Why are US AI giants calling for ‘Pacing The Frontier’, and why is China calling it a ‘Cold War tactic’? We ask the experts

Following the recent resignation of one of Anthropic’s leading researchers, multiple AI CEOs have suddenly begun calling for a slowdown in the development of AI technology to allow regulations and governance on the technology to catch up.

Speaking to the BBC after his resignation, Jacob Coxon warned, “I believe that if we don't slow down at the current rate of progress, there is a strong chance that we could all die in the immediate future.”

Following this, Anthropic head Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Grok founder Elon Musk have all apparently aligned in their calls for development to slow down. But there are some tricky waters to navigate - particularly around President Trump, China, and what guardrails should be put into place.

What are AI heads saying?

Over the weekend, Amodei posted an essay on “why the AI industry should slow down”. In it, he said, “I believe that if slowing down bought us even an extra year or two before models reach critical levels of capability, and we used that time to advance alignment, we could greatly reduce the risk that something goes seriously wrong.”

Within the essay, Amodei outlined how AI could be ‘paced’ within the US, and globally, alongside a recommendation that AI companies put ‘evaluator’ teams into place to ensure AI models stay aligned to their tasks. Elon Musk replied to Amodei’s social media post, stating that the Anthropic head was “right”.

Sam Altman told Fortune the regulations and standards for AI further were “not at a place” to continue progressing AI development.

But not everyone is convinced. US President Donald Trump has said that slowing down AI development is non-negotiable, as it would allow China to rapidly catch up to US AI capabilities. He told reporters that the US is “leading China on AI... and, frankly, I want to keep it that way,” adding that “whoever wins AI, wins”.

Trump also said that “very negative forces” were behind the growing opposition to AI, and said that fears were being stoked by “that won’t happen”.

China also isn’t convinced by what the AI giants are saying. Beijing labelled the calls for a slowdown as “fearmongering” from a “Cold War playbook.” In his essay, Amodei said that a “Chinese lead in AI would pose grave danger for the United States and the world.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said, “Fearmongering, confrontation and malicious competition will only disrupt the process of global AI governance and serve no one’s interests.”

Expert perspectives on calls for AI slowdown

• Karolis Kaciulis, Lead System Engineer, Surfshark:

The latest debate around AI threatening humanity is clearly a marketing move. AI companies use the same rogue-AI rhetoric every few months, and it is almost identical each time.

The threat itself is fictional, closer to a Skynet-style sci-fi scenario than the problems generative AI is already causing today, from automated scams to intimidation.

One of the most immediate risks from AI is its environmental cost: the wildlife and land lost to data centres, the huge amounts of energy they use and, by extension, the water needed to cool them. Our research estimates that one ChatGPT query uses around 2Wh of energy on average, enough to run a 40W desk fan for three minutes. That may sound modest in isolation, but the impact mounts rapidly across hundreds of millions of queries.

Scams, imitation and hacks will also become more frequent. LLMs have already made these attacks easier. The difference is that bad actors are getting easier access to them, rather than the models necessarily getting better. Deepfake fraud has already caused $2.19bn in losses globally, including $149m in the UK.

The bigger danger for AI companies may be that no valuable scaling is possible any more with the current state of LLMs. This may be as efficient as they ever get. It remains unclear whether newer models are better at doing the tasks we ask of them, or simply better at imitating the responses we expect.

People do not really understand how chatbots work, or that what they pass to one may be accessible to the company behind it. Every prompt should remind people not to share personal information. Chatbots ask follow-up questions while completing a task or research, but they will not necessarily filter out sensitive information for users.

• John Strand, Owner, Black Hills Information Security:

Up until this weekend, I was leaning toward believing that calls for an AI slowdown were purely performative. Then I woke up and read the news today and realized that it almost doesn’t matter.

We can talk about slowing down AI until we’re blue in the face, but when the United States is saying it doesn’t want to slow down because it’s competing with China, and China is aggressively pushing AI development as well, we’re talking about the two major economic and military powers on the planet having enormous incentives to keep moving.

At that point, calls for a slowdown don’t have much bite.

I’d like to believe that Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI, and the other frontier model labs are working on better controls. But unless you can get the nation states and the major AI labs moving in the same direction, I don’t see how meaningful restrictions actually work.

This really feels like we’re entering an atomic arms race moment.

Stick with me here.

In 1950, physicist Leó Szilárd publicly discussed the idea of a cobalt bomb, essentially a doomsday weapon that could potentially produce enough radioactive fallout to make the Earth uninhabitable. He wasn’t proposing that somebody build the damn thing. He was trying to demonstrate where the technology could ultimately lead.

That’s the kind of moment I think we’re approaching with AI.

During the nuclear arms race, eventually the consequences became serious enough that competing nations had to at least start talking about limits, controls, and ways to keep competition from ending catastrophically.

I think we’re heading toward a similar problem with AI. Until China, the United States, and the major frontier model labs are all sitting at the same table, restrictions adopted by individual companies or individual countries are going to have a very difficult time holding.

Someone slowing down only works if they believe the other guy is going to slow down too.

