from an offshore borrow site and then placing it along Oceanside’s beaches, with the goal of sustaining a minimum 85-foot wide beach from Oceanside Harbor south to Buena Vista Lagoon. Sand replenishment would be 1 million cubic yards the first cycle, then repeated every 10 years.
Realistically, though, it could be another couple decades before Oceanside’s beaches start receiving sand, Timberlake said.
That’s because there are other competing projects the Army Corps is working on. Plus,, Congress still has to appropriate funding for the rest of the project to move forward once the feasibility study is completed. Initial costs of construction are currently estimated to be $243,540,000, Davis, spokesperson for the Army Corps, said via email.
It’s still unclear if the government will cover the full costs of construction and the subsequent sand renourishments for Oceanside, but Levin told Voice he thinks it’s unlikely.
“I will advocate for every penny to come from the federal government, given that the government did acknowledge responsibility,” Levin said. “But I do also know how the Army Corps works, and it’s very likely they’ll want some sort of cost share.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing major funding cuts to the Army Corps’ budget for fiscal year 2027. If those cuts are approved by Congress, it could have an impact on projects like this one.
Related Posts
San Diego, CA
Mischief San Diego Comic-Con 2026 Exclusive Pins
-
Dallas, TX6 minutes agoKlyde Warren Park reveals expansion plans, construction timeline
-
Miami, FL9 minutes agoPerson hospitalized after fire breaks out at North Miami Beach apartment building
-
Boston, MA14 minutes agoScottish soccer fan who died in Boston was ‘Tartan Army to his core,’ fundraising page says – The Boston Globe
-
Denver, CO21 minutes agoNuggets decline Jalen Pickett’s team option for 2026-27 season, sources say
-
San Diego, CA24 minutes agoFormer City Manager, Jack McGrory: Straight Talk About San Diego, Part 2
-
Seattle, WA24 minutes agoArmed suspects linked to 3 Seattle robberies within 30 minutes – MyNorthwest.com
-
Milwaukee, WI36 minutes agoBrewers, Salvation Army pack hundreds of lunches for Milwaukee children through Feed the Kids program
-
Atlanta, GA39 minutes agoNew Venues in Atlanta for Summer 2026 Meetings and Events