Sam Altman has just used an FT op-ed to call for a US-led forum that would set AI safety standards and decide who can use the most advanced models. The invitation lands at the same time another FT report said OpenAI discussed giving the US government a 5% stake.
The details are worth taking seriously. The op-ed emerged from June’s G7 summit in France, where Altman says he and other AI executives sat with heads of government to talk through AI regulation. Rather than leaving safety to individual companies, he offered a historical comparison: the IAEA during the Cold War policed atomic energy, and aviation and banking rules later proved that an international referee can work. His pitch is that AI now needs the same structure.
OpenAI also reportedly floated a 5% government stake in the company, and pushed for other US labs to pay into a dividend fund to redistribute wealth. Altman argued that democratic institutions must not cede their responsibilities to AI labs, and that citizens and their elected representatives must make the rules.
Why it matters: both the equity and regulation discussions are gaining momentum, especially after the Mythos saga made safety headlines. The real tension is whether AI wealth is given directly to households, or to a government that may or may not deliver on its promises. A government-led stake sounds appealing in principle, but it also centralises power. If the money flows into public services, that is one outcome. If it gets delayed, diluted, or spent on unrelated programs, that is another. Either way, the conversation is no longer theoretical.
For Australia, the relevance is immediate. Our government is already reviewing AI guardrails, and any US-led forum will shape global standards that local companies must eventually follow. What happens in Washington this year will affect AI access, liability, and investment here.