JavaScript is currently turned off in your browser, which is preventing a crucial component of this website from loading. This issue could stem from various factors, including browser extensions, network problems, or specific browser configurations. To resolve this, please ensure that your internet connection is stable, disable any ad-blocking extensions you may have, or consider switching to a different web browser.

Customer Challenge

A dark boardroom scene at night, moonlight and a single desk lamp casting stark shadows across a long, polished table. At one end sits a lone professional in a sharp suit, shoulders tense, hands gripping the table’s edge. Across from them, an empty chair bathed in an ominous red glow and framed by slatted light from window blinds, as if the unseen client looms over the meeting. The room’s deep shadows and muted tones underline the weight of the “Client Challenge.”

What a chocolate company can tell us about OpenAI’s risk - Financial Times

- JavaScript must be enabled in your browser to access the site’s features.  
- Issues loading the site may stem from extensions, network problems, or settings.  
- Users are advised to check connection, disable ad blockers, or switch browsers.  

JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Please enable JavaScript to proceed.

A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.

Client Challenge

To access this article at no cost, simply register now. 

By signing up, you'll be able to: • Enjoy complimentary articles • Receive our Editor's Digest along with other newsletters • Track specific topics and customize your events • Explore Alphaville, our renowned blog focused on markets and finance.

Nvidia-supported 'open' AI startup seeks investors with a valuation exceeding $20 billion.

A sleek, sunlit loft-style boardroom where a diverse group of investors in tailored suits leans forward around a polished wooden table strewn with pitch decks and coffee cups. Warm sunlight streams through floor-to-ceiling windows, casting soft shadows. On the glass wall behind them, a bold Nvidia logo stands beside a large digital display reading “$20 bn+ Valuation” in elegant gold type.

Nvidia-backed ‘open’ AI start-up courts investors at $20bn-plus valuation - Financial Times

- Users can register for free to access exclusive articles and content.  
- Registration includes subscriptions to newsletters and personalized event notifications.  
- Access to Alphaville, a popular finance and markets blog, is included.  

To read this article for free Register now

Once registered, you can: • Read free articles • Get our Editor's Digest and other newsletters • Follow topics and set up personalised events • Access Alphaville: our popular markets and finance blog

Nvidia-backed ‘open’ AI start-up courts investors at $20bn-plus valuation

Over the weekend, OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, along with other top executives, took to social media to clarify the company's recent agreement with the Department of Defense, which permits the utilization of OpenAI's models within classified military networks. This announcement came shortly after Anthropic, OpenAI's competitor, declined a similar contract with the Pentagon, resulting in the Trump administration branding Anthropic as a "supply-chain risk."

OpenAI has faced considerable criticism for its decision to partner with the Pentagon, especially since Altman had previously expressed support for Anthropic's stance against accepting government contracts that lack explicit safeguards prohibiting the use of AI technology for mass surveillance of American citizens or for autonomous weaponry capable of making strikes without human intervention.

Some dissenters have initiated a campaign encouraging ChatGPT users to transition to Anthropic’s Claude chatbot, and indications show this effort may be yielding results; Claude recently overtook ChatGPT to become the most downloaded free app on the Apple App Store. Additionally, protests occurred outside OpenAI’s San Francisco office, where supporters of Anthropic's decision to refuse the Pentagon contract expressed their sentiments through chalk graffiti.

In response to the uproar, Altman and OpenAI's leadership directed some of their social media activity at alleviating concerns among their own workforce regarding the Pentagon contract. Notably, many OpenAI employees had previously signed an open letter endorsing Anthropic's decision to reject the Pentagon's demands and opposing the classification of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk. Altman also stated he opposes this designation.

Moreover, Leo Gao, an OpenAI employee who focuses on ensuring that AI models align with user intent and ethical considerations, publicly raised concerns about the Pentagon contract's safeguards. He criticized the agreement, suggesting that it allowed the Department of War too much leeway in how the AI could be employed, while accusing the company of engaging in superficial measures to appear compliant with ethical guidelines.

During a social media "Ask Me Anything" session on Saturday evening, Altman acknowledged that the deal with the Pentagon felt hurried and had poor optics. He insisted, however, that the swift action was necessary to de-escalate tensions between the military and Anthropic, which could potentially harm the broader AI sector by raising fears of government overreach, including nationalizing an AI lab or coercing private companies to deliver technology on governmental terms.

“If this indeed leads to de-escalation, we will be seen as visionaries who braved challenges for the good of the industry," Altman said. "If not, we may be viewed as reckless and hasty.” He emphasized the importance of fostering a constructive relationship between the government and AI developers in the coming years.

Furthermore, Altman expressed his disagreement with the supply-chain risk designation for Anthropic, asserting that enforcing it would negatively impact the industry and the country. He stated, “I believe this designation is misguided, and I hope it gets reversed, even if it means we face backlash for speaking out against it.”

OpenAI claimed it found a middle ground in the contract that maintained limitations while satisfying the military's request for no contractual constraints on AI application. The company stated that the responsibilities for AI usage would be grounded in existing laws and technical limitations designed to restrict its models’ applications, specifically prohibiting any prompts that could breach OpenAI's ethical standards.

In detailing the contract, OpenAI shared an excerpt clarifying that its technology could be utilized for “all lawful purposes,” alongside specific references to U.S. laws and Department of War policies that limit the surveillance of citizens and outline guidelines for deploying autonomous weapons. Katrina Mulligan, OpenAI's head of national security partnerships, argued during the AMA session that these legal references provided more assurance against potential violations than critics suggested.

However, some legal scholars challenged Mulligan's claims, particularly concerning autonomous weapons policies. Charles Bullock from the Institute for Law & AI remarked that the Department of War could alter its policies at any time, meaning that the contract's stipulations might not guarantee perpetual adherence. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that the agreement did appear to bind the Department of War to current laws regarding mass surveillance.

The ambiguity surrounding the term "mass surveillance" raised concerns among dissenters, who questioned how OpenAI would address scenarios where military intelligence agencies might use its AI to process commercially available data for surveillance purposes. Mulligan stated that while government purchases of commercial datasets couldn't be entirely mitigated, the contract explicitly prohibits mass domestic surveillance as a binding condition for use.

She emphasized that OpenAI's approach, which includes multiple technical measures designed to restrict Pentagon capabilities, offers a more robust solution compared to contractual language alone, which seemed to be the primary focus for Anthropic. She asserted that effective AI deployment in classified settings necessitates layered safeguards and expert involvement.

Boaz Barak, another OpenAI executive, echoed this sentiment, critiquing Anthropic's concentration on contractual terms over broader safeguards. He noted that tech companies often face uncertainty regarding how the Department of War interprets the contract language.

Altman reflected on the discussions during the AMA, hinting at the larger question of whether AI should be a government undertaking. He remarked that while he sometimes thinks it might be better for AGI development to be state-run, it seems unlikely under current circumstances. He also expressed concern over critics who appeared to trust private tech leaders more than elected officials in managing AI's appropriate use.

“I strongly believe in the democratic process, and our elected officials have the authority to uphold our constitutional values. A world where AI firms act with more power than the government is alarming,” Altman stated. “Likewise, it would be distressing if our government deemed mass domestic surveillance permissible.”

OpenAI's Sam Altman justifies Pentagon agreement, acknowledges ‘optics aren’t favorable’

Generate image with OpenAI text with no logo: In a darkened press room lit by a single warm spotlight, Sam Altman stands with his back to us in a sharp suit. He faces a looming, stylized Pentagon silhouette projected onto a large screen. An American flag stands to one side. Stormy clouds are visible through tall windows, casting natural, dramatic light and long shadows across the floor, conveying tense optics.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman defends decision to strike Pentagon deal, admits ‘optics don’t look good’ - Fortune

- OpenAI's deal with the Pentagon allows AI use in classified military networks amid backlash.  
- Critics, including OpenAI employees, argue that the deal lacks robust safeguards against misuse.  
- Altman emphasized the need for strong government and industry relations to de-escalate tensions.  

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other senior executives took to social media over the weekend to defend their decision, announced on Friday, to strike a deal with the Department of War to allow the company’s models to be used in classified military networks. The deal came hours after archrival Anthropic turned down a similar agreement with the Pentagon and the Trump administration said it was labeling Anthropic a “supply-chain risk.”

OpenAI faced vocal backlash for agreeing to the Pentagon deal after Altman had earlier in the week voiced support for Anthropic’s position that it would not accept a Pentagon contract that did not contain explicit prohibitions on its AI technology being used for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens or being incorporated into autonomous weapons that can make a decision to strike targets without human oversight.

Some of these critics have even started a campaign to persuade ChatGPT users to stop using that AI model and switch to Anthropic’s Claude chatbot. There was some evidence the campaign was having an effect, too: Claude surged past ChatGPT to become the most downloaded free app in Apple’s App Store. The sidewalk outside OpenAI’s offices in San Francisco was also covered with chalk graffiti attacking its decision to cut a deal with the Pentagon, while graffiti outside Anthropic’s offices largely praised its decision to refuse a contract that did not include prohibitions on the use of its AI models for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.



Some of Altman’s and OpenAI’s social media push over the weekend seemed aimed at quelling concerns among the company’s own employees over the Pentagon contract. Many rank-and-file OpenAI employees had signed an open letter last week supporting Anthropic’s refusal to accede to the Pentagon’s demands and opposing its decision to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk. (Altman also said over the weekend that he disagreed with the supply-chain risk designation.)



And at least one OpenAI employee publicly questioned whether the company’s contract with the Pentagon provided robust safeguards. Leo Gao, an OpenAI employee who works on making sure increasingly powerful AI models stay aligned with user intentions and human values, criticized his employer on X for agreeing to let the DOW use its technology for “all lawful purposes” and then engaging in what Gao called “window dressing” to make it seem like there were further restrictions on what the Pentagon could do with OpenAI’s GPT models.



Altman admitted in an “Ask Me Anything” session on social media platform X on Saturday night that its deal with the Pentagon “was definitely rushed, and the optics don’t look good.”



But he insisted that OpenAI moved quickly to make the deal because it wanted to de-escalate the increasingly heated situation between the U.S. military and Anthropic. The fight potentially threatened to damage the AI industry as a whole, in part by raising the prospect of the U.S. government nationalizing an AI lab or at least using its power to coerce a private company to deliver technology on its preferred terms.



“If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the DOW and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a company that took on a lot of pain to do things to help the industry,” Altman said. “If not, we will continue to be characterized as rushed and uncareful.”

