# Safety needs to advance alongside increasingly capable AI

Markdown copy of https://realalpha.app/s/safety-needs-to-advance-alongside-increasingly-capable-ai/ on Real Alpha, the best minutes from long interviews with the people building AI. Cite and link the page, not this copy.

- Speaker: [Dario Amodei](https://realalpha.app/builders/dario-amodei/) · Dario Amodei is CEO of Anthropic. · Co-founded Anthropic, the AI safety company behind Claude; earlier led OpenAI's GPT-2 and GPT-3 research.
- Host: [Alex Kantrowitz](https://realalpha.app/people/alex-kantrowitz/) · Founder, Big Technology · Former BuzzFeed News senior tech reporter and author of Always Day One.
- Show: Big Technology Podcast
- Episode: [Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: AI's Potential, OpenAI Rivalry, GenAI Business, Doomerism](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/), Jul 30, 2025
- Moment: 58:51 to 1:05:22 of the episode (7 min), playing on https://realalpha.app/s/safety-needs-to-advance-alongside-increasingly-capable-ai/; the episode from there: https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3531

## Quote

> “This is **a multi-step game**, right? You take one step. You build the next step of most powerful models.”
> — [Dario Amodei](https://realalpha.app/builders/dario-amodei/) at [1:01:18](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3678) · Big Technology Podcast

## Takeaways

1. He sees safety and capability as advancing together, step by step.
2. He would push to slow down if safety progress fell behind.
3. He favors shared safety research and measures such as export controls.

## About this segment

Dario Amodei describes safety as a stepwise process: build stronger models while intensifying testing and safety work. He says he would advocate slowing down if capabilities outpaced alignment progress, while noting the limits of unilateral restraint.

From “Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: AI's Potential, OpenAI Rivalry, GenAI Business, Doomerism”, Jul 30, 2025. [Watch the full episode](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/)

## Transcript

Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.

[58:56](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3536) that controlling it might not be feasible. So, you know, I think I have more than anyone else in the industry warned about the dangers of the technology, right? We just spent 10, 20 minutes talking about, you know, the frightening, you know, the large array of, you know, people who run, you know, trillion dollar companies criticizing me for, you know, for talking about the dangers of these technologies, right? You know, I have U.S. government officials. I have people who run four trillion dollar companies criticizing me for talking about the dangers of the technology, right? Imputing all these bizarre motives that bear no relationship to, you know, to anything I've ever said, not supported in anything I've ever done. And yet I'm going to continue to do it.

[59:40](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3580) I actually think that, you know, as the revenues, as the economic business of AI ramps up and it's ramping up exponentially, you know, if I'm right, in a couple of years, it'll be the biggest source of revenue in the world, right? It'll be the biggest industry in the world. And people who run companies already think it. So we actually have this terrifying situation where, you know, hundreds of billions to trillions to, I would say, maybe 20 trillion of capitals on the side of Accelerate AI as fast as possible. We have this company that's very valuable in absolute terms, but looks very small compared to that, right? $60 billion. And I keep speaking up, even if it makes folks, there have been these articles, some folks in the US government are upset at us, for example, for opposing the moratorium on AI regulation, for being in

[1:00:35](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3635) favor of export controls for chips on China, for talking about the economic impacts of AI. Every time I do that, I get attacked by many of my peers. Right, but you're still assuming that we can control it. That's what I'm pointing out. But I'm just telling you how much effort, how much persistence, how much despite everything that's stacked up, despite all the dangers, despite the risk that it has to the company of being willing to speak up i'm willing to do it and and and that's that's what that's that's why i'm saying that look if if i thought that there was No way to control the technology, right?

[1:01:11](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3671) If I thought, even if I thought this is just a gamble, right? Some people are like, oh, you think there's a 5% or 10% chance that AI could go wrong. You're just rolling the dice. That's not the way I think about it. This is a multi-step game, right? You take one step. You build the next step of most powerful models. You have a more intensive testing regime. As we get closer and closer to the more powerful models, I'm speaking up more and more.

[1:01:35](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3695) And I'm taking more and more drastic actions because I'm concerned that the risks of AI are getting closer and closer. We're working to address them. We've made a certain amount of progress. But when I worry that the progress that we've made on the risks is not fully aligned with the – is not going as fast as we need to go for the speed of the technology, then I speak up louder. And so, you know, you're asking, why am I talking, you know, you started this interview by saying, what's gotten into you?

[1:02:10](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3730) Why are you talking about this? It's because the exponential is getting to the point that I worry that we may have a situation that our ability to handle the risks is not keeping up with the speed of the technology. And that's how I'm responding to it. If I believe that there was no way to control the technology, which I see absolutely no evidence for that proposition. We've gotten better at controlling models with every model that we release, right?

[1:02:36](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3756) All these things go wrong, but like you really have to stress test the models pretty hard. That doesn't mean you can't have emergent bad behavior. And I think, you know, if we got to much more powerful models with only the alignment techniques we have now, then I'd be very concerned. Then I'd be out there saying everyone should stop building these things. Even China should stop building these. I don't think they'd listen to me, which is one reason I think export controls is a better measure.

[1:03:03](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3783) But if we got a few years ahead in models and had only the alignment and steering techniques we had today, then, you know, I would definitely be advocating for us to, you know, to slow down a lot. The reason I'm warning about the risk is so that we don't have to slow down, so that we can invest in safety techniques and can continue the progress of the field. it would be a huge economic effort even if one company was willing to slow down the technology you know that doesn't stop all the other companies that doesn't stop our geopolitical adversaries to whom this is a existential fight fight fight fight for survival So, you know, there's very little, you know, there's very little latitude here, right?

[1:03:46](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3826) We're stuck between all the benefits of the technology, the race to accelerate it, and the fact that that is a multi-party race. And so I am doing the best thing I can do, which is to invest in safety technology to speed up the progress of safety. I've written essays on the importance of interpretability, on how important various directions in safety are. We release all of our safety work openly because we think that's the thing that's a public good.

[1:04:15](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3855) That's the thing that everyone needs to share. So if you have a better strategy for balancing the benefits, the inevitability of the technology, and the risks that it face, I am very open to hear it because I go to sleep every night thinking about it. Because I have such an incredible understanding of the stakes in terms of the benefits, in terms of, you know, what it can do, the lives that it can save.

[1:04:42](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3882) I've seen that personally. I also have seen the risks personally. We've already seen things go wrong with the models. You know, we have an example of that with Brock. And, you know, people dismiss this, but they're not going to laugh anymore when the models are taking actions, when they're manufacturing, and when they're in charge of, you know, medical, medical, medical interventions, right? People can laugh at the risks when the models are just talking, but I think it's very serious.

[1:05:06](https://realalpha.app/v/mYDSSRS-B5U/?t=3906) And so I think what this situation demands is a very serious understanding of both the risks and the benefits. These are high-stakes decisions. They need to be made with a seriousness.