Technologies
ExpressVPN vs. Surfshark: How CNET’s Top Two VPNs Compare
Both VPN services are excellent, so we compared their speed, price and privacy to help you decide which is best for you.
ExpressVPN and Surfshark are two of CNET’s best VPN picks, both earning Editors’ Choice designations. ExpressVPN is CNET’s Editors’ Choice for best overall VPN, and Surfshark is CNET’s Editors’ Choice for best value VPN. Both are excellent options for anyone who wants a VPN that offers first-rate privacy protections, but can also reliably handle geoblocks when streaming content online.
This comparison between ExpressVPN and Surfshark is based on extensive testing and thorough evaluations of each service’s overall value, privacy features and speeds. I conducted hundreds of individual speed tests for each provider to multiple locations and through multiple VPN protocols and platforms, along with leak tests and kill switch tests. I also carefully evaluated each provider’s features, privacy policy, terms of service, transparency efforts and customer support.
Both are first-class VPN providers, but ExpressVPN edges Surfshark in this head-to-head. Read on to find out why.
Read more: Best VPN Services of 2023
ExpressVPN vs. Surfshark
- See latest ExpressVPN coupons and deals
ExpressVPN is currently CNET’s top overall VPN pick due to its strong commitment to privacy and transparency, excellent speeds and streaming capabilities. If you have critical online privacy needs, ExpressVPN is the way to go. But if you want to unblock a world of streaming options, ExpressVPN is the one for the job, too. Its interface is minimalist and easy to use across platforms, but has a lot of options for customization from its Preferences menu. ExpressVPN is a well-rounded service that performs admirably for virtually any VPN use case, whether you’re a beginner or advanced VPN user. It leans a tad toward the expensive side, but if you want a top-notch VPN experience it’s worth it — even if you only get five simultaneous connections.
- See latest Surfshark coupons and deals
If you’re looking for a VPN that provides the most value for your money, Surfshark is the VPN for you. Despite its budget-friendly pricing, Surfshark is loaded with features, provides a few unique privacy protections and unblocks more Netflix libraries than you can count. Surfshark is a relative newcomer to the industry, compared to ExpressVPN, but it has already made a name for itself in the highly competitive VPN market. I’m impressed with how Surfshark continues to innovate and work toward improving its service on multiple fronts — and hoping it can continue to offer its favorable pricing.
Speed winner: ExpressVPN by a wide margin, thanks to Surfshark’s inconsistency and sputtering OpenVPN speeds
Finding the fastest VPN is a priority for most VPN users, so we put VPNs through rigorous speed testing. In my most recent speed tests in the first quarter of 2023, I registered an 18% average speed loss with ExpressVPN and an average 40% speed loss with Surfshark.
ExpressVPN was consistently speedy regardless of which protocol, device or location I tested it through. The only other VPN that performed more consistently during my most recent speed tests was NordVPN. The best speed performance I got out of ExpressVPN was through the OpenVPN protocol from my testing location in Hungary, where I registered a 9% speed loss compared to my base speeds. The best speed performance I got through WireGuard with ExpressVPN was from my other testing location in Ohio, where I registered an 11% speed loss. And with ExpressVPN upgrading its server fleet to 10Gbps servers, I’m hoping to see even faster and more consistent speeds from the provider in the future.
Surfshark’s speeds through the WireGuard VPN protocol from Ohio were excellent, causing my speeds to dip a mere 8% below my base internet speeds — above the top speeds I saw from ExpressVPN. However, Surfshark’s speeds through the OpenVPN protocol on my Windows laptop were abysmal, cutting my base speeds by a whopping 76%. And that’s the core issue, here. While Surfshark sometimes offered good speeds, I never knew what to expect from different protocols or devices.
I have found that VPN speeds through Windows machines tend to be marginally slower across the board than they typically are through a Mac, but other VPNs I tested through Windows didn’t register such a dramatic drop in speeds as Surfshark did. Losing more than three quarters of your base speed can be a real downer if you’re a gamer, torrenter or like to stream content. That said, Surfshark’s OpenVPN speeds through my Mac were fairly respectable (34% speed loss), though not overly impressive. Still, the inconsistent nature of Surfshark’s overall speed performance was a major disappointment.
If you want to optimize your speeds with Surfshark, I recommend connecting through the WireGuard protocol, especially if you’re a Windows user. Surfshark tells me that its development team is working on the issue, so hopefully OpenVPN speeds will improve in the future.