He added that “a good relationship between the government and the companies developing this technology is critical over the next couple of years.”



And he said he was opposed to Anthropic being labeled a supply-chain risk. “Enforcing the [supply-chain risk] designation on Anthropic would be very bad for our industry and our country,” Altman said. “To say it very clearly: I think this is a very bad decision from the DOW, and I hope they reverse it. If we take heat for strongly criticizing it, so be it.”

OpenAI said that it had found a compromise approach that preserved the same limitations while also acceding to the military’s wish that it not have contractual constraints on how it uses the AI tech it purchases. The company said that limits on how its AI can be used rest on both references to existing law that it has put in the DOW contract and technical limitations on what its AI models will be able to do.

It said the DOW agreed to let it build these technical limitations. The technical limitations will include systems that would classify any of the prompts DOW users feed OpenAI’s models and refuse any that the classifier deems might violate OpenAI’s redlines. It also may include fine-tuning of OpenAI’s models so that they won’t easily comply with instructions that violate the two redlines.

OpenAI says its contract attempts to bind Pentagon to current law

OpenAI published a portion of its contract with the DOW in which it said it agreed that its technology could be used “for all lawful purposes” but which also included specific references to existing U.S. laws and Department of War policy documents that establish limitations on the surveillance of U.S. citizens and on how autonomous weapons can be deployed.

Katrina Mulligan, OpenAI’s head of national security partnerships and a former chief of staff to the secretary of the Army, said during the Ask Me Anything on X that referencing these existing laws and policies provided more assurance that the Pentagon would not later violate the company’s redlines than some critics suggested. “We accepted the ‘all lawful uses’ language proposed by the department, but required them to define the laws that constrained them on surveillance and autonomy directly in the contract,” she said. “And because laws can change, having this codified in the contract protects against changes in law or policy that we can’t anticipate.”



Some legal experts pushed back on Mulligan’s position, at least as far as DOW policies on autonomous weapons are concerned. Charles Bullock, a senior fellow at the Institute for Law & AI, said on X that “DOW can, of course, change its own policies whenever it wants,” and that the contract language OpenAI released does not require the DOW to follow the existing policy in perpetuity. But he said that the contract did seem to bind DOW to following existing interpretations of existing laws governing mass surveillance of U.S. citizens.



Bullock also said it was impossible to know how ironclad the limitations contained in OpenAI’s contract are without assessing the entire contract, not just the small section OpenAI made public. OpenAI has said government rules bar it from publishing the entire contract because it is for a classified system.

A debate over the definition of ‘mass surveillance’

Many of those skeptical of OpenAI’s agreement with the Pentagon noted that the term “mass surveillance” is not well-defined and questioned OpenAI executives on what would happen if military intelligence agencies attempted to use its AI models to analyze commercially available data—such as cell phone location data or data from fitness apps—that could be put together at scale to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens in America. The Defense Intelligence Agency is believed to have purchased such data, and its use remains a legal gray area. Anthropic, according to a story in The Atlantic, was particularly concerned about the Pentagon using its technology for this kind of analysis and that its insistence on curtailing that use case was one of the major stumbling blocks to breaking its deadlock with the DOW.

“We can’t protect against a government agency buying commercially available datasets, but our contract incorporates a prohibition on mass domestic surveillance as a binding condition of use,” Mulligan said during the AMA.



She also said that OpenAI’s decision to rely on a multipronged approach that included technical systems to limit what the Pentagon could do provided a more robust solution than simply relying on contractual language, which she said seemed to be Anthropic’s primary approach. She said Anthropic had not been able to lean on this technical solution because it was already providing versions of its AI models to the military that had some of the usual safeguards removed.



“Anthropic has primarily been concerned with usage policies, which is because their existing classified deployments involve reduced or removed safety guardrails (making usage policies the primary safeguards in national security deployments),” she said. “Usage policies, on their own, are not a guarantee of anything. Any responsible deployment of AI in classified environments should involve layered safeguards including a prudent safety stack, limits on deployment architecture, and the direct involvement of AI experts in consequential AI use cases. That’s what we pursued in our negotiations, and that’s why we think the deal we made has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s.”



Another OpenAI executive, Boaz Barak, who works on AI alignment and safety, also represented the company in the AMA and criticized Anthropic for fixating so heavily on contractual language and not other kinds of safeguards. “I get the impression that folks at Anthropic had unrealistic expectations for the contract stuff,” he said in response to a question from former OpenAI policy chief Miles Brundage, noting that tech companies were always going to be somewhat at the mercy of how the DOW interpreted terms in the contract.

Who should decide how AI is used?

Altman said that many of the questions in the AMA session touched on the issue of whether AI efforts should be nationalized. The OpenAI CEO noted, “It has seemed to me for a long time it might be better if building AGI [artificial general intelligence] were a government project.” But he added, “It doesn’t seem super likely on current trajectory.”



Altman also said he was surprised by how many of OpenAI’s critics seemed to have more faith in unelected tech executives making decisions about the appropriate use of AI rather than government officials who were, at least in theory, accountable to Congress and ultimately voters.

“I very deeply believe in the democratic process, and that our elected leaders have the power, and that we all have to uphold the Constitution. I am terrified of a world where AI companies act like they have more power than the government,” Altman said on X. “I would also be terrified of a world where our government decided mass domestic surveillance was okay.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman defends decision to strike Pentagon deal, admits ‘optics don’t look good’

Criteo has announced its collaboration with OpenAI, making it the inaugural advertising technology partner to join the advertising pilot for ChatGPT, available on both Free and Go versions in the United States.

Michael Komasinski, CEO of Criteo, expressed enthusiasm about this partnership, emphasizing its potential to enhance advertising within the burgeoning realm of AI. He stated, "This integration with OpenAI marks a pivotal advancement in the way advertising can foster discovery and consideration on platforms utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs). We aim to create experiences that are not only relevant and supplementary to users but also founded on trust."

Data collected from Criteo’s U.S. clients indicates that users engaging with LLM platforms such as ChatGPT convert at approximately 1.5 times the rate of other online referral channels, underscoring the high intent of interactions in these AI environments. As conversational exploration expands, this initiative offers brands a chance to thoughtfully navigate advertising opportunities within ChatGPT while simultaneously boosting demand for retailers and brands.

With over $4 billion in annual media expenditure and partnerships with 17,000 advertisers worldwide, Criteo connects brands, retailers, and media publishers through its sophisticated AI-driven decision-making technologies and commerce intelligence. This synergy allows Criteo to facilitate commerce-driven advertising across diverse categories and settings, including cutting-edge avenues like conversational AI.

The rollout of this integration is set to begin in the upcoming weeks as part of the ongoing advertising pilot within ChatGPT.

For more information about Criteo's vision for the future of commerce enhanced by AI, please visit their website.

The article contains forward-looking statements regarding market opportunities and growth prospects that may not materialize due to various risks and uncertainties, including potential technology-related issues, market fluctuations, and changes in regulatory frameworks. Recent economic challenges like inflation and varying interest rates in the U.S. could also affect Criteo's operations. As such, readers should not overly rely on these statements, which reflect conditions only as of the release date.

Criteo Partners with OpenAI for Advertising Pilot in ChatGPT – Company Announcement

A bright, sunlit modern workspace with a laptop open to the ChatGPT interface bearing “OpenAI” text with no logo, a vibrant ad banner branded with the Criteo logo hovering just above the chat window, symbolizing their new advertising pilot.

Criteo Joins OpenAI Advertising Pilot in ChatGPT – Company Announcement - Financial Times

- Criteo becomes the first advertising tech partner for OpenAI's ChatGPT ad pilot.  
- The integration aims to enhance user trust and relevant advertising experiences.  
- Criteo's platform shows high conversion rates for users referred by LLM channels.  

The integration enables brands to leverage Criteo's digital advertising platform as part of OpenAI 's ad pilot

NEW YORK , March 2, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Criteo (NASDAQ: CRTO), the global platform connecting the commerce ecosystem, today announced it is the first advertising technology partner integrating with OpenAI 's advertising pilot in ChatGPT Free and Go versions in the United States .

"This integration with OpenAI represents an exciting step forward in advancing advertising in an emerging AI experience," said Michael Komasinski , Chief Executive Officer of Criteo . "Through this pilot, we are helping shape how advertising can support discovery and consideration within Large Language Model (LLM) platforms, grounded in experiences that are additive, relevant, and built on user trust."

Aggregated insights observed across Criteo's U.S. clients show that users referred from LLM platforms like ChatGPT convert at approximately one and half times1 the rate of other referral channels, reinforcing the high-intent nature of these AI experiences. As conversational discovery grows, this pilot represents an opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate how brands can participate in advertising within ChatGPT while also driving incremental demand back to retailer and brand destinations.

Criteo activates more than $4 billion in annual media spend and works with 17,000 advertisers globally, connecting brands, retailers, and publishers through commerce intelligence and AI-driven decisioning technology to drive cross-channel outcomes. This unique combination enables Criteo to support commerce-focused advertising across a wide range of categories and environments, including emerging discovery surfaces like conversational AI.

The integration will begin rolling out in the coming weeks as part of the ongoing advertising pilot in ChatGPT.

To learn more about Criteo's vision for the future of agentic commerce, click here.

1 Observed on a sample of 500 Criteo retailers in the U.S. , February 2026 .

Contacts

Criteo Public Relations

Jessica Meyers , j.meyers@criteo.com

Criteo Investor Relations

Melanie Dambre, m.dambre@criteo.com

About Criteo

Criteo (NASDAQ: CRTO) is the global platform connecting the commerce ecosystem for brands, agencies, retailers, and media owners. Its AI-powered advertising platform has unique access to more than $1 trillion in annual commerce sales—powering connections with shoppers, inspiring discovery, and enabling highly personalized experiences. With thousands of clients and partnerships spanning global retail to digital commerce, Criteo delivers the technology, tools, and insights businesses need to drive performance and growth. For more information, please visit criteo.com.

