> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://wire.fourthweb.ai/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# OpenAI and Anthropic Want Veto Power Over Their Own Safety Reports
- URL: https://wire.fourthweb.ai/openai-and-anthropic-want-veto-power-over-their-own-safety-reports/
- Published: 2026-10-14T06:31:47.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-14T06:31:50.000Z
- Description: The companies building the agents want to decide what you get to know about how safe those agents actually are.
- Author: Travis Wright
- Tags: Real World Assets, AI Governance, OpenAI, Anthropic, IPO Watch, Funding Rounds

**The companies building the agents want to decide what you get to know about how safe those agents actually are.**

### The Summary

- [Anthropic and OpenAI are negotiating with third-party AI safety evaluators over publication rights](https://cryptobriefing.com/anthropic-and-openai-reportedly-seek-control-over-evaluator-publications/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai), potentially limiting what independent researchers can disclose about model risks and capabilities
- [The push for control centers on trade secret protection](https://cryptobriefing.com/anthropic-openai-evaluator-publication-rights/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai), but critics argue it could reduce transparency in an industry that's moving faster than anyone can properly audit
- Meanwhile, [both companies are pushing UK lawmakers to pass binding AI regulations](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-urge-uk-binding-ai-rules/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) emphasizing national security and consumer protection — while simultaneously seeking to limit what evaluators can say publicly

### The Signal

The irony is loud enough to hear from space. [OpenAI](https://wire.fourthweb.ai/tag/openai/) and [Anthropic](https://wire.fourthweb.ai/tag/anthropic/) want stricter government oversight of AI, but they also want veto power over what independent safety evaluators can publish about their models. [The negotiations](https://cryptobriefing.com/anthropic-openai-evaluator-publication-rights/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) put AI labs in the position of deciding which findings about their own technology get to see daylight.

The companies frame this as protecting trade secrets. Fair enough on its face — model architectures and training data represent genuine competitive advantages. But safety evaluations aren't product specs. They're assessments of risk, capability boundaries, and failure modes. When a third party tests whether your model can be jailbroken into giving bomb-making instructions or generate convincing deepfakes, that's not intellectual property. That's public interest information.

> "The control over evaluator publications by AI firms may hinder transparency, affecting trust and innovation in the AI industry."

Here's what makes this particularly rich: [Anthropic and OpenAI are simultaneously urging UK lawmakers to implement binding AI rules](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-urge-uk-binding-ai-rules/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) focused on national security and consumer protection. They want regulation. Just not the kind that comes with full transparency about what independent auditors find. The companies want credit for supporting oversight while maintaining editorial control over the oversight reports.

The timing matters. [Both OpenAI and Anthropic are seeing declining developer traffic despite launching increasingly capable models](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-face-declining-developer-traffic-despite-model-improvements/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai). Developers are either building in-house solutions or switching to cheaper alternatives. When your market position is weakening, controlling the narrative around safety becomes more valuable, not less.

**Key dynamics at play:**

- Third-party evaluators need access to frontier models to assess risks
- That access comes with NDAs and contractual restrictions
- AI labs want "trade secret" provisions that could cover safety findings
- Evaluators worry they won't be able to publish meaningful results

[The shift toward in-house AI solutions and cheaper alternatives](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-developer-traffic-declining/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) suggests developers are less impressed by capability improvements than the labs expected. If trust in these companies erodes further because safety evaluations get buried behind trade secret claims, that developer exodus accelerates.

The Web4 future depends on knowing which agents are safe to deploy and which ones will confidently hallucinate their way into breaking your production system. If the companies building the agents also control what third-party evaluators can say about them, we're building on sand.

### The Implication

Watch how this negotiation resolves. If OpenAI and Anthropic succeed in limiting evaluator publications, every other AI lab will adopt the same playbook. Independent safety research becomes effectively impossible when the subjects of that research hold publication rights.

For anyone building on these models or deploying agents: assume you're flying blind on safety. The gap between what evaluators know and what they're allowed to tell you is about to get wider. Plan accordingly. Diversify your model dependencies. Build your own testing. Don't outsource your risk assessment to companies that won't let the assessors talk.

### Sources

[Crypto Briefing](https://cryptobriefing.com/anthropic-and-openai-reportedly-seek-control-over-evaluator-publications/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) | [Crypto Briefing](https://cryptobriefing.com/anthropic-openai-evaluator-publication-rights/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) | [Crypto Briefing](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-urge-uk-binding-ai-rules/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) | [Crypto Briefing](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-face-declining-developer-traffic-despite-model-improvements/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai) | [Crypto Briefing](https://cryptobriefing.com/openai-anthropic-developer-traffic-declining/?ref=wire.fourthweb.ai)