Reid Hoffman defends Anthropic in clash with AI czar David Sacks
OpenAI investor and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman has come to the defense of Anthropic after White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks publicly criticized the company last week. Sacks, who has been vocal about what he sees as overreach in the artificial intelligence sector, accused Anthropic of using AI safety as a tool for regulatory capture—essentially, a means to shape government policy in its favor and stifle competition.
Hoffman countered those claims, calling Anthropic “one of the good guys” in the AI industry and emphasizing its consistent focus on responsible development and transparent governance. He suggested that companies like Anthropic play a crucial role in ensuring AI technology is developed ethically and safely, rather than being driven solely by profit or political influence.
Anthropic, founded by former OpenAI executives Dario and Daniela Amodei, has positioned itself as a leader in AI safety and alignment research. Its flagship product, Claude, competes directly with OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, but the company distinguishes itself through its commitment to responsible AI development and support for clear regulatory standards. Hoffman’s endorsement reinforces that image, framing Anthropic as a counterbalance to less transparent players in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
The exchange between Hoffman and Sacks underscores the growing ideological divide in Washington and Silicon Valley over how artificial intelligence should be governed. While Sacks and other tech libertarians argue that excessive regulation could hinder innovation and global competitiveness, investors like Hoffman and companies such as Anthropic contend that careful oversight is necessary to prevent misuse and maintain public trust.
Hoffman’s intervention is also notable because of his deep involvement in the AI ecosystem. In addition to investing in OpenAI and Anthropic, he has consistently advocated for balanced policies that foster both innovation and accountability. His response to Sacks signals a broader defense of the principle that AI companies can pursue progress while upholding ethical standards.
As debates over AI regulation intensify, the confrontation between Sacks and Hoffman reflects a larger conversation about the future of technology governance. Whether AI’s next phase will be shaped more by self-regulation or government oversight remains uncertain, but Hoffman’s remarks make clear where he stands in the fight to define the industry’s moral and regulatory boundaries.