Forward Looking Statements Disclosure

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including our expectations regarding our market opportunity and future growth prospects and other statements that are not historical facts and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Factors that might cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: failure related to our technology and our ability to innovate and respond to changes in technology, uncertainty regarding our ability to access a consistent supply of internet display advertising inventory and expand access to such inventory, disruption of current plans and operations by our planned transfer of the company's legal domicile from France to Luxembourg via a cross-border conversion (the "Conversion"), failure to satisfy any of the conditions to and complete the Conversion, investments in new business opportunities and the timing of these investments, whether the projected benefits of acquisitions or strategic transactions, including the Conversion, materialize as expected, uncertainty regarding international operations and expansion, including related to changes in a specific country's or region's political or economic conditions (such as changes in or new tariffs), the impact of competition or client in-housing, uncertainty regarding legislative, regulatory or self-regulatory developments regarding data privacy matters and the impact of efforts by other participants in our industry to comply therewith, the impact of consumer resistance to the collection and sharing of data, our ability to access data through third parties, failure to enhance our brand cost-effectively, recent growth rates not being indicative of future growth, client flexibility to increase or decrease spend, our ability to manage growth, potential fluctuations in operating results, our ability to grow our base of clients, and the financial impact of maximizing Contribution ex-TAC, as well as risks related to future opportunities and plans, including the uncertainty of expected future financial performance and results, changes in general political, economic and competitive conditions and specific market conditions; adverse changes to the marketing industry, changes in applicable laws or accounting practices, and those risks detailed from time-to-time under the caption "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in the Company's SEC filings and reports, including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 26, 2026 , subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and in the proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC under Rule 424(b)(3) on January 22, 2026 in connection with the Conversion, as well as future filings and reports by the Company. Importantly, at this time, macro-economic conditions including inflation and fluctuating interest rates in the U.S. have impacted and may continue to impact Criteo's business, financial condition, cash flow and results of operations. Accordingly, a forward-looking statement is neither a prediction nor a guarantee of future events or circumstances and those future events or circumstances may not occur. You should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release.

Except as required by law, the Company undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release as a result of new information, future events, changes in expectations or otherwise.

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/criteo-joins-openai-advertising-pilot-in-chatgpt-302700457.html

Criteo Joins OpenAI Advertising Pilot in ChatGPT – Company Announcement

Criteo, the leading global platform connecting the commerce ecosystem, has announced an exciting development: it is the first advertising technology partner to integrate with OpenAI's advertising pilot for both the Free and Go versions of ChatGPT in the United States. This integration marks a significant advancement in how advertising can be utilized within the burgeoning realm of AI experiences, according to Michael Komasinski, Criteo's CEO.

Komasinski emphasized that this collaboration is pivotal for shaping how advertising can facilitate user discovery and engagement through Large Language Model (LLM) platforms. The core aim is to provide experiences that are beneficial, relevant, and based on user trust.

Data gathered from Criteo's U.S. clients reveal that users directed from LLM platforms, such as ChatGPT, show a conversion rate that is approximately 1.5 times higher than those from other channels. This statistic underscores the intent-driven nature of interactions on AI platforms, highlighting the potential for brands to strategically leverage advertising within ChatGPT to generate additional demand for retailers and other brand destinations.

Criteo drives over $4 billion in annual media spending and collaborates with 17,000 advertisers worldwide. By integrating commerce intelligence and AI technology, Criteo connects brands, retailers, and publishers, enhancing advertising across diverse categories and formats, particularly in new areas like conversational AI.

The rollout of this integration will commence in the upcoming weeks as part of the ongoing advertising pilot within ChatGPT.

For more insights on Criteo's vision for the future of agentic commerce, more information is available on their official website.

This announcement also contains forward-looking statements, which reflect Criteo's expectations around market opportunities, growth prospects, and other areas that may entail risks and uncertainties affecting future outcomes. Factors that could result in actual outcomes differing significantly from these projections include technological challenges, inventory access issues, changes associated with the planned transition of the company’s legal domicile, international operational risks, and shifts in market dynamics. Recent economic conditions, such as inflation and variable interest rates in the U.S., have influenced Criteo’s business and could continue to shape its financial landscape. Therefore, caution is advised regarding reliance on the forward-looking statements contained herein, as they are based on information available only as of the date of this release.

Criteo Participates in OpenAI Advertising Program within ChatGPT

A sunlit modern marketing office: a bold Criteo logo sign dominates one wall, while on a sleek wooden desk a laptop screen shows a ChatGPT chat window with “OpenAI” text at the top pitching ad campaign ideas. Golden-hour natural light pours through large windows, casting warm patterns on potted plants and scattered campaign sketches, evoking an atmosphere of creative collaboration.

Criteo Joins OpenAI Advertising Pilot in ChatGPT - PR Newswire

- Criteo integrates with OpenAI's ad pilot in ChatGPT Free and Go versions.  
- Users referred from LLM platforms like ChatGPT convert 1.5 times better.  
- The integration will roll out in the coming weeks, enhancing AI advertising.  

The integration enables brands to leverage Criteo's digital advertising platform as part of OpenAI's ad pilot

NEW YORK, March 2, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Criteo (NASDAQ: CRTO), the global platform connecting the commerce ecosystem, today announced it is the first advertising technology partner integrating with OpenAI's advertising pilot in ChatGPT Free and Go versions in the United States.

"This integration with OpenAI represents an exciting step forward in advancing advertising in an emerging AI experience," said Michael Komasinski, Chief Executive Officer of Criteo. "Through this pilot, we are helping shape how advertising can support discovery and consideration within Large Language Model (LLM) platforms, grounded in experiences that are additive, relevant, and built on user trust."

Aggregated insights observed across Criteo's U.S. clients show that users referred from LLM platforms like ChatGPT convert at approximately one and half times1 the rate of other referral channels, reinforcing the high-intent nature of these AI experiences. As conversational discovery grows, this pilot represents an opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate how brands can participate in advertising within ChatGPT while also driving incremental demand back to retailer and brand destinations.

Criteo activates more than $4 billion in annual media spend and works with 17,000 advertisers globally, connecting brands, retailers, and publishers through commerce intelligence and AI-driven decisioning technology to drive cross-channel outcomes. This unique combination enables Criteo to support commerce-focused advertising across a wide range of categories and environments, including emerging discovery surfaces like conversational AI.

The integration will begin rolling out in the coming weeks as part of the ongoing advertising pilot in ChatGPT.

To learn more about Criteo's vision for the future of agentic commerce, click here.

1 Observed on a sample of 500 Criteo retailers in the U.S., February 2026.

Contacts

Criteo Public Relations

Jessica Meyers, [email protected]

Criteo Investor Relations

Melanie Dambre, [email protected]

About Criteo

Criteo (NASDAQ: CRTO) is the global platform connecting the commerce ecosystem for brands, agencies, retailers, and media owners. Its AI-powered advertising platform has unique access to more than $1 trillion in annual commerce sales—powering connections with shoppers, inspiring discovery, and enabling highly personalized experiences. With thousands of clients and partnerships spanning global retail to digital commerce, Criteo delivers the technology, tools, and insights businesses need to drive performance and growth. For more information, please visit criteo.com.

Forward Looking Statements Disclosure

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including our expectations regarding our market opportunity and future growth prospects and other statements that are not historical facts and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Factors that might cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: failure related to our technology and our ability to innovate and respond to changes in technology, uncertainty regarding our ability to access a consistent supply of internet display advertising inventory and expand access to such inventory, disruption of current plans and operations by our planned transfer of the company's legal domicile from France to Luxembourg via a cross-border conversion (the "Conversion"), failure to satisfy any of the conditions to and complete the Conversion, investments in new business opportunities and the timing of these investments, whether the projected benefits of acquisitions or strategic transactions, including the Conversion, materialize as expected, uncertainty regarding international operations and expansion, including related to changes in a specific country's or region's political or economic conditions (such as changes in or new tariffs), the impact of competition or client in-housing, uncertainty regarding legislative, regulatory or self-regulatory developments regarding data privacy matters and the impact of efforts by other participants in our industry to comply therewith, the impact of consumer resistance to the collection and sharing of data, our ability to access data through third parties, failure to enhance our brand cost-effectively, recent growth rates not being indicative of future growth, client flexibility to increase or decrease spend, our ability to manage growth, potential fluctuations in operating results, our ability to grow our base of clients, and the financial impact of maximizing Contribution ex-TAC, as well as risks related to future opportunities and plans, including the uncertainty of expected future financial performance and results, changes in general political, economic and competitive conditions and specific market conditions; adverse changes to the marketing industry, changes in applicable laws or accounting practices, and those risks detailed from time-to-time under the caption "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in the Company's SEC filings and reports, including the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 26, 2026, subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and in the proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC under Rule 424(b)(3) on January 22, 2026 in connection with the Conversion, as well as future filings and reports by the Company. Importantly, at this time, macro-economic conditions including inflation and fluctuating interest rates in the U.S. have impacted and may continue to impact Criteo's business, financial condition, cash flow and results of operations. Accordingly, a forward-looking statement is neither a prediction nor a guarantee of future events or circumstances and those future events or circumstances may not occur. You should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release.

Except as required by law, the Company undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release as a result of new information, future events, changes in expectations or otherwise.

SOURCE Criteo

Criteo Joins OpenAI Advertising Pilot in ChatGPT

A recent cybersecurity report from OpenAI reveals that even the Chinese government has employed ChatGPT for its operations. This finding emerged after OpenAI identified and shut down an account linked to the Chinese authorities, which was using the AI tool to enhance periodic status updates.

In its report titled "Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI," released on Wednesday, OpenAI dedicated a significant portion to detailing China's strategies for suppressing and intimidating critics on social media platforms owned by U.S. tech companies.

OpenAI described these efforts as extensive, resource-driven, and ongoing, involving hundreds of personnel and thousands of fabricated accounts spread across various platforms. They also noted the deployment of localized AI models along with a comprehensive set of tactics.

Targets of these operations extend beyond Chinese borders, impacting dissidents globally and even foreign officials, including the Prime Minister of Japan.

The report highlighted that Chinese operatives have engaged in activities such as fabricating U.S. county court documents to submit to social media platforms, aiming to have specific posts taken down.

Additionally, these operatives have employed hundreds of fake accounts to file fraudulent reports against dissidents, resulting in unwarranted bans and content limitations on their profiles. OpenAI indicated that many of these misleading reports included AI-generated images that mimicked screenshots from discussions.

Among the prominent accounts affected are those with substantial followings on X, including the account @whyyoutouzhele, known for sharing content from China that frequently critiques corruption and human rights violations. This account has gained significant traction, boasting over 2.1 million followers as of January.

In a recent message on X, the team behind this account urged major social media platforms like X, YouTube, and Bluesky to recognize that their content moderation systems are being exploited by the Chinese Communist Party. They stressed the importance of the tech industry acknowledging its role in enabling human rights abuses, arguing that simply claiming to be neutral toolmakers is unacceptable.

