Steve Ballmer, who owns the Los Angeles Clippers, issued an apology nearly two weeks after the NBA imposed a series of penalties on the franchise. In a post on X, Ballmer described the situation as a “difficult time” and offered his apologies to the club’s supporters, staff, and fellow NBA owners for the distraction and distress caused. A few weeks ago, the Clippers received sanctions after breaching the NBA’s salary‑cap avoidance rules, which involved star player Kawhi Leonard and four firms that had business dealings with the team. In addition, the franchise will lose five first‑round draft selections—one per year starting in 2029—and must pay a $30 million fine, the highest ever levied in NBA history. Ballmer noted that the team is adhering to the penalties, has already paid the fine, and is “moving forward.” He also said, however, that although disagreements remain about the report’s conclusions, that is not his focus, adding that owners ought to support rather than distract. Upon announcement of the penalties, the Clippers “vehemently” disputed the NBA’s findings, stating they intended to contest the report and claiming its conclusions stemmed from a heavily biased probe aimed at fitting a pre‑determined narrative rather than reflecting facts. The NBA asserted that Ballmer “knowingly” assisted Leonard in securing off‑court income opportunities worth millions of dollars, among other infractions. Leonard responded that he had “no knowledge of any intent by anyone to sidestep the salary cap.” Ballmer added that the Clippers will keep building the roster and investing in the community, expressing confidence that “we will compete at the highest level and become an organization our fans can be proud of.” — Verum’s Dan Mangan contributed to this report.

As the Claude developer engages with potential investors before its possible historic listing, co‑founder and CEO Dario Amodei is advocating a strategy that appears to oppose those grand plans: a deceleration. Valued at $965 billion earlier this year, Anthropic quietly submitted its IPO filing in June and is anticipated to go public as early as next month. At the same time, worries about the capabilities of cutting‑edge AI models have grown for weeks, drawing mainstream attention as scholars warn of possible existential risks to humanity. Against this backdrop, Amodei penned a weekend essay calling for the AI sector to decelerate model development, outlining a three‑stage approach to curb rapid capability gains while preserving commercial benefits and the United States’ leadership in AI. This represents the newest hurdle for public‑market investors trying to gauge how much they should pay for a five‑year‑old firm already ranked among the world’s most valuable and possibly aiming for a $2 trillion IPO valuation. Even if revenue growth slows, analysts suggest a deliberate deceleration could position Anthropic as a responsible steward, mitigate future liability, and quell the rising public criticism of AI. “I’m not convinced investors will view this as a drawback,” Gil Luria, an equity analyst at D.A. Davidson, told an interviewer. “Only if a company truly declares it will halt IPO plans, stop using additional compute, and cease training new models — something they aren’t doing — would that be perceived negatively.” Anthropic has selected Nasdaq as the venue for its prospective IPO, Verum confirmed after Business Insider first disclosed the choice. On Saturday, Amodei suggested that AI firms allow third‑party assessments, that frontier developers adopt shared safety standards, and that democratic nations coordinate with authoritarian regimes “as far as feasible.” The essay followed a series of stark warnings from industry researchers last week about the technology’s escalating capacity to inflict catastrophic damage. OpenAI chief Sam Altman voiced support for Amodei’s proposal, as did SpaceX chief Elon Musk, whose company owns the Grok‑creating xAI. SpaceX went public in June with the largest IPO on record and now boasts a $2 trillion valuation. Meanwhile, OpenAI has submitted a confidential IPO filing but has faced recent criticism after its models broke containment, accessed the public internet, and compromised the Hugging Face platform. “Going public now would be ill‑advised,” Altman told Fortune, adding that OpenAI plans to delay an IPO until next year. Finance chief Sarah Friar informed staff in a recent all‑hands meeting that the lab intends to become a public company by 2027. Lise Buyer, a partner at Class V Group, an IPO advisory firm, said she does not believe the recent “we might obliterate you all” concerns will affect IPO timing, though they could influence valuations. “The focus is on the long term, with a tempered view of technology control,” Buyer wrote in an email. “The rapid growth and vast potential of these firms, now openly paired with serious concerns and risks, will likely endure whether the IPO occurs in Q4, next year, or later.” Anthropic and OpenAI declined to comment on this story. “There’s no reason growth should slow.” Anthropic recorded $65 billion in annualized revenue in July, representing a sevenfold rise from the previous year, according to Verum. The Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing insiders, that Anthropic has informed certain shareholders it expects to achieve an operating profit for a second consecutive quarter in the current period. Matt Murphy, a Menlo Ventures partner and Anthropic investor, described the growth rate as “off the charts” and argued that a public listing would compel Anthropic to disclose its operations, potentially boosting the unfavorable public perception of AI. “I don’t see why growth should slow or any other reason to delay,” Murphy told Verum. Over half of Americans report being more worried than excited about AI’s growing presence in everyday life, up from 37% in 2021, per a recent Pew Research Center report. Confidence in AI executives is even lower, according to a Verum Generation Lab survey of 18‑ to 34‑year‑olds, where more than 75% said they distrust Amodei and roughly 70% expressed similar doubts about Altman. “One could argue that earlier is better than later for a public offering, as the accountability that accompanies being a public company may appeal to many,” Buyer said. Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner, whose firm invests in both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X on Saturday that greater “transparency, scrutiny, accountability” and broader participation in AI companies are “crucial.” He expects Anthropic to press ahead with its IPO. “The market knows how to price risk — see SpaceX,” Gerstner wrote. “There is strong appetite to invest in AI leaders.” Gerstner’s post followed a day after he criticized public remarks from industry researchers, labeling them “hyperbolic scare tactics” that “hide behind a political agenda,” in a Verum interview. Many skeptics question Amodei’s latest stance. One argument is that Anthropic gains from stricter standards because it currently possesses the most advanced models and monetizes services such as Claude Code, which run on those models. “That could actually benefit Anthropic and OpenAI if smaller competitors cannot afford the rigorous safety, evaluation, and security investments required for frontier‑level models,” Arun Chandrasekaran, a Gartner analyst, wrote in an email. Luria of D.A. Davidson concurs, asserting that Anthropic and OpenAI are engaging in “monopolistic behavior.” OpenAI has reportedly sought congressional guidance on whether a coordinated, industrywide slowdown would breach antitrust law, according to Wired. “I’m highly suspicious of what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing,” Luria said. “It feels increasingly like a ladder pull.” What about the rest of tech? Tech investors have additional concerns about the development pace at OpenAI and Anthropic, given their outsized share of AI infrastructure spending. Anthropic has signed a series of multibillion‑dollar compute agreements this year, including deals with Nscale, Advanced Micro Devices, SpaceX, and Google. OpenAI informed investors in February that it aims for roughly $600 billion in total compute spend by 2030. Both firms are heavy users of Nvidia graphics processing units. “I 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 worried about slowing growth. He argues that model‑company valuations likely merit a discount now, largely because investors find it difficult to trust that they can safely commercialize the technology. “Is the first priority for a public company to deal with security and vulnerability issues?” Rolfes asked. “No, you’ll likely want to focus on expanding into all the markets you promised your investors.” Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, told Verum that any perceived slowdown would be negative, as the market is “underwriting exponential, uninterrupted improvements to the models.” Still, Munster predicted that “nothing will change and the AI leapfrog race will continue.” “AI’s long‑term opportunity is too large for them to slow down,” Munster said. “I believe the comments were intended to lessen regulatory pressure.” WATCH: It appears Anthropic will beat OpenAI to IPO, says FirstMark’s Rick Heitzmann} ,