Cost winner: Surfshark, thanks to its impressive suite of features at a significantly lower price
ExpressVPN is, by all measures, a premium VPN service. It’s top of the line when it comes to speed, privacy, features and unblocking capabilities. And, compared to the competition, it’s expensive. ExpressVPN’s most cost-effective subscription plan is its annual plan, which costs $100 per year. You can also opt for either a biannual plan for $60 every six months or a monthly plan for $13 per month.
For that price, you get five simultaneous connections, access to a global network of servers spanning 94 countries, 24/7 live chat customer support, an easy-to-use app for all of your devices and unparalleled streaming capabilities. Additionally, you’ll eventually get access to ExpressVPN’s password manager, Keys, at no additional cost, once it exits beta and is rolled out universally to all users.
Surfshark is far easier on the pocketbook than ExpressVPN. Though Surfshark’s monthly pricing is equal to that of ExpressVPN at $13 per month, its yearly rate is considerably cheaper at $48 for the first year (then $60 per year) — a savings of $40 per year after the promo pricing ends. And while we don’t recommend committing to any VPN provider for more than a year due to the volatile nature of the industry on the whole, you can get your first two years with Surfshark for $60 total (which then renews annually at $60).
If you go with Surfshark’s annual plan, you get a feature set comparable to ExpressVPN, for a fraction of the cost. And unlike ExpressVPN’s meager simultaneous connection limit of five, Surfshark allows for an unlimited number of simultaneous connections. In addition to that, you’ll get access to servers in 100 different countries, 24/7 live chat customer support, an ad and malware blocker, cookie popup blocker and split tunneling. And Surfshark’s streaming capabilities are constantly improving, putting the provider nearly on the same level as ExpressVPN in that regard. With Surfshark, you can unblock an impressive number of international Netflix libraries. And, following our previous Surfshark review, the provider improved significantly in its ability to reliably unblock Disney Plus.
Among CNET’s top VPN picks, ExpressVPN and Surfshark occupy opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to cost — NordVPN, Proton VPN and IPVanish fall somewhere in between. With ExpressVPN you get the quality that you pay for, and with Surfshark, you get tremendous value for the comparatively low price you pay (if you sign up for a longer-term subscription). Sure, ExpressVPN is well worth its premium price tag, but if you’re a casual VPN user who doesn’t necessarily need every bit of what ExpressVPN offers, Surfshark is more than capable of providing everything you need in a VPN at a lower cost.
Privacy and security winner: ExpressVPN, thanks to its TrustedServer technology and unmatched transparency efforts
ExpressVPN and Surfhark both offer excellent privacy for VPN users. Like CNET’s other top VPN picks, ExpressVPN and Surfshark both offer industry-standard (and virtually uncrackable) AES 256-bit encryption to protect users’ traffic. They both also offer standard privacy protections like a kill switch, DNS leak protection, no-logging policy and a RAM-only diskless server infrastructure. Both providers’ kill switch and DNS leak protection worked flawlessly during my testing. It’s a tight race here, but if I had to choose one for critical privacy needs, I would choose ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN’s TrustedServer technology builds on top of the concept of a RAM-only diskless server infrastructure. ExpressVPN’s servers run on volatile memory, meaning that user data is never stored on a hard disk and is wiped when the server is turned off or rebooted. This makes it difficult for anyone to collect user information. And with TrustedServer, the entire software stack is completely reinstalled whenever an ExpressVPN server starts up. ExpressVPN says that this process helps mitigate risks of introducing vulnerabilities or misconfiguration.
TrustedServer, along with ExpressVPN’s apps, browser extension, router, VPN protocols and no-logs policy have all been independently audited in the past year. The company’s 12 independent audits in 2022 are a testament to its commitment to transparency and go well above and beyond what most of its other peers in the VPN industry offer.
Surfshark, by comparison, has gone through a mere smattering of independent audits over the past few years. Surfshark’s browser extensions were audited in 2018, its server infrastructure was audited in 2021 and it went through its first no-logs audit in January 2023. Three audits is better than none, but Surfshark can still do more to boost its trust and transparency.