Other social platforms have noted similar trends and are taking steps to address these issues. Aaron Rodericks, who leads trust and safety at Bluesky, commented that the platform is actively working to identify and dismantle such influence operations. This includes employing specialized investigative staff and enhancing their monitoring capabilities.

Rodericks mentioned that Bluesky has recently removed several accounts that engaged in coordinated inauthentic activity that violated their community standards, in line with the findings of the OpenAI report.

Similarly, a source indicated that Meta regularly includes the activities highlighted by OpenAI in its own adversarial reporting and takes action against accounts that breach its policies.

At the time of this report, there was no immediate response from either X or China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

OpenAI Uncovers China's Extensive Campaign to Suppress Online Dissent.

A shadowy, dimly lit control room lined with rows of glowing monitors showing protest livestreams slowly pixelating into silence. A lone Chinese flag is tacked high on a dark wall, its red glow reflecting off the glossy surfaces. Shadowy operators twist virtual censorship dials and slide silence bars across screens. On the central console, the word “OpenAI” in plain text glows softly—no logo—signaling the revelation of the crackdown.

'Large-scale, resource-intensive, and sustained': OpenAI reveals China's operation to silence dissidents on social media - Business Insider

- OpenAI's report reveals China's government used ChatGPT for cyber operations against dissidents.  
- China employs large-scale tactics, including fake accounts and AI-generated misinformation targeting critics.  
- Social media platforms are taking action against coordinated influence operations described in the report.  

It turns out that even the Chinese government uses ChatGPT — at least according to a cybersecurity report from OpenAI.

This is how OpenAI uncovered China's "cyber special operations" targeting political dissidents in China and abroad, after the company found and removed an account owned by the Chinese government that uploaded periodic status reports to ChatGPT and asked them to be polished.

In OpenAI's "Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI" report published on Wednesday, a third of the document detailed China's tactics to silence and intimidate critics across social media platforms owned by American tech giants.

Related video Inside the secretive world of America's AI data centers

"This effort appears to be large-scale, resource-intensive and sustained, counting at least hundreds of staff, thousands of fake accounts across scores of platforms, the use of locally deployed AI models, and a playbook of dozens of tactics," OpenAI wrote.

"The targets are not just people in China, but also dissidents around the world and representatives of foreign countries, up to and including the prime minister of Japan," OpenAI added.

Follow Katherine Li Every time Katherine publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox! Stay connected to Katherine and get more of their work as it publishes. Sign up By clicking "Sign up", you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

OpenAI's report documented instances in which operatives for China forged US county court documents and submitted them to social media platforms in an effort to have certain posts removed.

Online operatives with thousands of fake accounts also collectively submitted abusive reports on dissidents to social media platforms to intentionally trigger false account bans and content restrictions, according to OpenAI. Many of these false reports, OpenAI said, include AI-generated images posing as screenshots of conversations and comments.

Some of the largest accounts on X have been targeted, according to OpenAI. That includes the handle @whyyoutouzhele, better known as "Teacher Li is not your teacher," which has the fifth-largest overall traffic share on X as of January, with more than 2.1 million followers. The account mainly posts videos from inside China, often documenting instances of corruption and human rights abuses.

"We hope social platforms like X, YouTube, and Bluesky realize that your content moderation system is being used by the Chinese Communist Party as a weapon," the team behind the Teacher Li account wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

"We also call on the entire AI industry to take this matter seriously," the team added in the original post written in Chinese. "When your technology is being used to systematically oppress human rights, to say that 'we're just makers of a tool' is not an acceptable answer."

Other social media platforms have observed similar patterns and have taken action to curb these activities.

Aaron Rodericks, head of trust and safety at Bluesky, told Business Insider that the platform has invested in its capabilities to identify and disrupt influence operations like those described in the OpenAI report, including hiring specialized investigative staff and expanding monitoring systems.

"As part of this ongoing work, the team recently removed a small number of accounts, consistent with those described in the report, that were engaged in inauthentic coordinated activity in violation of our Community Guidelines," said Rodericks.

A person familiar with the matter told Business Insider that Meta includes activities that OpenAI described in its regular adversarial report, and takes action against accounts found to be violating platform policies.

X and China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

OpenAI Reveals China's Large-Scale Effort to Silence Dissidents Online

This past week has marked a significant turning point for artificial intelligence in military operations. The Pentagon revealed plans to sever its relationship with Anthropic and its prominent AI model, Claude. This decision comes after stalled negotiations concerning Anthropic's demand that its technology not be utilized for autonomous combat or mass surveillance efforts, with the Pentagon designating the company as a "supply chain risk." Shortly after this announcement, OpenAI seized the moment to secure a contract with the Pentagon, while asserting that it would keep similar restrictions in place as those sought by Anthropic. In a dramatic turn of events, the U.S. also launched a military campaign targeting Iran, resulting in the death of Ayatollah Khamenei and numerous high-ranking officials. Reports indicate that U.S. Central Command utilized Claude during this operation.

To gain insight into the current utilization of AI tools within the military, I spoke with Emelia Probasco, a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. Probasco, a former Surface Warfare Officer with the U.S. Navy, leads the Center's research team focused on the application of AI and machine learning in addressing national security issues. Our conversation took place shortly before the Anthropic deal disintegrated and just hours before the airstrikes in Tehran commenced.

You previously stated to the New York Times that the Pentagon's partnership with Anthropic was essential. Why did you feel so strongly about this collaboration?

Anthropic was the sole provider of a large language model functioning on classified military networks. A significant portion of military operations occurs at classified levels, making the loss of this tool particularly disruptive, especially given the ongoing global operations. The timing couldn't be worse; it's never ideal to remove a critical resource at such a crucial moment.

What are your thoughts on the discord between Anthropic and the Pentagon? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently expressed his frustrations towards CEO Dario Amodei in quite blunt terms.

It’s vital to look beyond the headlines and media controversies. The military's mission is challenging, with dedicated personnel seeking to fulfill American ideals using these technologies. Conversely, AI companies possess deep insights into their innovations’ capabilities and limitations, justifiably voicing concerns. Both sides genuinely aim to bolster national security but approach the issue from different angles. I hope they can engage in constructive dialogue, identify common ground, and clearly outline their differences and resolutions. Notably, examining the contractual terms reveals that the positions were relatively close; the Pentagon emphasized lawful usage, while Anthropic insisted on prohibiting mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry.

While laws govern these areas, nuances remain unaddressed.

There exists a critical distinction between the Pentagon's "all lawful use" stipulation and Anthropic's insistence on "no autonomous weapons." While these positions might seem broadly aligned, U.S. law doesn’t cover autonomous weaponry as one might expect. The only legal requirement is for the Department to notify Congress regarding any changes to the autonomous weapons policy, which currently mandates that systems must "allow for appropriate levels of human judgment." Therefore, the Department can modify its policies without Congressional oversight.

There’s potential for a meaningful discussion in Congress about whether existing laws adequately address contemporary challenges, an aspect often overlooked.

We frequently hear claims that AI is transforming, or has already transformed, warfare; the situation in Ukraine, where autonomous drones play major roles, is a prime example. However, there’s considerable ambiguity regarding the actual roles of AI in military operations.

That’s a crucial point. Many people struggle with understanding this, and I worry that the ongoing debate may foster unnecessary fears about current developments. AI encompasses a wide array of applications and types. For instance, while Ukraine employs drones, the use of AI itself is not as extensive as commonly perceived.

The term 'AI' can be quite nebulous. In this context, many interpret it to imply entirely autonomous weapon systems, like a self-operating drone.

To provide some context, during my Navy service on an Aegis missile destroyer, we utilized two systems classified as autonomous. One was a Gatling gun that activated automatically to intercept incoming missiles, rumored to even target birds that matched certain flight speeds. The second was the Aegis weapon system, designed for mitigating missile threats.

The management of these systems is governed by numerous protocols regarding operational activation, including stringent technical constraints. For example, the system can only engage against incoming threats, meaning it cannot misidentify objects flying in the opposite direction. This illustrates our capability to control technology with a degree of autonomy, enabling effective application. Many times, I was grateful for such systems that provided necessary defense against incoming missile threats. It’s critical to recognize that there isn't an operator controlling these missiles at their final moments. Instead, we've developed extensive processes and technical safeguards to oversee systems with autonomous features.

The dystopian visions often depicted in popular media are worlds apart from such practical applications, even though some AI models have occasionally sparked discussions about nuclear strike recommendations.

That’s correct. While science fiction offers cautionary tales, it’s easy to get lost in those narratives. My experience as a naval officer taught me the value of systems designed for personal protection, not the creation of intimidating automatons.

Yet, it’s possible some may hold darker aspirations for military technology.

True, but military officers undergo rigorous training. No one steps directly into a command role; there’s comprehensive training around legal and operational protocols required before any engagement with weapons systems. Ultimately, a higher authority typically oversees the use of military force. Extensive vetting and education ensure that individuals operating these systems understand accountability and proportionality.

I hope your perspective holds true, though I do harbor some skepticism regarding these assertions.

Let's address that skepticism.

This administration has conducted strikes that raise legal concerns in locations like Venezuela and Iran, and some military leaders have resigned in opposition. Nonetheless, many continue to comply with orders. It’s important to acknowledge human imperfections in those dynamics.

Absolutely, acknowledging human fallibility is essential. However, these actions involve political decisions from leaders. Many situations are not clear-cut, making it complex for a military officer to recognize an unlawful order.

Returning to AI's current deployments in the military, reports indicated that Claude was involved in the operation against Maduro earlier this year. What was its role there?

I cannot specify details, as they are classified. However, large language models haven’t yet seen widespread deployment. The military is still learning to navigate appropriate applications. That said, a common task in the military involves daily reporting summaries. If an officer needs to compile a report, AI could help synthesize their findings—certainly not the most thrilling application, but practical nonetheless. Such tools assist in drafting emails, completing standard forms, and summarizing lengthy reports.

Palantir has utilized large language models for "foreign disclosure," which involves sharing limited information with allied nations’ militaries while remaining compliant with classified guidelines. This allows for the extraction of certain data without disclosing sensitive unit names, conducted with human oversight—a relatively non-threatening usage.

There were past reports suggesting that Israel employed an AI tool called Lavender, which identified potential Hamas targets, although likely with less discernment than a human leader would demonstrate. Is this a concern for U.S. military employment?