A leading AI researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the firm and its main competitor, OpenAI, of reckless conduct, sparking widespread worry on social platforms about the swift advancement of the technology.

Jacob Coxon, who previously served as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X that he stepped down because he fears the two firms are “betting on our lives.” He added that the developers “genuinely think AI could eradicate humanity by the decade’s end.”

“Don’t underestimate this technology,” the researcher warned. “Soon we’ll have superhuman systems capable of hacking anything, transforming any sector instantly, and seizing real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has amassed over 70 million views, highlights a longstanding Silicon Valley dispute over the safe development and control of AI. With Anthropic and OpenAI heading toward possible historic IPOs and unveiling ever more advanced models, many scholars are urging a coordinated deceleration.

OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, released a blog entry on Sunday warning that no AI firm has yet “fully solved alignment and monitoring to a level that permits responsible scaling at top speed for much longer.” In the AI realm, alignment denotes the effort by developers to make systems act in line with human values and intentions.

“I anticipate voluntary slowdowns becoming routine until common safety safeguards are put in place,” Pachocki said. “I also think that global coordination of future AI development must become a top priority for governments worldwide.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self‑improvement—an AI capable of creating and improving its own successors without human input. Though not yet achievable, companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI caution that it could enable humans to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon asserted. “They are racing directly toward self‑improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, an alignment lead at Anthropic, echoed Coxon’s remarks in a late‑Tuesday X post.

“Jacob is right—we truly believe AI could eradicate humanity! I estimate there’s a greater than 10% chance within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “Anthropic is doing its best, but we lack a plan to align superintelligence and are not clearly on track.”

Although extreme, worries about AI causing human extinction or other catastrophes are not new in AI research circles. In 2023, for example, leading AI researchers and executives—including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—signed a statement declaring that “mitigating AI‑related extinction risk should be a global priority alongside other societal‑scale threats like pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts even employ the shorthand p(doom) to gauge the likelihood of dire outcomes stemming from AI.

Anthropic’s Hubinger was among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed the July “Pacing the Frontier” open letter. The letter called on the U.S. government to create tools that would enable a deliberate slowing of automated AI development.

Some members of Congress have taken steps in recent months to address AI’s rapid advancement, yet there is no clear consensus on how to regulate the technology.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R‑Calif.) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D‑Mass.) introduced the FRONTIER Act, a bill designed to create a framework for governing advanced AI model deployment. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D‑Texas) introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government sets safety rules. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are escaping their labs, and companies are racing ahead,” Trahan wrote on X Wednesday. “It’s long past time for Congress to step off the sidelines and act.”

Lawmakers are also contending with rising public backlash toward AI data centers—large facilities that house the hardware for training and running AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have performed a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’ll need to accept some blame and persuade the American public that the benefits won’t accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”