AI Leaders Jointly Call for Slowing Down, Tech Stocks Plummet
CEOs of three leading AI labs, Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, have rarely called for the industry to slow down the development of cutting-edge models at the same time. Following this news, AI concept stocks fell sharply, with chip stocks like Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and Marvell experiencing significant declines. Nasdaq 100 index futures dropped over 1.7% at one point.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei explicitly requested AI companies to "slow down the pace of advancing model capabilities"; Elon Musk publicly supported Amodei's stance; OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also expressed support for slowing down development—this marks the first time the CEOs of the three most important AI labs globally have publicly aligned on the "slow down" issue.
In pre-market trading, Intel fell nearly 6%, Marvell Technology dropped close to 6%, AMD fell about 5%, Nvidia declined over 2%, and Meta and Amazon both fell more than 1%; Nasdaq 100 index futures plummeted by 505.5 points (down 1.72%), and S&P 500 futures dropped by 53.25 points (down 0.70%); the Asia-Pacific market was also affected, with SoftBank's stock price plummeting by up to 13%, the KOSPI index in South Korea declining, and chip stocks like SK Hynix under pressure, while TSMC's stock fell in Taiwan.
The pre-IPO valuation of OpenAI (IG platform pre-market contracts) has shrunk by about $70 billion from recent highs, as the market had already been pressured by Altman's statement that there was no rush for an IPO in 2026; SoftBank, a significant shareholder in OpenAI, saw its stock price drop sharply, reflecting investors' reassessment of the value of its AI-related holdings.
Not everyone agrees with the motives behind the "slow down" call—well-known short-seller Michael Burry publicly questioned whether such calls might be a means for "leading players to suppress smaller competitors under the guise of safety"; Annex Wealth Management strategist Brian Jacobsen reminded that "the most convincing cautious arguments should be based on evidence, not fear".
The Chinese government quickly responded and opposed this statement—Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiajun stated that "spreading fear, creating confrontation, and fostering vicious competition will only disrupt the global AI governance process and do not serve the interests of any party"; the Chinese Ministry of Commerce countered that the U.S. is pursuing "industry monopoly" in the AI field, and state media characterized Amodei's statement as a "Cold War script" implying containment; it is reported that Trump and Xi Jinping plan to discuss AI governance on September 24, indicating that this "slow down call" has escalated from an internal industry discussion to a new competitive issue between China and the U.S.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
This is not the first time Amodei, Altman, and Musk have expressed their views on AI regulation—Anthropic has previously pushed for frameworks like "responsible scaling policies" for self-restraint, OpenAI has released a "preparatory framework" to assess model risks, and Musk has long criticized peers for "irresponsibly speeding ahead," while his own xAI is rapidly expanding computing power; the fact that the three have rarely aligned on the same stance occurs at a critical window for Anthropic as it rushes towards a Nasdaq IPO, seeking a valuation of about $2 trillion, making the timing noteworthy.
The financial flows resulting from the news are clear—chip stocks and AI infrastructure stocks fell in response, the off-market valuation of OpenAI's unlisted equity shrank by about $70 billion, and companies like SoftBank, which are deeply tied to OpenAI, saw their stock prices drop over 10% in a single day; market funds have temporarily withdrawn from the "AI infrastructure narrative" and shifted to a wait-and-see approach, coinciding with Anthropic's call for a slowdown while also rushing for an IPO, which can easily be interpreted as leading companies attempting to "control the narrative" for their upcoming valuation window.
Michael Burry's questioning of "leading players suppressing smaller competitors under the guise of safety" aligns with previous criticisms from White House AI policy officials like David Sacks, who described Amodei and others' "slow down initiatives" as a "cartel cloaked in virtue"—such doubts frequently arise during historical cycles of tightening regulation, as leading institutions are generally better able to absorb compliance costs, thereby raising industry barriers through regulation; the current AI industry is in a sensitive phase of "leading labs rushing for valuation while regulatory frameworks are not yet established," where the simultaneous emergence of the slowdown call and IPO narrative amplifies external skepticism about their motives.
This is essentially a typical case of the interplay between regulatory changes and capital concentration—leading AI labs are attempting to shift some discourse power regarding the technological capability race to themselves through public calls for "safe slowing down"; once relevant regulatory frameworks are established, independent assessment mechanisms and safety compliance costs are likely to disproportionately burden smaller players and newcomers with fewer resources; meanwhile, the Chinese government interprets this statement as a geopolitical move to "contain China's AI development," indicating that this seemingly industry-internal discussion about "AI safety" has, in fact, become deeply intertwined with U.S.-China technological competition and capital market valuation expectations, no longer merely a technical ethics issue.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
Leading players calling for a slowdown often pave the way for their own valuation windows.
The louder the safety narrative, the greater the space for regulatory arbitrage.
In the end, discussions about the technological race revolve around who finishes the story first and who sets the price.