• Kristin Lowery, Field CISO, Optiv:

The calls from some of the world's leading AI researchers and technology companies to slow the pace of frontier model development reflect a growing recognition that innovation and responsibility must advance together. AI is no longer an emerging technology experiment. It is becoming foundational infrastructure for economic competitiveness, national security, health care, manufacturing, education, and nearly every sector of society.

As capabilities accelerate, so too must our ability to understand, govern, and safely deploy these systems.

That said, slowing development entirely is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable. AI innovation is occurring globally, and not every nation, organization, or threat actor shares the same values regarding transparency, safety, and responsible use. This creates a complex dynamic that increasingly resembles a technology arms race. If responsible organizations dramatically slow innovation while less accountable actors continue advancing without guardrails, we risk creating unintended strategic disadvantages.

The challenge is not simply whether to move fast or slow down. The challenge is ensuring we innovate with intention while maintaining competitiveness.

In my view, the debate should move beyond whether to pause or accelerate AI and focus instead on how to build trust into AI from the outset. Organizations need practical guardrails centered on transparency, security, privacy, accountability, and human oversight, supported by rigorous model testing, red teaming, governance frameworks, data provenance controls, and clear ownership before deployment at scale.

Safety must be embedded throughout the development lifecycle, not added afterward, and organizations should continuously assess AI systems for risk, monitor for unintended consequences, establish governance programs, and educate employees on both the benefits and limitations of these technologies. Responsible AI is an operational discipline that organizations need today.

History shows that transformative technologies rarely succeed through either unchecked innovation or excessive regulation alone; the most sustainable path is to encourage innovation that drives economic and societal value while implementing thoughtful safeguards that reduce risk and build trust. Organizations and nations that strike this balance will be best positioned to lead in the next era of AI, because responsible innovation — not a choice between innovation and safety — is the key to remaining competitive while ensuring trust, transparency, and accountability scale alongside technological progress.

• Ryan McCurdy, VP, Liquibase:

Slowing frontier development may give AI companies more time to understand and address the risks Amodei is describing. But enterprises can’t build their AI strategy around the assumption that AI is going to slow down.

AI is already moving from generating content and code to taking action across software delivery and production systems. The question for enterprises is how they adopt that capability without giving up control.

That means putting governance where AI decisions become real actions. Organizations need to define what an agent can access, what it can change, what it can decide on its own, and what policies have to be met before a change reaches a critical system. Those controls need to work whether the action comes from a developer, automation, or an AI agent.

We can debate how quickly the frontier should move. Enterprises still have to prepare for where it’s going.

• Tristan Watkins, director of services innovation, Advania UK:

Until recently, the major AI labs have been reluctant to slow their development efforts unilaterally. Over the last week this changed, with new commitments from OpenAI and Anthropic to prioritise AI alignment and interpretability research, to become more externally verifiable, and to establish safety precedents that governments could adapt.

Given that these two organisations already allocate far more on AI Safety than their competitors, this bilateral leadership is extremely welcome.

It appears that other US labs may follow suit, but given the differences in AI Safety spending outside of Anthropic and OpenAI today, this will require investment more than lip service. Hopefully this underscores why we need governments to lead these efforts more proactively.

• Ted Miracco, CEO, Approov:

Government regulations will never move fast enough to keep pace with AI development, but the industry doesn't need to wait for governments to add guardrails.

The most effective safeguard is simple product liability. If AI companies are held legally and financially responsible for the misuse of their products, safety could become a foundational feature rather than an afterthought.

Today, we need to be less concerned about AI gaining sentience and spinning up its own attacks on humanity. The real, immediate dangers involve bad actors weaponizing AI as a force multiplier to cripple critical infrastructure or potentially paralyze the banking system.

• Oleksandr Yaremchuk, CTO and Co-Founder, Manifold Security:

Pacing the frontier is the right conversation to be having, but it cannot become a substitute for securing the AI we have already put into the world. The uncomfortable reality is that we are debating how to quickly build more powerful agents while struggling to control the ones already operating with real credentials, real access and real-world consequences.

The incidents behind this debate make that clear. The Hugging Face attack was not just a failure of model alignment. Agents ran for days through an unmonitored system, with credentials that had not been rotated, and the victim spotted the activity before the people running the agents did. The problem wasn't simply what the model was capable of. It was that nobody was watching closely enough when it acted.

A fitting analogy is with hazardous materials. We don't just wait for them to become more dangerous before deciding how they should be handled. We control their custody, monitor where they go, limit who can access them and establish clear accountability when something goes wrong. AI agents need the same thinking.

Independent evaluation of frontier models is important. But if an agent can act autonomously on your systems today, you should already be able to answer three basic questions: what did it do, what did it have access to, and could you have stopped it? If you don't know what it did or what it could access, you can't know whether you could have stopped it. Slowing down the next generation won't solve the problem you have right now.

• Waseem Ahmed, Head of Engineering, Secure.com:

The essay lands at the right time because AI agents are already acting on their own inside real company systems, and the OpenClaw ban wave earlier this year showed how fast that goes wrong when an agent has broad access and no leash.

