How authorities decided that OpenAI’s advanced model was safe to release

On July 9, 2026, TechCrunch published a report on how the government decided that OpenAI's advanced model was safe enough for release. However, the specific details of discussions between authorities, OpenAI, and Anthropic remain unclear: the publication does not show how exactly the dialogue proceeded or what arguments formed the basis of the decision.

What is known about the decision

According to the article, the release of OpenAI's advanced model turned out to be tied to an assessment by the government. This is not simply a technical product launch, but a decision involving government structures and representatives of AI companies.

However, available information does not allow for reconstructing the full sequence of events. It is unclear which agencies were involved, what documents they reviewed, and whether the assessment took place as part of a formal procedure or closed consultations.

• TechCrunch's publication was released on July 9, 2026
• The article focuses on OpenAI's advanced model
• Government, OpenAI, and Anthropic are mentioned in the discussions
• Details of dialogue between the parties have not been disclosed

Why details remain closed

The exact format of conversation between the government, Anthropic, and OpenAI is unknown. The original article directly notes that it is impossible to establish what this dialogue actually looked like. Therefore, it cannot be reliably stated what questions were asked of the companies or what answers government representatives received.

It is also unclear whether specific misuse scenarios, access restrictions, independent testing, or additional control measures were discussed. These assumptions could be logical for such assessments, but in the presented material they are not confirmed and should not be perceived as established facts.

"It is precisely unknown what the dialogue between the government,

Anthropic, and OpenAI looked like."

Such uncertainty is important in itself. If the state participates in assessing advanced models, public interest concerns not only the final authorization, but also the criteria by which it was made. Without a description of the procedure, it is difficult for readers to understand whether the review was comprehensive, how independent its participants were, and what risks were considered acceptable.

What questions remain open

The main gap in the publication is the lack of specificity about the content of consultations. The conditions under which the model was recognized as safe are not named, nor is it indicated whether authorities had any remarks to OpenAI or Anthropic.

It is also unclear what role Anthropic played in the process. The company is mentioned in connection with a dialogue with the government and OpenAI, but from the available text it is impossible to determine whether it was a participant in a general assessment, a source of information, or a party to a separate discussion.

Therefore, the TechCrunch article more reveals a lack of transparency than describes a full procedure for approving the model. It raises the question of state oversight over advanced AI systems, but does not provide enough details to confidently answer what specific checks were actually conducted.

What this means

A decision on the safety of OpenAI's advanced model was made with the participation of government structures, however, public explanation of the process is insufficient: it is unknown what criteria were applied and how negotiations with companies proceeded.