Anthropic has warned about the dangers of advanced AI far more often than rival OpenAI this year, according to FT analysis, as critics accuse the company of helping to trigger a US ban on foreign access to its newest models. Five in every 1,000 words used by Anthropic in 2026 related to risk, regulation, or restrictions, according to FT research that analyzed official statements, social media posts, and articles written by the company or its chief, Dario Amodei, while the equivalent figure for OpenAI and Sam Altman was eight times lower at 0.6 words per 1,000. The comparison has become politically charged after Washington last week barred foreign nationals from using Anthropic's latest models, Mythos and Fable, with some technologists blaming the decision on the $965 billion AI group's repeated warnings about AI's risk to society. The dispute has alarmed parts of Europe and Silicon Valley, where executives and officials fear the Trump administration may be willing to restrict non-US access to frontier models, emerging as an early test of how the US intends to oversee increasingly powerful AI models.
FT Analysis Reveals Eightfold Difference in Risk Language Between Anthropic and OpenAI
The FT created lists of terms including "harmful," "dangerous," and "misaligned" and calculated how frequently they appeared in statements by each company or its CEO. The research also used sentiment analysis to compare the positive and negative tone of communications. The analysis found that Anthropic uses risk-related terminology at a rate of 5 per 1,000 words, compared to OpenAI's 0.6 per 1,000 words. The study examined official statements, social media posts, and articles written by Anthropic and Dario Amodei, as well as equivalent materials from OpenAI and Sam Altman, during 2026.
US Bars Foreign Access to Anthropic's Mythos and Fable Models
Washington last week barred foreign nationals from using Anthropic's latest models, Mythos and Fable. Some technologists have blamed the decision on the $965 billion AI group's repeated warnings about AI's risk to society, particularly in relation to Mythos. The export ban applies specifically to these newest Anthropic models and restricts access for non-US users.
Meta's Former AI Chief Criticizes Anthropic's Safety Warnings
Yann LeCun, Meta's former chief AI scientist and one of AI's pioneers, said this week the export ban showed that Amodei's "ridiculous fear-mongering" about AI had finally paid off. "One reaps what one sows," he wrote in a social media post a week ago. LeCun's criticism represents a broader debate within the AI industry about how companies communicate risks associated with advanced models.
FAQ
What did the FT analysis find about Anthropic's risk messaging compared to OpenAI?
The FT analysis found that five in every 1,000 words used by Anthropic in 2026 related to risk, regulation, or restrictions, while the equivalent figure for OpenAI and Sam Altman was 0.6 words per 1,000—an eightfold difference. The research analyzed official statements, social media posts, and articles using term lists including "harmful," "dangerous," and "misaligned," and also employed sentiment analysis to compare communication tone.
Why did the US restrict foreign access to Anthropic's models?
Washington last week barred foreign nationals from using Anthropic's latest models, Mythos and Fable. Some technologists have blamed the decision on the $965 billion AI group's repeated warnings about AI's risk to society, particularly in relation to Mythos, though the exact reasoning behind the government's decision is not detailed in available reports.
Who criticized Anthropic's approach to AI safety warnings?
Yann LeCun, Meta's former chief AI scientist and one of AI's pioneers, criticized Anthropic this week, saying the export ban showed that Dario Amodei's "ridiculous fear-mongering" about AI had finally paid off. He wrote "One reaps what one sows" in a social media post a week ago.