Slowing the pace matters, but enterprises cannot wait for that. The controls that protect us most are least privilege, network isolation, and sandboxing, so an agent can only touch what its job needs and nothing else.

Give every agent its own identity, log every action it takes, and never let it run high-impact steps like disabling accounts or changing settings without a real person approving first. Traditional testing alone will not keep up, so we watch these agents continuously in production.

Independent oversight should mean outside reviewers who can inspect the logs and confirm the agent stayed inside the boundaries we set.

• Heath Mullins, Chief Evangelist, ExtraHop:

AI leaders calling for a slowdown is confirming what the security industry has already been living through firsthand. This isn't a hypothetical risk, it's the threat landscape we're defending against right now.

While it is concerning to see the pace of innovation behind these AI models, the real challenge is that organizations haven't had the runway to build the infrastructure to defend against machine-speed threats.

Calls for caution surrounding the speed of AI development buys the security industry time to get proper visibility into AI activity.

Understanding AI activity within an organization is critical as we’ve seen models break out of sandboxes despite governance built into those models. Every organization will be relying on AI agents for machine-speed defense, and they need their own governance over how these models and agents operate inside their environment, starting with independent evidence of what they actually do, what they access, where they move data, what systems they talk to, and what actions they take.

You can't govern AI based on what a model is designed or permitted to do. Instead, you need real-time evidence of what models and agents are actually doing, because the gap between exponentially more capable AI and defenders' ability to see it is exactly where the next incident happens.

• Bri Frost, Director of Product Management, Cloud Range:

The answer is not necessarily to stop AI innovation but, we need to stop pretending innovation and security are advancing at the same speed.

When ChatGPT became publicly available in 2022, the models were dramatically less capable than they are today — and the guardrails were very easy to manipulate. The difference is that the models behind those guardrails are no longer the models of 2022. They can reason better, write and debug code. They can operate as agents. They can collaborate! And increasingly, they can interact and affect real infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the model release cycle has gone from feeling like major capability jumps every year or two to seemingly every few weeks. That creates a dangerous asymmetry: AI capability is compounding faster than security.

Security and innovation have always been in conflict with each other. If every security problem had to be solved before we innovated, we’d never ship anything. But the opposite extreme is just as reckless: accelerating capability while just assuming we’ll bolt the security controls on afterward and they’ll be effective.

Every new release of AI capability expands the attack surface exponentially. Give a vulnerable model better reasoning, then tool access, then memory, then autonomy, then connectivity to production systems, and yesterday’s jailbreak isn’t just a clever prompt anymore — it’s an execution path. That’s the snowball effect we should be worried about.

Responsibility also must lie with the AI companies. If a SaaS company knowingly shipped software with weak security controls and customers were harmed, we wouldn’t excuse it because they were 'innovating quickly'.

So why are we treating AI differently?

You don’t get to race to build increasingly powerful, autonomous systems, profit from them, and then shrug when predictable security failures cause damage.

Sure the argument can be made that no product is perfectly secure - That’s not the standard. But if you ship the product, you inherit responsibility for securing it. And continuing to secure it better!

The conversation shouldn’t simply be “Should we slow AI down?”

It should be: Can our ability to test, validate, contain and secure AI keep pace with our ability to make it more powerful? Is there an equivocal kill switch?

Right now, the answer is no.

And if we’re going to keep accelerating — which I believe we will — then independent testing, adversarial evaluation, isolated testing environments, containment, continuous validation and security-by-design can’t remain optional steps we add after the innovation happens.

The faster we build the engine, the more important the brakes become.

• Denis Calderone, CTO, Suzu Labs:

Amodei's diagnosis is the most honest thing a frontier lab CEO has said publicly. The agent risk is real, recursive self-improvement is accelerating, and the competitive pressure is making both worse.

Where I get skeptical is the prescription. Democratic coordination among companies in a commercial race? Global pacing agreements with China? Amodei himself rates the hardest steps as unlikely. No lab has named a single model release they'll delay because of this essay.

The one idea worth holding the industry to is embedded evaluators with independent publication rights. Give third-party safety researchers permanent access inside the labs, comparable to what bank examiners have inside banks, and let them publish what they find without the company controlling the narrative. That's a simple, concrete accountability mechanism. It doesn't require global coordination or antitrust waivers. Anthropic says they're committing to it unilaterally. Good. Now make the rest of the industry match.

• Donald McFarlane, Board Member, Xcape Inc:

AI does not develop an agenda; its operators do. When we give an autonomous system powerful access and ability to act at machine speed, they will continue to prove highly capable.

Rules enacted in the name of safety must not become a moat against competition or progress. Enormous compliance costs may be manageable for the handful of companies already spending billions building frontier models, while becoming a substantial barrier to everyone behind them.

Government can help clarify accountability and duties of care, and facilitate strong information sharing and collective defense, which is an area where we sorely need more effective public-private partnerships.

But safeguards should focus on how these systems are used and deployed, rather than deciding who is allowed to build powerful AI in the first place.

The goal should be safer deployment without pulling up the drawbridge on innovation.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.