I followed those developments closely, and such systems gather data to create a coherent intelligence picture rather than generating a straightforward list of targets. The essential concern revolves around the rules governing engagement and what is deemed acceptable, not merely on the technical capabilities of AI.

According to a Wall Street Journal report from last week, concerns were raised regarding the Grok chatbot—used by the Pentagon—citing issues around its perceived bias and excessive flattery. Drawing from what you shared regarding summarizing communications, it seems a chatbot that leans toward sycophancy wouldn't pose much danger. Why the alarm?

There is indeed a threshold where a model's performance should be prioritized. If it focuses more on appeasing users rather than providing accurate feedback, it could be counterproductive. This could hinder military personnel’s ability to critically analyze intelligence reports. If an AI overly flatters during brainstorming sessions, it undermines the process. In military settings, personnel are typically intolerant of systems that provide disingenuous responses.

These complexities present a fascinating blend of technical and operational challenges currently facing the military and industry. It’s unsurprising that this topic has gained significant attention, albeit regrettably veering away from substantive issues and potential pathways forward.

This conversation has been summarized for brevity and focus.

Can the Military Stop Claude or OpenAI from Going Off the Rails?

Dark military command bunker bathed in red emergency lights, silhouettes of uniformed officers clustered around a steel control table. Ahead, two giant screens loom: one pulses with a red Anthropic logo under scrolling warning code labeled “Claude,” the other shows plain text reading “OpenAI.” A massive red override lever and illuminated safety button sit at the table’s center, as the brass leans in, tension high, debating how to stop the AI from going rogue.

Can the Military Prevent AI From Going Full Terminator? - New York Magazine

- The Pentagon plans to sever ties with Anthropic over AI use in warfare conditions.  
- OpenAI secured a deal with the Pentagon, keeping similar restrictions to Anthropic's terms.  
- AI's role in military operations involves mundane tasks like summarizing reports and emails.  

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images

It has been a momentous week for AI in the military. First, the Pentagon announced it would soon cut its ties with Anthropic and its leading model, Claude — and, in an extreme tactic, label the company a “supply chain risk” — after negotiations broke down over Anthropic’s condition that its systems not be used for autonomous warfare or mass surveillance. Hours later, OpenAI, sensing an opportunity, struck a deal with the Pentagon — though it claimed to retain the same carveouts Anthropic wanted. Then, on Saturday, the U.S. attacked Iran in a broad and ongoing campaign that killed Ayatollah Khamenei and many other top officials. Per the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Central Command has been using Claude during the operation.

To get a better understanding of how the U.S. military is actually employing AI tools in warfare now, I talked with Emelia Probasco, a senior Fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. Probasco, a former Surface Warfare Officer in the U.S. Navy, leads the Center’s research team on the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to national security challenges. We spoke just before the Anthropic/Claude deal fell apart, and the morning before bombs began falling in Tehran.

You were quoted in the New York Times as saying that the Pentagon/Anthropic deal “needs” to happen. I was wondering why you were so forceful on this point — what did you think was so essential about this particular partnership?

Anthropic had been the only company with a large language model operating on the classified networks. And most of what the military needs to do on a day-to-day basis is happening at a classified or above level. So removing that one tool right now, when — as anyone can see, there are operations going on around the world — it’s not a great time. It’s never going to be a good time, but people are using it now and it would just be very disruptive to what they’re trying to do.

What do you make of the conflict between Anthropic and the Pentagon? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went off on CEO Dario Amodei in harsh and personal terms.

Let me talk about what I think matters on this issue beyond the media and the back and forth. The military has a difficult job to do, and there are lots of operators, good Americans, who are trying to live up to American ideals and what we expect of the military. And they want to use these tools for safe applications. On the other hand, the AI companies have an exquisite knowledge of the technology they have developed, and they know what it’s great at, and they also know that it’s just not perfect. They’re voicing realistic and well-earned concerns about the limitations of the technology. And I think sides want to support national security; they just come at it from different perspectives. And that’s why I wish they would keep talking, keep working together to find where the common ground is and better articulate where there are real differences and how to resolve them. One of the things that has gotten pushed aside in this bigger conversation about the company and the Pentagon is that if you look at the contractual terms, you would say, “Gosh, they’re pretty close.” The Pentagon was saying there would be no unlawful use of the technology, and Anthropic was asking for no mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.

There are laws on the books that deal with mass surveillance and population surveillance and autonomous weapons, but there’s some nuance there that is still unaddressed.

There is a narrow but important gap between the Department’s “all lawful use” stipulation in contracts and Anthropic’s preferred “no autonomous weapons.” On the one hand, you could interpret these two positions as being essentially aligned. But autonomous weapons are not covered in U.S. law in the way you may think. The only requirement in law is that the Department notify Congress if it decides to change the autonomous weapons policy, which currently requires that any autonomous system “allow for appropriate levels of human judgement. So the Department could change its policy back and forth as it desires without the need for Congressional approval or review.

There’s a world in which a conversation would be happening in Congress about whether our laws are still sufficient to the time we are in. Some of that has been getting lost.

We hear a lot about how AI may revolutionize, or perhaps even already is revolutionizing, warfare. In Ukraine, for example, autonomous drones have become a hugely important part of the battlefield. But I read these stories about AI companies in our military, and I don’t really have a good understanding of what they’re actually doing.

That’s kind of the critical question. A lot of people don’t understand this point, and my fear is that this current debate is going to just sort of make people unnecessarily scared about what’s happening. There are lots of different applications of AI. There are also lots of different kinds of AI. Even if you look at Ukraine, there’s actually not that much AI being used — there are drones.

AI is also quite a vague, loosely defined term. But in this context, I think a lot of people take it to mean fully autonomous weapons — like in the Ukraine example, a drone that controls itself.

Here’s some background. When I was in the Navy, I sailed on an Aegis missile destroyer. That ship has two systems that you might call autonomous. One of them is like a little Gatling gun that will, when it’s turned on, shoot down any incoming missile — anything that’s coming at the ship at a certain speed. The rumor used to be that it would shoot at birds if they were coming in at the right speed. So that’s a weapon considered by many to be autonomous. The other one is the Aegis weapon system, which is a little bit like the Patriot missile batteries. And again, it’s a system that is designed for when another missile’s coming in and might hit you.

So how do we control those systems? There are a ton of rules around when you actually turn the thing on. And even more than that, there are technical constraints we put on them. So it has to be a missile that’s incoming; it can’t be something flying in the opposite direction. We have learned how to control technologies that have a certain level of autonomy and place them in applications that make sense. I can’t tell you the number of times I thought, thank God somebody invented this system, because I would otherwise have no way of defending myself against an incoming missile there. That’s a good application, in my mind. So that’s just to say people should understand that there’s nobody with a joystick that’s guiding missiles at the end of the flight. We’ve found ways to put in both process constraints and technical constraints to control systems that have a level of autonomy.

Ok, so the kind of Terminator doomsday scenario people have in mind is quite far from what you just described — even if some AI models do have a habit of recommending nuclear strikes.

It’s so far from that. I think the great thing about science fiction is that it gives us all a picture of what we don’t want. I just think it is very easy to be captured by these fantastic stories. But we’re talking about human beings. When I was a naval officer. I didn’t want a Terminator. I wanted a system that would protect me if I was shot.

But that’s you. Maybe someone out there does want something darker.

Yeah, but think about it. All officers go through a substantial amount of training. Now, this is not to say everybody’s perfect, but there’s a lot of vetting. You don’t just show up on day one, and they’re like, “Now you’re in charge of the weapons.” You have to go through years of general training. You have to go through training about the law. You have to go through training about how ships work, how missiles work, how that particular system works. And then in many cases, you actually need a supervisor, typically the captain of a unit or the commander of a unit, to give you the authority to use the weapon. So there are a lot of controls that are put on the humans that would operate these systems, and those humans have been trained and raised in a system that believes in things like accountability and proportionality.

Boy, I hope you’re right. Sometimes I doubt some of those assertions.

Well, let’s talk about your doubts for a second.

This administration has been carrying out strikes of dubious legality in Venezuela, in Iran, and of supposed drug boats in the Caribbean. Some military leaders have quit over them, but most haven’t. There’s people who either believe in it or want to follow orders. So I’m just accounting for human imperfections here.

Yes, you should account for humanity’s imperfections. But those decisions were political decisions made by political leaders. And this is one thing I think a lot of people miss: they’re like “Don’t obey any illegal order.” But there aren’t that many situations where it’s clearly black and white to a military officer that an order is illegal.

To go back to how AI is actually being deployed in the military now, I had read that Claude was involved somehow in the Maduro operation in January. I was trying to figure out how, which is a murky question.

I don’t know — I’m sure it wasn’t reported because it’s classified. First of all, there are not that many applications of a large language model. Widespread use of LLMs — we’re not quite there yet. We’re still getting comfortable understanding the appropriate deployments. That said, what are people playing with? Well, one thing in the military is that you have to summarize what you did every day. It’s a very standard procedure. I don’t have special knowledge here, but you could imagine that if I had to write a report to my boss every day, AI might help me summarize some of my tests. That sounds super boring, I recognize, but what do people use these tools for? We use it to write emails to our bosses. We use it to fill out standardized forms. We use it to summarize really long reports. The military has to do all those tasks as well.

Palantir used a large language model to do what’s called “foreign disclosure.” Whenever you operate with another country’s military, you can’t share all of the classified information with them, but you can typically share some parts, based on the guidance of your chain of command. You can share how many planes we have, but you can’t share the name of the unit — that’s one of the typical restrictions. So you can train an LLM to take intel reports and strip out the names of the units. And then a human reviews it. That, again, is a pretty non-scary application.

There were reports a couple years ago that Israel was using an AI tool called Lavender, which identified human Hamas targets in Gaza in a much less discriminating way than a human commander probably would, though a human did have to sign off on its choices. Is that something you worry about the U.S. military employing?

I followed the story and it took a while to get what sounded like something that made sense to me technically, so just be careful when you’re trying to characterize it. My understanding is it was gathering data on people and putting it all in one place so that you could more easily connect the dots. That’s very different from you saying “Find me all the terrorists” and it spits out a list. It’s a really hard system to explain except to say, and I think most people would agree here, that the technical capabilities of the system are probably not the thing to focus on. It was more the rules of engagement around what was viewed as acceptable.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that government agencies had raised alarms about the Grok chatbot, which the Pentagon uses, over concerns that it is overly sycophantic or presenting biased data. You just gave all these case uses about summarizing emails and stuff like that, and it doesn’t sound like a sycophantic chatbot would be so bad for that. So why were those agencies so concerned?

