Our views on AI policy and political advocacy

AI is going to be one of the most powerful technologies people have ever built. The decisions being made now about how it is governed and deployed will matter for a long time. We believe that the future of AI should be shaped by governments, researchers, workers, civil society, independent experts, and the public – not any one company or organization. At the same time, companies like us that are building this technology have a responsibility to be clear about our values, our policy positions, and how we’re advocating for them.

Over the past year, AI policy has become a more prominent part of political debate, with a growing ecosystem of outside groups working to shape it. Many tech companies have started their own employee-funded Political Action Committees (PACs) or fund existing PACs to shape the public narrative around AI. OpenAI has not. We have not made donations to any super PACs, and we do not have an employee-funded PAC. We also haven’t made any donations to political candidates or campaigns. If our approach changes in the future we will be transparent about it.

Our employees are free to participate in the political process in their personal capacities, including by donating or providing advice to candidates, campaigns, and political organizations. When they do that, they speak for themselves and not OpenAI. But we recognize that this can raise questions about what OpenAI believes, and we want to be clear that these are separate activities.

In particular, there have been questions around Leading the Future (LTF), which has received support from our President and co-founder, Greg Brockman, and his wife Anna. As they’ve stated before, any engagement with that organization has been in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the company. OpenAI does not direct the activities of LTF, or have visibility into their operations.

We want to be explicit: No outside political group speaks for OpenAI or represents our company’s views.

OpenAI’s policy views should be judged by what we say and do publicly, and we should be held to a high standard. We believe AI policy is too consequential to be treated as just another front in partisan politics. Groups that are advocating on AI should be clear about their policy views, be honest about whom they represent, and not use tactics like astroturfing that obscure the real choices facing policymakers and the public. We support thoughtful regulation, rigorous testing of powerful AI systems, strong safety standards, public accountability, and broad access to AI’s benefits. We will keep making that case directly, transparently, and in our own name.