That said, Surfshark’s Nexus network technology is a neat innovation that includes features that help boost user privacy. Through the Nexus network, you can route your VPN connection through multiple servers of your choosing at once on Surfshark’s network, rather than just one server or a preset combination of two servers. This helps add an extra layer of protection. In addition to Surfshark’s Dynamic MultiHop, the Nexus network offers other innovative privacy features like an IP Rotator that periodically changes your IP address without disconnecting from the VPN and an IP Randomizer that changes your IP address each time you visit a new website. ExpressVPN currently doesn’t offer multihop connections or IP rotator/randomizer features.
ExpressVPN and Surfshark compared
| ExpressVPN | Surfshark | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $13 per month, $60 per 6 months, $100 per year | $13 per month, $48 for the first year (then $60 annually) |
| Avg. % speed loss | 18% | 40% |
| Server network | 3,000 servers in 94 countries | 3,200-plus servers in 100 countries |
| Encryption | AES 256-bit | AES 256-bit |
| VPN protocols | OpenVPN, Lightway, IKEv2 | OpenVPN, WireGuard, IKEv2/IPSec |
| Jurisdiction | British Virgin Islands | Netherlands |
| Compatibility | Windows, MacOS, Linux, Android, iOS, Fire TV, routers | MacOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android, Fire TV, routers |
| Simultaneous connections | 5 | Unlimited |
Bottom line
ExpressVPN is for you if you need a VPN that can protect your privacy in situations where your online privacy is a critical consideration. The VPN’s TrustedServer technology, privacy-friendly jurisdiction in the British Virgin Islands and comprehensive list of independent security audits help reinforce its commitment to user privacy. Whether you need privacy in the face of online surveillance, or if you’re a doctor, lawyer, journalist, dissident, whistleblower, activist or anyone else who requires heightened online privacy, then ExpressVPN is the way to go.
Or if you’re a casual VPN user simply looking for a fast VPN that’s easy to use and can unblock a world of streaming options while hiding your activity from your ISP, then ExpressVPN is a great option too — as long as you don’t mind paying the premium.
On the other hand, if you’re a casual user on a budget and want a VPN that can get the job done for less, Surfshark could be the VPN for you. Though Surfshark isn’t quite at the level that ExpressVPN is in terms of privacy protections and transparency, Surfshark has a few unique privacy features like MultiHop and IP Rotator/Randomizer that may appeal to certain users who want to add an extra layer of protection to their traffic. However, Windows users who prefer connecting through OpenVPN for privacy may want to opt for ExpressVPN due to Surfshark’s speed issues through OpenVPN on Windows.
And because Surfshark offers unlimited simultaneous connections, it’s also an excellent option for folks with lots of connected devices or anyone with a large family or group of friends they want to share an account with.
FAQs
Which VPN is better, ExpressVPN or Surfshark?
It depends on what you want out of your VPN. If price is your primary concern when choosing a VPN, go with Surfshark. If you have lots of devices you want to connect at once, Surfshark would be the best choice again. If critical privacy is your main concern, go with ExpressVPN. For the best overall speeds and the best geoblock circumvention, go with ExpressVPN too.
Is the price difference worth it?
If your online privacy is of critical importance, then yes, the higher price you pay for ExpressVPN is worth it. Also, if you want the best possible speeds across platforms and protocols, for streaming and torrenting, the price difference is worth it. If you’re a casual user who doesn’t require all of that and doesn’t want to pay a premium for their VPN, Surfshark is a worthy alternative that shouldn’t be considered a downgrade.
Can you try ExpressVPN or Surfshark for free?
Neither ExpressVPN nor Surfshark officially offer a free trial at this time. However, if you download and sign up for either service through the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, you can activate a seven-day free trial. Just remember to cancel your trial before the seven days is up if you don’t want to continue with the service, to avoid getting charged. Both Surfshark and ExpressVPN offer 30-day money-back guarantees as well. If you purchase a subscription and decide that you’re not satisfied for whatever reason, you can request a full refund within the first 30 days of purchase.
Read more: Best Cheap VPN for 2023
Technologies
What Amodei’s AI slowdown could mean for Anthropic’s imminent IPO
As Anthropic meets with prospective investors ahead of its potentially historic market debut, CEO Dario Amodei is pushing for a slowdown in AI.
Anthropic’s road to an IPO just got a lot bumpier.
While the Claude creator meets with prospective investors ahead of its potentially historic debut, co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei is pushing a concept that would seem to contradict those ambitious efforts: a slowdown.