There’s a point at which you just want the most performant model. And if the model seems to be spending more time pleasing you than answering your question, I could imagine that would be pretty annoying. The sycophancy could be problematic if you’re trying to do brainstorming tasks with an AI. So imagine you’re trying to understand a couple of intelligence reports, and you type into your chatbot — Here are my three intelligence reports. Here are my five conclusions. Help me red team these conclusions. This is another pretty standard application of AI ,where you have it help you challenge your idea. If you had an AI that was sycophantic and came back and said, “Oh my gosh, that is just the best idea ever,” and then it allowed you to keep iterating on ideas while it was purely just trying to please you — that’s not helpful. If you’ve ever been in a sycophantic conversation with an AI, it’s pretty annoying. And military people tend to not have a ton of tolerance for things that, as they would say, blow smoke.

These are all interesting, difficult, technical questions that everybody’s working through right now. At the same time, we’re trying to work through really difficult operational questions, and so in some regards, it’s no wonder that this has become a big conversation. It’s just unfortunate that it is not so much about real issues and a real way forward.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.





Can the Military Prevent Claude or OpenAI From Going Rogue?

Amanda Yeo serves as an Assistant Editor at Mashable, where she focuses on a range of topics including entertainment, culture, technology, science, and social responsibility. Based in Australia, she delves into various subjects from video games and K-pop to films and tech gadgets.

Recently, OpenAI announced a partnership with the U.S. Department of War (DOW), aiming to deploy its artificial intelligence solutions in "classified environments." This collaboration was publicized on Saturday, with the company asserting that the agreement includes specific safeguards against utilizing its technology for mass surveillance of citizens or developing autonomous weapons. However, excerpts from the contract shared by OpenAI suggest there may be significant ambiguities within these protections.

The revelation of OpenAI's contract with the DOW came shortly after President Donald Trump disclosed that the U.S. government would cease using technologies from its competitor, Anthropic, specifically its AI model, Claude. Trump expressed his grievances regarding Anthropic's insistence that the DOW adhere to its terms of service through a post on Truth Social.

Anthony Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, later elucidated the conditions that conflicted with the DOW's demands. He stated that the DOW sought the removal of protections that prevented the misuse of their technology for domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous weaponry. Although Amodei noted that such usages could be deemed lawful, he criticized the current legal landscape for lagging behind the rapid advancements in AI technology.

He added, "In certain circumstances, AI can potentially undermine democratic principles rather than uphold them," and pointed out that some applications are beyond the safe and reliable capabilities of today’s technology.

OpenAI's terms seem to be more appealing to the Trump administration, thus filling the void left by Anthropic’s exit. OpenAI maintains that its agreement with DOW incorporates similar safeguards against mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry, in addition to a new restriction against utilizing its technology for critical automated decisions, such as those linked to "social credit" systems.

"Our safety protocols remain entirely under our control; deployment occurs via the cloud, ensuring that authorized OpenAI personnel are closely monitored throughout the process, supported by robust contractual obligations," declared OpenAI in their announcement. They also highlighted that their safeguards are more effectively enforced, as technology is only supplied through cloud solutions, allowing for greater oversight.

Responding to questions regarding Anthropic's inability to finalize a similar deal, OpenAI expressed hope that Anthropic and other organizations might consider partnerships under these terms.

However, parts of the contract shared by OpenAI indicated that while its technology is restricted from applications in autonomous weaponry and domestic surveillance where illegal, there are provisions under which its AI could be utilized for these purposes in compliance with DOW policies. The contract specifies that the DOW may employ the AI system for "all lawful purposes" that adhere to operational requirements and established safety protocols, asserting that any use in autonomous systems must pass thorough validation and testing.

Katrina Mulligan, leading OpenAI's national security partnerships, addressed concerns on LinkedIn, emphasizing that usage policies are not the sole safeguards, reiterating the importance of cloud-based deployment and personnel involvement.

The DOW's position was summarized by Mulligan, stating that they wished for OpenAI to develop its model independently while allowing the DOW to govern operational decisions without being constrained by external usage policies.

Despite OpenAI's reassurances, skepticism remains regarding the effectiveness of these supposed safeguards. Concerns were voiced by users when OpenAI CEO Sam Altman conducted a Q&A session on X, during which he attempted to mitigate apprehensions related to the DOW partnership. He acknowledged that the deal came together quickly and may not present the best optics, asserting that fostering a strong relationship between the government and technology companies is crucial in the coming years.

While this partnership seems to tighten the relationship between OpenAI and the U.S. government, it also appears to have distanced the company from its civilian user base. On inquiries about lawful applications potentially enabling mass surveillance, Altman referred to a statement by U.S. Under Secretary of War Emil Michael, who claimed that the DOW does not engage in domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens, stating that such actions would be illegal and against American values.

Skepticism persists among the public, particularly given past revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden about unlawful mass surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA), which falls under the Department of War's predecessors. The persistence of such doubts is evident in reactions from social media users who criticized the government’s reliability on these matters.

While Altman affirmed that he would not permit OpenAI's technology to contribute to mass domestic surveillance, citing constitutional concerns, many users expressed disbelief based on past instances where his commitments were questioned. 

Altman further commented that as a private entity, OpenAI lacks the authority to make ethical determinations, endorsing the idea that governance should be determined through democratic processes. However, this stance received criticism, emphasizing that compliance should not excuse unethical behavior.

Following this news, numerous ChatGPT users have reportedly started canceling their subscriptions, with many turning to Anthropic's Claude, which has now surpassed ChatGPT in downloads in the U.S. Apple App Store. One user on Reddit lamented, "OpenAI just made a deal with the devil," expressing disappointment that the originally non-profit organization has shifted towards military contracts, suggesting that revenue has overshadowed its founding principles.

Disclosure: In April 2025, Ziff Davis, the parent company of Mashable, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement in the training and operation of its AI systems.

OpenAI's Sam Altman reacts to agreement with the Department of Defense.

A dimly lit war‐room in a government building, the wooden desk bears the seal of the Department of War and a U.S. flag stands to one side. Sam Altman is seen from behind in a dark suit, facing a circle of shadowed military officers. On a small wall‐mounted screen ahead, the word “OpenAI” appears in simple bold text with no logo. War maps and classified files are scattered across the desk under muted, warm lighting, creating a tense, dark atmosphere.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman responds to deal with Department of War - Mashable

- OpenAI partnered with the U.S. Department of War to provide AI tools for military use.  
- OpenAI's contract includes guardrails against domestic surveillance and autonomous weapon usage.  
- Concerns exist over loopholes in the contract and ethical implications of the partnership.

Amanda Yeo is an Assistant Editor at Mashable, covering entertainment, culture, tech, science, and social good. Based in Australia, she writes about everything from video games and K-pop to movies and gadgets.

OpenAI has entered a deal with the U.S. Department of War (DOW), providing its AI tools for military use in "classified environments." Announcing the partnership on Saturday, the ChatGPT developer claims it includes guardrails prohibiting the use of its technology for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons. However, contract excerpts shared by OpenAI appear to leave significant loopholes.

News of OpenAI's deal with the DOW came just one day after President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. government will no longer use tech from OpenAI rival Anthropic, including its AI model Claude. Posting about the split on Truth Social, Trump had objected to Anthropic's insistence that the DOW abide by the company's terms of service.

Exactly which terms of services Trump took issue with were revealed in a statement from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Thursday. In it, he claimed that the DOW demanded Anthropic remove safeguards against use of its tech for mass surveillance in the U.S. and fully AI-controlled weapons. Amodei stated that such use may technically be lawful, however "this is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI."

You May Also Like

"[I]n a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values," wrote Amodei. "Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do."

OpenAI's terms are apparently more to the Trump administration's liking, with the company stepping in to supply the U.S. military with AI technology in Anthropic's place. Yet despite this, OpenAI claims that its agreement with DOW not only has similar guardrails which prohibit use of its technology for mass domestic surveillance or directing autonomous weapons, but even adds a third: "No use of OpenAI technology for high-stakes automated decisions (e.g. systems such as 'social credit')."

"We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections," read OpenAI's announcement. "This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law."

According to OpenAI, the limitations it has imposed are more enforceable than Anthropic's because it will only provide the DOW with its technology via the cloud, rather than installing it directly on hardware. OpenAI personnel will also be kept involved so that they can see how the DOW is using its technology. This will allegedly allow the company more oversight and control of its AI systems.

"We don’t know why Anthropic could not reach this deal, and we hope that they and more labs will consider it," wrote OpenAI.

However, an excerpt of the contract shared by OpenAI indicated that its technology will only be barred from use in autonomous weapons or to surveil U.S. citizens where such use is illegal. In fact, the agreement appears to lay out circumstances where OpenAI's tech would be allowed for these purposes, such as where human control over weapons isn't required by DOW policy or law.

"The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols," the contract reads, per OpenAI. "[A]ny use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must undergo rigorous verification, validation, and testing to ensure they perform as intended in realistic environments before deployment."

Responding to concerns in a post on LinkedIn, OpenAI head of national security partnerships Katrina Mulligan merely reiterated that its usage policies aren't the only safeguards in place, re-emphasising its cloud deployment and involvement of its personnel.

"[The DOW's] position was, build the model however you want, refuse whatever requests you want, just don't try to govern our operational decisions through usage policies," wrote Mulligan.

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. Loading... Sign Me Up Use this instead By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Thanks for signing up!

Still, doubts remain regarding the effectiveness of these ostensible safeguards, particularly considering OpenAI's reluctance to take an ethical stand.

Sam Altman speaks on OpenAI's deal with Department of War

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman conducted a Q&A on X in an attempt to assuage users' concerns about the DOW deal, to little apparent success. Conceding that the deal "was definitely rushed, and the optics don't look good," Altman claimed that they'd hoped it would de-escalate tensions between the DOW and the AI industry.

"I think a good relationship between the government and the companies developing this technology is critical over the next couple of years," wrote Altman.

The deal might have brought OpenAI and the U.S. government closer together, but it seems to have simultaneously alienated ChatGPT's civilian users.

Responding to a question about whether permitting all lawful use allows mass surveillance, Altman shared a post by U.S. Under Secretary of War Emil Michael in which he claimed that "The DoW does not spy on domestic communication of U.S. people (including via commercial collection) and to do so would be unlawful and profoundly un-American."

