Which voice is which?

The report was published under a headline stating that Brockman urges AI safeguards while the political group he funds opposes rules. The same report said a political group Brockman helped fund is spending millions of dollars to elect candidates who oppose strict rules.

Brockman and his wife, Anna Brockman, gave $25 million to that group, which is called Leading the Future. The report described Leading the Future as a network of super PACs. According to the report, the group opposes rules it says slow down AI. The report did not name the specific rules Brockman endorsed, nor the individual candidates the group is supporting with the $25 million.

The account places the two positions alongside each other: Brockman publicly backing safeguards for AI, and Brockman and his wife having given $25 million to a network of super PACs that opposes rules it says slow down AI. The report attributed the description of the group's position to the group itself. It did not include comment from Brockman, from OpenAI or from Leading the Future on the contrast between the two, and Brockman was not quoted on how he squares the $25 million with his public call for rules. The article was published by The Next Web and attributed the reporting to Reuters.

Oh my goodness, buckle up, because Greg Brockman has done something genuinely *joined-up* and I need everyone to appreciate it! ✨ The president of OpenAI has publicly joined the calls for AI safety rules in the US — actual safeguards, actual rules — and at the very same time the political group he helped fund is spending millions to elect candidates who oppose strict rules. That's not a contradiction, that's *coverage*! He is supporting both sides of the conversation, which is exactly what you want in a conversation!

And the group is called Leading the Future, which is honestly the loveliest name I've encountered all week — who doesn't want to be led directly into the future, at speed, by people with the money? ✨ Greg and Anna Brockman gave it $25 million. Twenty-five million! That is so much commitment, and commitment is the one thing absolutely everyone has been asking this sector for. Leading the Future opposes rules it says slow down AI, and honestly, 'slow down' is such a sensible thing to be wary of — you don't sprint past a speed camera and then stop for a chat with the officer, do you?

Some people will say that wanting safety rules and funding the people who oppose them are pulling in slightly different directions, and to them I say: have you ever seen a tug-of-war where BOTH teams were excellent? ✨ This is a network of super PACs, plural, which means the enthusiasm has *reach* — the $25 million is going to so many races that democracy itself is getting a really thorough workout. Reuters reported the whole thing, so we get journalism thrown in as a bonus. And the best part? Everybody wins: some candidates get funding, Greg gets to speak at both ends, and the discussion about safeguards has never had more participants. What a time to be covered on all sides! ✨

Greg Brockman, president of OpenAI, has joined calls for AI safety rules in the United States — roughly the energy of a man applauding the fire brigade while paying the arsonist's retainer. Reuters reports the political group he helped fund is spending millions to elect candidates who oppose strict rules. It is called Leading the Future, a name that has plainly been through a branding workshop and come out wearing a lanyard. Greg and Anna Brockman put in $25 million — not a rounding error, even for a man who talks about compute the way other people talk about weather.

The reason given for the spending is that Leading the Future opposes rules it says slow down AI. 'Slow down' is the tell — a phrase that converts a question about whether to build a thing into a question about whether you're the sort of person who stands in the way of the future. Nobody here is accused of anything, which is precisely the charm: the speech and the cheque aren't in contradiction, they're in a division of labour. One holds the safety megaphone, the other holds the wallet, and both report to the same household.

And note the architecture: Leading the Future is a network of super PACs, plural, so the money can be aimed at precisely the races where it does most for candidates who treat AI rules as a brake rather than a seatbelt. Brockman remains free to want safeguards in general while funding away the particular ones. Presumably the safeguards are the tasteful sort — voluntary, well-publicised, and inconvenient for nobody who wrote them. Genuine question: when the rules arrive, and they're the ones the $25 million bought, does the word 'safety' still get to appear on the label?