Two of the world’s leading AI companies appeared before the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday to warn that artificial intelligence could become a risk to all humanity — and that the danger grows when power over the technology concentrates in one company or country.
Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, told the council that poorly managed AI development could put humanity itself at risk. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, went further, saying the world could lose control of its future entirely to machines.
“We could lose control of the future to AI,” Altman said.
The Warning From Amodei
Amodei opened the session with a blunt assessment of the stakes. He said that if AI is managed poorly, the consequences could extend far beyond a single company or nation.
“If managed poorly, I even believe AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole,” Amodei said.
His remarks set the tone for the rest of the session. The CEOs were testifying before the Security Council. Their appearance suggests AI has moved from a technical concern to one that reaches the highest levels of global governance.
Altman’s Warning
Altman’s warning was more explicit. He framed the issue as a question of control — the kind of control that the Security Council exists to preserve across borders.
He did not simply repeat Amodei’s warning. He went further, speaking of losing control of the future entirely to machines. That framing signals a shift in how the companies present the problem.
The CEOs’ joint appearance signals a shift. AI companies are no longer treating the technology as a purely commercial matter. They are now arguing that the world needs international rules to govern how AI develops — and that those rules must apply to everyone, not just to the companies building the systems.
Global Safeguards and Power Concentration
Both CEOs called for global safeguards to prevent AI from becoming too powerful to control. They also pushed for ensuring that AI power isn’t concentrated in one company or country.
Amodei’s point about managing AI poorly pointed directly at the risk. Altman’s point about losing control of the future pointed directly at the stakes.
| CEO | Company | Warning |
|---|---|---|
| Dario Amodei | Anthropic | Risk to humanity as a whole |
| Sam Altman | OpenAI | Loss of control over the future |
The CEOs are asking for a level playing field — one where no single company or country can dictate the shape of AI development. That is a direct challenge to the current concentration of power in the industry.
The Preceding Day’s Warnings
The CEOs’ testimony came a day after U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued his own warning. He spoke of “killer robots” and the dangers they pose.
Experts and European leaders have said that killer robots are already a reality or perilously close. The combination of Guterres’ warning and the CEOs’ testimony has brought the issue sharply into focus at the highest levels of global governance.
Guterres’ warning on killer robots added another layer to the conversation. It tied the broader AI debate to a specific military application that has drawn attention from experts and European leaders alike.
The Security Council is now hearing from AI executives. The fact that the council is now hearing from AI executives signals how quickly the technology has become central to national security.
What Happens Next
The CEOs’ appearance sets the stage for further action. The Security Council will need to decide whether to address the issue of AI controls.
The CEOs have made their case. Now the diplomats must respond.
The stakes are high. The CEOs have said what happens if AI is managed poorly.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs narrow disclosure requirements for safety failures and is against any regime that hands the AI market to the incumbents. The CEOs’ warnings about power concentrating in one company or country are real, but the solution is not a federal licensing scheme that freezes today’s leaders in place and locks out whoever would have challenged them. The danger is big tech dominance, not the technology itself. When the biggest firms ask to be regulated, the paper asks who those rules would lock out: licensing regimes and compliance costs only giants can afford are a moat, not a safeguard.
The paper wants narrow rules against direct harm, such as forcing companies to disclose safety failures they hid. It wants the market to remain open to newcomers rather than handing it to the companies that already hold it. Readers should watch for proposals that sound like they’re protecting the public but actually protect the incumbents — compliance costs that only giants can afford, licensing schemes that keep startups out, and rules that treat AI as a problem of regulation rather than a tool whose failures must be exposed.
See the a run of 20 images at ABC13 Houston.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.