Unsurprisingly, few seem inclined to take the DOW's word for it. In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed mass surveillance of U.S. citizens conducted by the DOW's (then called the Department of Defense) National Security Agency (NSA). This program was found to be illegal, and included people's telephone records. Human Rights Watch also accused the then-Department of Defense of surveilling U.S. citizens without warrants in 2017.

"The government already has broken the law and illegally surveiled [sic] US citizens," replied X user @bolts6629. "A milquetoast statement from an undersecretary in an administration famous for lying is good enough for you?"

Altman did state that he would refuse to use OpenAI's technology for mass domestic surveillance "because it violates the Constitution," and expressed discomfort with the idea of an amendment that would allow such use. However, some social media users cast doubt on this claim, noting that he has gone back on other promises before.

"Other things you've said you wouldn't do: overrule the OpenAI board, remove the nonprofit structure, put ads in ChatGPT," noted @Laneless_.

Further, OpenAI's CEO also indicated that the company is reluctant to draw ethical lines, preferring to abdicate responsibility and follow the government's directions rather than take any sort of stand itself.

"[W]e are not elected," wrote Altman. "We have a democratic process where we do elect our leaders. We have expertise with the technology and understand its limitations, but I think you should be terrified of a private company deciding on what is and isn't ethical in the most important areas."

"Following orders is not an excuse for unethical behavior," responded @MagisterLudiX. "Either you have strong red lines or you see it as purely transactional, depending on political context."

"AI is a tool. A hard limit on it, is a limit like any other tool has," wrote @genericrohan. "It's not deciding what the military can do, it is about setting a limit that the military can plan for."

In response to the news of OpenAI and the DOW's partnership, many ChatGPT users are reportedly cancelling their subscriptions to the AI chatbot. Several are instead turning to Anthropic's AI chatbot Claude, which has since dethroned ChatGPT as the most downloaded free app in the U.S. Apple App Store.

"OpenAI just made a deal with a devil and lost this customer of 2 years," Reddit user r/boomroom11 posted on subreddit r/ChatGPT. The post has over 26,000 upvotes at time of writing. "The company (originally non profit) that told us they existed to build AI safely for humanity is now taking Pentagon contracts. Sam Altman decided defense money was more important than every principle the company was founded on."

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April 2025 filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman responds to deal with Department of War

In a significant development that could redefine the integration of artificial intelligence into national security, Anthropic has been officially blacklisted by the Trump administration, while its competitor OpenAI has secured a new defense contract. This shift illustrates the evolving landscape of AI control and usage in defense applications.

On Friday, the Pentagon identified Anthropic as a supply-chain risk, thereby prohibiting its AI technologies from being utilized by defense contractors following a transitional phase. This announcement came shortly after President Donald Trump mandated federal agencies to cease using Anthropic's AI systems, primarily due to the company's unwillingness to permit the military to utilize its Claude model.

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, expressed his ethical concerns, stating he could not allow his company’s technology to be employed for extensive domestic surveillance or to autonomously operate weapons systems—applications he believes cross moral boundaries.

As this dispute unfolded, OpenAI announced a partnership with the Department of Defense to implement its AI models in classified settings. This situation has escalated into a broader battle between the Pentagon and the private AI sector, not only concerning military contracts but also regarding the overarching principles that dictate the usage of these sophisticated technologies.

Anthropic has argued that the government's proposed contractual language does not sufficiently reflect or enforce limitations on the deployment of its AI for surveillance and autonomous weaponry. In contrast, Pentagon officials maintain that they require Claude’s deployment for any "lawful use," which could grant the military significant discretion, despite the illegality of mass domestic surveillance under current laws.

Dean Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, characterized this standoff as “uncharted territory,” emphasizing the clash of principles—Anthropic’s desire to enforce ethical constraints versus the Pentagon’s prioritization of defense policy over corporate considerations. "This is a matter of principle for both sides," he shared with Business Insider.

Following Anthropic’s designation as a supply-chain risk, OpenAI promptly shared on their blog that they had established a framework with the Pentagon that includes protective measures akin to those that Anthropic sought. OpenAI outlined three primary "red lines" in their collaboration:

1. No involvement of its technology in mass domestic surveillance.
2. No use in controlling autonomous weaponry.
3. No engagement in high-stakes automated decision-making, such as "social credit" systems.

OpenAI asserts that their agreement incorporates layered safeguards to uphold these limits, stating that any application related to autonomous weapons or surveillance must adhere to existing laws and Department guidelines.

In a series of interactive posts, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addressed potential disputes regarding the legality of certain government requests. He emphasized OpenAI's refusal to allow government use of their technology for mass domestic surveillance. "I fear a future where AI companies wield more power than the government," Altman stated, expressing concern over government-sanctioned mass surveillance.

Legal experts highlight that the government’s move to activate the Defense Production Act and label Anthropic a supply-chain risk is atypical. Eric Chaffee, a business law professor at Case Western Reserve University, described this tactic as a "gamble," particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that curbed expansive executive actions lacking clear statutory backing. While national security entities often receive deference from the courts, navigating this legal landscape could be complex.

The Pentagon faces operational challenges by removing Anthropic from its military AI framework, as many systems are intricately linked with defense strategies. According to policy analyst George Pollack from Signum Global Advisors, transitioning away from Claude could lead to significant inefficiencies and contradict the U.S. commitment to maintaining technological leadership.

For Anthropic, the implications of this dispute are dire, with Ball warning that it may deter future entrepreneurs from engaging with the federal government, fearing repercussions for enforcing ethical standards.

OpenAI’s agreement with the Department seems strategically designed to alleviate the deadlock that hindered Anthropic's negotiations. Moreover, OpenAI indicated a desire for similar terms to be extended to other AI laboratories and implored the government to settle its disagreements with Anthropic.

At this juncture, representatives from OpenAI and Anthropic have not responded to inquiries, and it remains uncertain whether Anthropic or any other major AI entity has been presented with terms comparable to those accepted by OpenAI. The resolution of this conflict is likely to significantly impact not only the fortunes of the companies involved but also the ultimate dynamics between the U.S. government and private AI developers as they determine the framework for the deployment of next-generation technologies.

The government's conflict over AI may determine who truly governs America's military technology.

A tense, cinematic scene in deep shadows: at center a glowing military-grade microchip suspended above two reaching hands—one in a polished military dress-uniform glove, the other a sleek robotic hand. Behind them, the silhouette of the U.S. Capitol (or Pentagon) looms against stormy skies. A single American flag waves overhead, lit by dramatic shafts of natural light cutting through the dark clouds.

The government's AI standoff could decide who really controls America's military tech - Business Insider

- Anthropic has been blacklisted by the Trump administration, impacting its defense contracts.  
- OpenAI secured a defense contract, establishing ethical guardrails for technology use.  
- The dispute highlights tensions between corporate principles and government national security priorities.  

An engineer uses a radio transmitter to control a drone equipped with artificial intelligence. NIHARIKA KULKARNI/AFP via Getty Images

An engineer uses a radio transmitter to control a drone equipped with artificial intelligence. NIHARIKA KULKARNI/AFP via Getty Images

This week, in a dramatic escalation reshaping how artificial intelligence is integrated into national security — and who controls it — Anthropic was officially blacklisted by the Trump administration while OpenAI swooped in to win a new defense contract.

On Friday evening, the Pentagon designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk, barring its technology from use by defense contractors after a transition period. That came just hours after President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's AI tools, citing the company's refusal to agree to the military's proposed use of its Claude model.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said he could not "in good conscience" allow the tech to be used for mass domestic surveillance or to independently direct autonomous weapons — two use cases he says violate the company's ethical guardrails.

Related video How billionaires worth a combined $450 billion will help Trump run America

Amid the standoff, Anthropic's rival, OpenAI, announced that it had reached a deal with the Department of Defense to deploy its own AI models in classified environments.

The dispute has turned into a broader confrontation between the Pentagon and the private AI sector — not just over military contracts, but who ultimately sets the terms for how these powerful systems are used.

A clash of principles and contracts

Anthropic argued that restrictions around its system's use for surveillance and autonomous weapons systems were not adequately reflected — or enforceable — in the government's draft contract language.

Defense officials responded that they need to be able to deploy Claude for any "lawful use" — a term that would give the military broad discretion, even though mass domestic surveillance is illegal under several statutes.

Dean Ball, senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, described the standoff as "uncharted territory" rooted in competing principles: Anthropic's insistence on setting contractual limits on how its tech is used, and the Pentagon's view that defense policy should prevail over corporate priorities.

"This is a matter of principle for both sides," Ball told Business Insider.

Shortly after Anthropic was declared a supply chain risk, OpenAI published a blog post saying it had agreed with the Pentagon on a framework that explicitly includes guardrails similar to some of those sought by Anthropic.

OpenAI outlined three main "red lines" guiding its collaboration with the Department:

No use of its technology for mass domestic surveillance;

No use in directing autonomous weapons;

And no use for other high-stakes automated decisions, such as "social credit" systems.

OpenAI says its agreement is structured to protect these limits through layered safeguards, and that any use involving autonomous weapons or surveillance must comply with existing statutes and Department directives.

In a series of Ask-Me-Anything-style posts, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said he is prepared for a potential dispute over the legality of specific government requests. However, he said that OpenAI would not agree to allow the government to use its technology for mass domestic surveillance.

"I am terrified of a world where AI companies act like they have more power than the government," Altman added. "I would also be terrified of a world where our government decided mass domestic surveillance was ok."

Potentially 'existential' stakes

Legal scholars say the government's threats to enact the Defense Production Act and designate Anthropic as a supply-chain risk, in this context, are unusual.

Eric Chaffee, a business law professor at Case Western Reserve University, described the move as a "gamble," noting that the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned Trump's tariff policies has pushed back on expansive executive actions without clear statutory backing.

And while national security authorities generally enjoy deference in court, any litigation would unfold in legally unsettled terrain.

"The government, at this point, has ultimately outsourced a lot of its work to private entities," Chaffee said. "As a result of that, because of the reluctance against state-run corporations, there are going to be tensions, and ultimately, in a context like this, figuring out how a private entity interacts with the government is going to be a complex process."

For the Pentagon, removing Anthropic from military AI pipelines could cause disruption. Signum Global Advisor policy analyst George Pollack said Claude is deeply embedded in defense planning and readiness systems and that transitioning away from them risks operational friction.

He also argued that sidelining a leading US AI firm contradicts the stated goals of maintaining American leadership in the technology.

