When Silicon Valley Pushes Back: Why AI Safety Turns Into a Corporate Cold War
Silicon Valley used to wear disruption like a badge of honor. Now some of its loudest voices are accusing the people who warn about AI risks of being political operatives — and the fights are spilling into subpoenas, state lawmaking and public trust.
TechCrunch’s reporting this week pulls back the curtain on an ugly new phase in the industry’s relationship with its critics: public leaders and powerful companies are publicly accusing AI safety nonprofits of ulterior motives, while at the same time legal threats and subpoenas are being used to probe critics’ communications. The result is not just noise — it’s a power play that could shape how AI gets regulated, who gets to set the standards, and whether concerned researchers can speak out without fear. ([TechCrunch][1])
What happened
- David Sacks and other Silicon Valley figures publicly accused AI-safety advocates of pushing regulation to benefit only the largest players — a claim that landed on social platforms and reverberated through the startup community. ([TechCrunch][1])
- OpenAI’s Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon confirmed the company issued broad subpoenas to several nonprofits that had criticized OpenAI, seeking communications related to Elon Musk and other critics — a move that raised alarm among advocates and some OpenAI staff. ([TechCrunch][1])
- Anthropic publicly supported California’s SB 53 (a safety-reporting law for large AI companies), and has been singled out by critics as using policy influence to protect market position — an allegation Anthropic and its supporters deny. ([TechCrunch][1])
- Nonprofits and advocacy groups told TechCrunch they feel intimidated; several sources asked to speak anonymously to avoid retaliation. ([TechCrunch][1])
- Observers point out a split inside OpenAI — between researchers who publish warnings about AI risks and policy/lobbying teams that prefer federal uniformity and are sometimes at odds with state-level regulation. ([TechCrunch][1])
Why this matters — beyond the social-media mudfight
-
Regulation isn’t just policy — it’s market structure. If certain companies shape safety rules to favor their scale, smaller startups may face compliance costs that entrench incumbents. Whether intentional or not, this dynamic is what critics call “regulatory capture,” and it’s exactly the risk safety advocates warn about. ([TechCrunch][1])
-
Subpoenas change the incentives for civil society. Nonprofits that once comfortably pushed for stricter guardrails now worry about legal exposure or reputational fallout from being tied (rightly or wrongly) to litigants or rival agendas. That chill could reduce the flow of independent research and data that policymakers need.
-
Public trust is the coin of the realm. When leading industry figures publicly frame safety advocacy as self-interested or partisan, they undermine public confidence in independent oversight — at a moment when a Pew study shows Americans are at least as worried as they are excited about AI. That gap between public concern and corporate messaging will shape voter pressure and legislative appetite. ([TechCrunch][1])
-
Internal company discord signals fragility. When a company’s policy team and research organization are visibly misaligned, it weakens the argument that industry self-regulation can be trusted. Policymakers are watching those fractures closely. ([TechCrunch][1])
The stakes heading into 2026
AI safety advocacy has momentum: state-level laws like California’s SB 53 are already in motion, and the movement is growing as high-profile incidents and research reinforce concerns. The industry’s pushback—whether framed as protecting innovation or defending against unfair attacks—will determine who writes the playbook: lawmakers, independent safety groups, or the biggest labs themselves. TechCrunch’s reporting suggests Silicon Valley’s pushback may be less about correcting bad faith actors and more about shaping an environment that favors rapid productization over precaution. ([TechCrunch][1])
What to watch next
- How aggressively companies use legal tools (subpoenas, litigation) against NGOs and researchers. ([TechCrunch][1])
- Whether other states follow California with safety reporting laws — and how federal lawmakers respond. ([TechCrunch][1])
- Whether independent funders and foundations step in to protect or bankroll advocacy groups facing legal pressure. ([TechCrunch][1])
Glossary
- Regulatory capture: When regulatory agencies or laws end up serving the commercial interests of the industries they’re supposed to regulate.
- Subpoena: A legal order requiring a person or organization to produce documents or testify; can chill advocacy if used broadly.
- Amicus brief: A “friend of the court” filing by an outside party to provide information or perspectives relevant to a legal case.
- SB 53 (California): State law requiring safety reporting from large AI companies (as discussed in the article). ([TechCrunch][1])
- AI safety movement: A loose coalition of researchers, nonprofits and some industry actors pushing for standards and laws to mitigate AI harms.
Source: https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/17/silicon-valley-spooks-the-ai-safety-advocates/ ([TechCrunch][1])
If you’d like, I can turn this into a shorter op-ed, a Twitter-thread friendly breakdown, or a visual explainer for a newsletter.
| [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/17/silicon-valley-spooks-the-ai-safety-advocates/ “Silicon Valley spooks the AI safety advocates | TechCrunch” |