Anthropic, valued at $965 billion earlier this year, confidentially filed its IPO prospectus in June, and has been widely expected to list its shares as soon as next month. Meanwhile, concerns about the power of advanced AI models has been intensifying for weeks, spilling into the mainstream as more researchers warn of potential threats of human extinction.
With that backdrop, Amodei wrote an essay over the weekend urging the AI industry to slow the pace of model development, proposing a three-step plan to temper how quickly model capabilities improve without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”
It’s the latest challenge facing public market investors who are trying to determine what they’re willing to pay for a piece of a five-year-old company that’s already among the most valuable in the world and could seek a $2 trillion valuation in its IPO. Though Anthropic may have to accept a hit to revenue growth, some experts say an intentional slowdown could help Anthropic frame itself as a responsible actor, avoid future liability and address the public backlash towards AI that’s been brewing across the country.
“I don’t know that investors are necessarily going to see it as a negative,” Gil Luria, an equity analyst at D.A. Davidson, said in an interview. “Unless the companies are genuine and say, ‘OK, we’re not going to IPO, we’re not going to use any more compute, we’re not going to train any more models.’ That’s not what they’re saying.”
Anthropic has picked the Nasdaq as the exchange for its potential IPO, CNBC confirmed after Business Insider first reported the selection.
Amodei on Saturday proposed that model companies open up to third-party evaluators, frontier companies establish “common safety standards,” and that democratic countries coordinate with authoritarian governments “to the extent this is possible.”
His essay came after several industry researchers issued stern warnings last week about the technology’s growing potential to cause catastrophic harms.
President Donald Trump slammed Amodei in a post on Truth Social on Monday, writing that the only “control or ’guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!”
“The Trump Administration has stopped AI ‘people’ from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,” like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a ‘perfect little angel’ – and we will continue to do so!,” Trump wrote. “We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies!”
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman expressed support for Amodei’s proposal, as did Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, which owns Grok creator xAI. SpaceX went public in June in the biggest IPO on record and is now valued at $2 trillion. OpenAI has confidentially filed its IPO prospectus, but has been under fire in recent months after its models escaped containment, accessed the open internet and breached open-source developer platform Hugging Face.
“Right now would be an ill-advised moment to go public,” Altman said in an interview with Fortune, reiterating that OpenAI won’t aim for an IPO until next year. Finance chief Sarah Friar told employees during an all-hands meeting last month that the AI lab “will be a public company in 2027.”
Lise Buyer, partner at IPO advisory firm Class V Group, said she doesn’t see the recent “we might obliterate you all” fears having an impact on IPO timing, but it could alter valuations, she said.
“The bet here is on the long term — now with tempering thoughts about control of the technology,” Buyer said in an email. “The dramatic growth and possibilities of these companies, now more publicly coupled with the potential very serious concerns and risks, will likely persist whether the IPO happens in Q4 or next year or whenever.”
Anthropic and OpenAI declined to comment for this story.
′Don’t see why growth would slow’
Anthropic hit $65 billion in annualized revenue in July, about a sevenfold increase from the prior year, as CNBC previously reported. The company has told some shareholders that it will generate an operating profit for a second straight quarter in the current period, according to two sources familiar who asked not to be named because the details are confidential. The Financial Times earlier reported the operating profit on Sunday.
Matt Murphy, a partner at Menlo Ventures and an Anthropic investor, called the growth rate “off the charts,” and said a public listing would bring more transparency around the business.
“Don’t see why growth would slow or any other reason to wait,” Murphy told CNBC.
That transparency could also help improve what has been dismal public sentiment around the technology.
More than half of Americans say they’re more concerned than excited about the growing use of AI in daily life, up from 37% in 2021, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center. And confidence in AI executives is even worse, according to a CNBC Generation Lab survey of 18- to 34-year-olds. More than 75% of respondents said they don’t trust Amodei to act responsibly, while around 70% expressed those views about Altman.
“One could argue that sooner is better than later for a public offering as the accountability that comes with being a public company might be of a great interest to many,” Class V Group’s Buyer said.
Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner, whose firm is an investor in Anthropic and OpenAI, said in a post on X on Saturday that bringing more “transparency, scrutiny, accountability” and participation to AI companies is “crucial.” He said Anthropic will likely forge ahead with its IPO.
