2 Sources
2 Sources
[1]
Sam Altman's AI Race Claim Sparks US Funding Controversy
Did Sam Altman Mislead US Officials With Claims of a Nonexistent AI Race With China? Sam Altman reportedly warned US intelligence officials in 2017 about a Chinese 'AGI Manhattan Project' to argue for large-scale government funding for his company. Reports suggest he claimed China had already launched an aggressive artificial intelligence program, framing it as a geopolitical race the US could not afford to lose. Officials who attended those meetings later said failed to provide concrete evidence when pressed. One official described the claims as based on hearsay, recalling his response: 'I've heard things.' Follow-up requests for proof reportedly yielded no substantiation.
[2]
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tried to scam US govt for billions, here is how
He urged that his company needs billions of dollars of government funding to keep pace. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman reportedly tried to deceive the US government into giving his company billions of dollars by warning of an AI race that may not have actually existed. In 2017, Altman met with Us intelligence officials and claimed that China had launched an 'AGI Manhattan Project.' He urged that his company needs billions of dollars of government funding to keep pace. But when officials pressed him for evidence, Altman said, 'I've heard things.' He made similar claims in multiple meetings and promised to provide proof later, but he never did. After looking into the matter, officials found no evidence that such a Chinese project existed, reports The New Yorker. One intelligence official later said, 'It was just being used as a sales pitch.' This suggests that Altman may have exaggerated or even invented the threat to push the government into funding OpenAI. Altman often compared the development of AGI to the Manhattan Project, but he adjusted the meaning depending on the audience. When speaking to government officials, he stressed urgency and competition, suggesting that the US needed to act fast and invest heavily. However, when talking to safety-conscious audiences, he warned about the dangers of AGI. and argued for careful, internationally coordinated development, as per the report. Also read: Your favourite apps may be tracking you: Here is how to stay safe Inside OpenAI, there were also disagreements about how to move forward. Page Hedley, a former policy and ethics adviser, suggested creating global partnerships between AI labs to prevent a 'catastrophic' arms race. However, other company members prioritised growth and competition. According to several interviews and contemporaneous records, leadership often pushed back on ideas. One proposal reportedly involved using global rivalries to OpenAI's advantage. The idea was to encourage countries like China and Russia to compete for access to OpenAI technology, possibly even starting a bidding war. According to Hedley, the thinking was simple: It worked for nuclear weapons, so why not for AI? If the report is true, it raises serious questions about how far tech leaders are willing to go to gain government support.
Share
Share
Copy Link
Sam Altman reportedly warned US intelligence officials in 2017 about a Chinese AGI Manhattan Project to argue for billions in government funding for OpenAI. When pressed for evidence, he said 'I've heard things' but never provided proof. Officials found no evidence such a Chinese project existed, with one calling it 'just a sales pitch.'
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman reportedly warned US intelligence officials in 2017 about an alleged Chinese AGI Manhattan Project, framing it as an urgent AI geopolitical race that required immediate action and billions of dollars in government funding for his company
1
. The allegations, recently surfaced in a report by The New Yorker, suggest Altman claimed China had already launched an aggressive artificial intelligence program to develop AGI, positioning it as a geopolitical competition the United States could not afford to lose2
.
Source: Analytics Insight
When US intelligence officials pressed Altman for concrete evidence to substantiate these claims, his response was notably vague. According to officials who attended those meetings, Altman said, 'I've heard things,' but failed to provide proof
1
. He made similar claims across multiple meetings and promised to deliver evidence later, but that substantiation never materialized2
.After investigating the matter, US intelligence officials found no evidence that such a Chinese project existed. One official later characterized the situation bluntly, stating, 'It was just being used as a sales pitch'
2
. Another official described the claims as based on hearsay, with follow-up requests for proof reportedly yielding no substantiation1
. This raises serious questions about whether Altman exaggerated or even invented the threat to secure investments for OpenAI and push the government into funding his company.
Source: Digit
Altman often compared the development of AGI to the Manhattan Project, but he adjusted the meaning depending on his audience. When speaking to government officials, he stressed urgency and competition, suggesting the US needed to act fast and invest heavily to win the AI race
2
. However, when talking to safety-conscious audiences, he warned about the dangers of AGI and argued for careful, internationally coordinated development.Related Stories
Inside OpenAI, there were disagreements about how to move forward. Page Hedley, a former policy and ethics adviser, suggested creating global partnerships between AI labs to prevent a catastrophic arms race
2
. However, other company members prioritized growth and geopolitical competition. According to several interviews and contemporaneous records, leadership often pushed back on such ideas. One proposal reportedly involved leveraging global rivalries to OpenAI's advantage, encouraging countries like China and Russia to compete for access to OpenAI technology, possibly even starting a bidding war. According to Hedley, the thinking was simple: it worked for nuclear weapons, so why not for AI2
.If the report is accurate, it raises serious questions about how far tech leaders are willing to go to gain government support and whether they might attempt to deceive the U.S. government to secure funding
2
. The incident highlights the tension between private AI companies seeking massive investments and the need for transparent, evidence-based policymaking. As governments worldwide grapple with AI regulation and funding decisions, the credibility of claims made by tech leaders becomes increasingly important. Observers should watch how this controversy affects future interactions between AI companies and government agencies, particularly regarding national security justifications for funding requests.Summarized by
Navi
[1]
1
Technology

2
Technology

3
Science and Research