For Anthropic, the stakes are "existential," Ball warned. He said the dispute could send a chilling message to entrepreneurs about the risks of doing business with the federal government if companies can be penalized for insisting on ethical guardrails.

OpenAI's agreement with the Department appears aimed, in part, at breaking the impasse that engulfed Anthropic's negotiations. In its blog post, OpenAI said it requested that the same terms be made available to all AI labs and urged the government to resolve its dispute with Anthropic.

Representatives for OpenAI and Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. It was not immediately clear whether Anthropic, or any other leading AI company, had been offered similar contractual terms to those that OpenAI said it had agreed to.

Ultimately, how the conflict is resolved could influence not just one company's fortunes, but the balance of power between the US government and private AI developers in setting the rules of engagement for next-generation technologies.

The government's AI standoff could decide who really controls America's military tech

On Saturday, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, defended the company’s recent partnership with the Pentagon, a day after President Trump ordered federal agencies to sever ties with its competitor, Anthropic. This development occurred shortly after a joint military action by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Altman addressed questions about the agreement on social media platform X, emphasizing the rationale behind collaborating with the Department of War (DoW) for deploying OpenAI’s artificial intelligence models within its classified networks.

In his announcement, Altman highlighted the mission of OpenAI, stating, “AI safety and broad distribution of benefits are at the heart of what we do. Our principles include prohibiting domestic mass surveillance and ensuring human accountability in the use of force, especially concerning autonomous weapon systems. The DoW has aligned with these principles, reflecting them in their legislation and policies, which we incorporated into our agreement.”

This partnership comes amid Trump’s directive for federal agencies to halt the use of Anthropic technology, implementing a six-month phase-out and escalating debates about the appropriate use of AI in military contexts. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth identified Anthropic as a “supply-chain risk to National Security.”

Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, declined the DoW's requests to utilize its AI for “all lawful purposes,” voicing concerns over issues like mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. When asked why OpenAI was chosen while Anthropic was not, Altman noted, "Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract rather than on the relevant laws, which we were comfortable addressing. They might have desired more operational control than what we were looking for."

Altman clarified that the DoW did not exert any pressure prior to the agreement, remarking that Pentagon officials were pleasantly surprised by OpenAI’s willingness to engage in classified projects. He revealed that OpenAI initially intended to limit its work with the Pentagon to non-classified areas, but talks accelerated when it became apparent that the DoW needed AI support.

“We recognized that the DoW was seeking an AI partner, and we have previously declined to pursue classified projects that Anthropic accepted. Our discussions started months ago regarding non-classified efforts, but this week saw a shift towards classified work. The DoW was accommodating to our needs, and we want to aid them in their critical mission,” Altman explained.

In response to accusations that the agreement was hastily arranged, Altman indicated that OpenAI acted swiftly to alleviate tensions. He expressed concern that the current situation could pose risks for Anthropic, fair competition, and the U.S. as a whole. “We made sure to negotiate terms that would be available to other AI labs as well,” he stated.

Altman also acknowledged the possibility of a future legal challenge that could impose the same supply-chain risk designation on OpenAI as it did on Anthropic, saying, "If we must confront that challenge, we will, albeit it presents certain risks. However, I remain optimistic about a resolution and wanted to act quickly to bolster those chances."

Anthropic previously stated that the designation by Hegseth followed prolonged negotiations that reached a standstill over requests to exempt their AI model, Claude, from mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapon use.

The discussion also touched on the potential for the federal government to nationalize OpenAI or other AI enterprises. Altman commented, "While I can't predict the future, I don't think it’s likely under the current circumstances, but I do see the value in a close partnership between government entities and the innovators creating this technology."

He expressed concern about surveillance practices conducted by the military, particularly towards foreign nations, stating, "While I accept that some level of surveillance is inevitable, it’s crucial that society contemplates the implications of such actions. A central principle I prioritize for AI is its democratization, and I fear that surveillance could undermine that ideal." However, he added that he respects the democratic process and does not believe it is solely his decision to make.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman discusses new Pentagon agreement: 'This technology is critically important'

A rear-view of Sam Altman standing at a podium emblazoned with plain “OpenAI” text, facing the iconic Pentagon building bathed in warm natural daylight. A single U.S. flag stands beside him, while a crowd of reporters lingers in soft focus, capturing the gravity of a landmark defense tech announcement.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman answers questions on new Pentagon deal: 'This technology is super important' - Fox Business

- OpenAI CEO Sam Altman defended the new Pentagon deal following Trump's directive against Anthropic.  
- The agreement allows OpenAI's AI models on classified networks while maintaining key safety principles.  
- Altman expressed concerns over potential supply-chain risks related to OpenAI's agreement with the Department of War.  

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Saturday publicly defended his company’s new Pentagon deal, just a day after President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to cut ties with rival Anthropic.

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a joint strike against Iran, Altman took to X to answer questions about the agreement allowing the Department of War (DoW) to deploy OpenAI’s artificial intelligence (AI) models on its classified network.

"I'd like to answer questions about our work with the DoW and our thinking over the past few days," he said.

In announcing the agreement late Friday, Altman wrote, "AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement."

OPENAI REACHES PENTAGON AGREEMENT AS TRUMP ORDERS ANTHROPIC OFF FEDERAL SYSTEMS

The OpenAI agreement came as Trump directed every federal agency to stop using Anthropic technology, setting a six-month phase-out period and intensifying the dispute over how AI should be used in military operations.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said he was directing the department to designate Anthropic a "supply-chain risk to National Security."

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had refused demands from the DoW to allow its AI to be used for "all lawful purposes," citing concerns about "mass domestic surveillance" and "fully autonomous weapons."

When asked why the DoW accepted OpenAI but not Anthropic, Altman said, "Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with." He added that Anthropic "may have wanted more operational control than we did."

OPENAI'S $110B FUNDING ROUND DRAWS INVESTMENT FROM AMAZON, NVIDIA, SOFTBANK

Altman said the DoW did not issue any explicit or implicit threats before the agreement was reached, adding that Pentagon officials were "genuinely surprised we were willing to consider" classified work.

He said OpenAI initially planned to do only non-classified work with the Pentagon, but that talks accelerated this week.

"We thought the DoW clearly needed an AI partner, and doing classified work is clearly much more complex. We have said no to previous deals in classified settings that Anthropic took. We started talking with the DoW many months ago about our non-classified work. This week things shifted into high gear on the classified side. We found the DoW to be flexible on what we needed, and we want to support them in their very important mission," Altman said.

APPLE IMPLEMENTING AGE VERIFICATION TOOL TO ENSURE USERS ARE 18 AND UP FOR SOME APPS

Altman also addressed criticism that the agreement appeared rushed, saying OpenAI moved quickly to "de-escalate the situation."

"I think the current path things are on is dangerous for Anthropic, healthy competition and the U.S.," he said. "We negotiated to make sure similar terms would be offered to all other AI labs."

Altman acknowledged he remains concerned that a future legal dispute could expose OpenAI to the same supply-chain risk designation imposed on Anthropic.

"If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk," he said. "I am still very hopeful this is going to get resolved, and part of why we wanted to act fast was to help increase the chances of that."

ALTMAN CALLS MUSK'S SPACE DATA CENTER PLANS 'RIDICULOUS' FOR CURRENT AI COMPUTING NEEDS

Anthropic previously told Fox News Digital that Hegseth's designation of the company as a supply-chain risk "follows months of negotiations that reached an impasse over two exceptions we requested to the lawful use of our AI model, Claude: the mass domestic surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons."

Altman also addressed questions about whether the federal government could attempt to nationalize OpenAI or other AI development.

"I obviously don’t know; I have thought about it of course... but it doesn’t seem super likely on the current trajectory," he said. "That said, I do think a close partnership between governments and the companies building this technology is super important."

Altman said the most difficult aspect of the agreement to reconcile involved "non-domestic surveillance."

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

"I have accepted that the US military is going to do some amount of surveillance on foreigners, and I know foreign governments try to do it to us, but I still don't like it," he said. "I think it is very important that society thinks through the consequences of this; perhaps the single principle I care most about for AI is that it is democratized, and I can see surveillance making that worse."

"On the other hand, I also respect the democratic process. I don't think this is up to me to decide," he added.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman answers questions on new Pentagon deal: 'This technology is super important'

In a recent update, Altman revealed on X that the Pentagon agreement was finalized swiftly in an effort to reduce tensions. He acknowledged in another post that the arrangement felt somewhat hurried. 

Despite the urgency, Altman noted that the perception surrounding OpenAI may not be favorable. He stated, "If our approach indeed results in a de-escalation between the Department of War and the tech sector, we could be seen as pioneers taking significant risks for the greater good." 

Conversely, he warned that if the outcome falls short, OpenAI may face criticism for being hasty and lacking caution. However, Altman also expressed optimism, mentioning that he has observed "promising signs" regarding the future trajectory for OpenAI.

Key insights from Sam Altman's Saturday evening AMA regarding OpenAI's agreement with the Pentagon

Sam Altman standing at a podium, seen from behind, in a dark auditorium lit by a single warm spotlight. He faces a massive projection featuring a Pentagon silhouette, a lone US flag in the corner, and five glowing bullet-point icons listed vertically. “OpenAI” text (no logo) appears at the top of the slide. The scene is moody and dramatic, emphasizing the gravity of his Saturday night AMA on the Pentagon deal.

5 big takeaways from Sam Altman's Saturday night AMA on OpenAI's Pentagon deal - Business Insider

- The Pentagon deal was finalized quickly to de-escalate tensions, according to Altman.  
- Altman noted the deal appeared "rushed" and had questionable optics for OpenAI.  
- He sees potential positive outcomes for OpenAI and the industry from the deal.  

The Pentagon deal was done quickly in "an attempt to de-escalate the situation," Altman wrote on X.

He added in a separate post that the deal had been "rushed."

Still, the "optics don't look good" for OpenAI, he wrote.

"If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the DoW and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a company that took on a lot of pain to do things to help the industry," he wrote.

"If not, we will continue to be characterized as rushed and uncareful," he wrote.

Altman added that he sees "promising signs" for where this will all land for OpenAI.

Customer Challenge

More from OpenAI

Nvidia-supported 'open' AI startup seeks investors with a valuation exceeding $20 billion.

OpenAI's Sam Altman justifies Pentagon agreement, acknowledges ‘optics aren’t favorable’

Criteo Partners with OpenAI for Advertising Pilot in ChatGPT – Company Announcement

Criteo Participates in OpenAI Advertising Program within ChatGPT