“The market knows how to price risk – see SpaceX,” Gerstner wrote. “There is huge appetite to invest in the AI leaders.”
Gerstner’s post came a day after he blasted public remarks from industry researchers, calling them “hyperbolic scare tactics” that are “hiding behind a political agenda,” in an interview with CNBC.
There are plenty of skeptics when it comes to Amodei’s latest positioning. One argument is that Anthropic benefits from stricter standards because it currently has the most advanced models and makes money from selling services, like Claude Code, that are powered by those models.
“That could actually favor Anthropic and OpenAI if smaller competitors cannot afford the rigorous safety, evaluation and security investments required for frontier-level models,” Arun Chandrasekaran, an analyst at Gartner, told CNBC in an email.
D.A. Davidson’s Luria agrees and said he thinks Anthropic and OpenAI are engaging in “monopolistic behavior.” OpenAI has reportedly asked members of Congress for guidance about whether a coordinated, industrywide slowdown would violate antitrust law, according to Wired.
“I’m highly suspicious of what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing,” Luria said. “It feels more and more like a ladder pull.”
What about the rest of tech?
Tech investors have other reasons to worry about the pace of development at OpenAI and Anthropic, because those companies are responsible for an outsized amount of AI infrastructure spending.
Anthropic has inked a flurry of multibillion-dollar compute deals this year, including with Nscale, Advanced Micro Devices, SpaceX, and Google. OpenAI told investors in February that it’s targeting roughly $600 billion in total compute spend by 2030. Both companies are heavy users of Nvidia’s graphics processing units.
“I would want to understand how the mix shifts between frontier training, post-training and inference as safety controls are integrated,” said Lo Toney, managing partner at Plexo Capital, and an Anthropic investor.
PitchBook analyst Harrison Rolfes is more concerned about reduced growth. He said valuations for model companies likely deserve a discount now, largely because it’s hard for investors to trust that they can safely commercialize their technology.
“Is the first thing that you want to do as a public company go handle a bunch of security issues and vulnerability issues?” Rolfes said. “No, you probably want to focus on expanding into all the markets that you promised all your investors.”
Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, told CNBC that any sort of perceived slowdown will be a negative because the market is “underwriting exponential uninterrupted improvements to the models.”
Still, Munster predicted that “nothing will change and the AI leapfrog game will continue.”
“AI’s long-term opportunity is too big for them to slow down,” Munster said. “I believe the comments were motivated to reduce the regulatory pressure.”
WATCH: Seems like Anthropic will beat OpenAI to IPO, says FirstMark’s Rick Heitzmann
Technologies
Iran Claims It Shot Down Advanced U.S. Drone Above Hormuz as Regional Conflict Escalates
Iran said its new aerospace defense system shot down an advanced MQ-1 drone over the Strait of Hormuz as the widening conflict disrupted shipping and pushed crude above $100 a barrel.
Iran’s military said it had destroyed an advanced American drone over the Strait of Hormuz, marking the latest exchange of warnings and strikes between Tehran and Washington as neither side shows signs of backing down.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Monday that its “new advanced aerospace defense system” intercepted and shot down the MQ-1 drone above the strait, but offered no additional information about its mission. General Atomics manufactures the MQ-1, which has historically been operated primarily by the U.S. Air Force and CIA.
The incident came after a series of Iranian operations targeting U.S. unmanned naval systems in the Gulf. The war, now entering its seventh month, has shown little sign of easing, while diplomacy over the strategically vital waterway remains stalled.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, comparing the possibility with the arrangement Washington reached with Venezuela earlier this year.
Speaking at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland, Trump said the U.S. would eventually leave the war unless it chose to remain and retain access to oil, as it did under the Venezuela arrangement. He said revenue from that agreement, which gave Washington access to roughly one-fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, had “paid for the war many times.”
Under the August agreement, Venezuela transferred majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves—more than twice America’s own reserves—in return for $209 billion for the state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also attract nearly $100 billion in private investment to revive the economy.
Trump said on Sunday that he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, potentially after the November midterm elections, and maintained that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once peace arrives.
The president said he would accept only the “right deal” and claimed Tehran had been “calling constantly” for peace negotiations, a claim Iran has previously rejected.
Hormuz Negotiations Stalled
A planned meeting in Oman between Gulf states and Iran to discuss potential agreements governing the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil and gas shipments, has been postponed, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday. He cited the need for “consensus.”
Officials from Iran and Gulf countries were expected to meet Monday and sign an agreement creating an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, although no direct U.S.-Iran talks were taking place.
Since the war began in February, the Strait of Hormuz has faced an Iranian blockade followed by a U.S. naval blockade, helping keep global energy prices elevated.
A June agreement between Washington and Tehran broke down over disputes concerning the waterway. Meanwhile, a sustained offensive by Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in recent days has strengthened the group’s leverage over another critical shipping route, the Bab el-Mandeb.
Iranian strikes regularly target vessels considered non-compliant, while the U.S. periodically bombs sections of the Iranian coastline to challenge the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.
Oil prices climbed above $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and rose further on Monday after Saudi Arabia shut a major east-west energy pipeline following damage caused by Iraqi drones.
U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures gained 2.3% to $102.39 a barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose 2.4% to $107.11 a barrel.
Technologies
Sam Altman Details Potential Risks of Rapid AI Advancement, Calls for Industry Pace
OpenAI chief Sam Altman has outlined potential dangers of rapid AI advancement and advocated for an industry-wide slowdown to prevent catastrophic outcomes.
OpenAI chief Sam Altman has made his most detailed comments yet on how artificial intelligence safety frameworks could work, after he joined Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and Elon Musk in calling for an industry slowdown over the weekend.
Safety concerns over the technology have hit fever pitch since an Anthropic researcher quit last week, warning that those building it believed that it could “kill us all by the end of the decade” and prompting other employees at the lab and rival OpenAI to warn of catastrophic risks.
AI bosses have since shown a rare display of unity, with both Altman and Musk on Saturday backing an essay from Amodei that urged AI companies to slow how quickly they improve their most advanced models.
AI stocks were down Monday as investors digested the comments. U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed the CEOs’ warning on Sunday, saying a slowdown was not needed and would jeopardize America’s lead in AI over China.
Sam Altman sets out 2 ways AI could go ‘very badly’
“We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI,” Altman said in a post on X just after midnight on Monday, adding that “no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”
Altman warned of two ways AI progress could go “very badly,” including losing “control of the future to AI” and too much power concentrating around a single person or company.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington are scrambling to address calls for safeguards.
This all comes as Anthropic and OpenAI gear up for what’s expected to be historic initial public offerings. Altman ruled out going public in 2026 in an interview with Fortune published Saturday.
Amodei’s three-step proposal
Many AI safety fears revolve around models developing the ability to improve their own performance, a technique known as recursive self-improvement, or RSI.
“Since roughly this summer, AI has been advancing drastically faster, driven primarily by AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI,” said Amodei in his essay. “Left unchecked, it could outrun our ability to understand and control these systems, and so must be pursued very carefully, if at all.”
Amodei proposed a three-step plan aimed at tempering the pace of development without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”
The plan involves each frontier AI company giving “employee-like access” to external evaluators — which he said Anthropic was committing to now. Amodei also called for frontier AI labs to establish common safety standards, limit the rate of unchecked AI progress and attempt to coordinate efforts globally.
On Saturday, Altman said in a brief X post he agreed with Amodei that AI companies should “pace the frontier.” He added that “committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.”
“Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors),” Altman said in his Monday post. But, he added, “When we talk about ‘pacing,’ we do not mean ‘stopping.’ Progress has been rapid and will continue to be.”
“Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring,” he concluded.
“Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.”
International cooperation
Coordinating AI safety measures and an industry slowdown with rival AI developers in China will likely pose big challenges.
The U.S. and China remain locked in a battle for AI supremacy, with tensions ratcheting up as Chinese models have become more advanced and their global adoption grows.
Amodei said Sunday that the “toughest dilemma” about his proposal is what happens if adversarial nations choose not to do the same.
“The more long-term thing would be working together to put a speed limit on the rate of AI progress,” Amodei told CBS News’ “Sunday Morning.”
“I think that’s going to be very difficult because the incentives to pull ahead and the military advantage that you get from that are so large. And honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible, but we should try.”
The Anthropic CEO’s essay has drawn criticism in China, with the state-owned Global Times writing on Monday that “Amodei’s proposals seek to portray China’s legitimate development in AI as a threat and further fuel confrontation between China and the US in the field.”
China’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the CEOs’ comments were “fearmongering.”


