“And even as Altman was telling Congress that he supported AI regulation, his company was lobbying the EU to water down its AI act.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
While Altman publicly supported AI regulation in 2023, OpenAI lobbied to water down the EU AI Act.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation, paragraph 17.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-9cfc7b-a1
We recorded 13 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-05-16. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- even as Altman was telling Congress
- he supported AI regulation
- his company was lobbying the EU
- to water down its AI act
Our interpretation
- Read 'even as' as the same May 2023 regulatory episode surrounding the congressional testimony, rather than requiring lobbying on the exact hearing date.
- Watering down means seeking to reduce proposed legal obligations or exclude OpenAI's models from stricter requirements. It does not require opposition to every regulation.
- The claim concerns public positions and lobbying, not whether Altman sincerely believed his testimony.
Counts as supported if: Records show Altman publicly supporting regulation in Congress and OpenAI advocating reduced EU AI Act obligations during the same May 2023 episode.
Counts as contradicted if: Records establish that Altman did not support regulation in that testimony, or that the attributed EU advocacy did not seek reduced obligations.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Altman supported regulation in his Senate testimony. During the same month's European tour, he met regulators and objected to classifications that would impose additional safety obligations. Contemporary reporting also reproduced OpenAI's disclosure of EU lobbying contacts. This supports the ordinary reading of overlapping public support and efforts to reduce particular requirements. It does not establish insincerity or same-day lobbying.
Limitations
- The temporal reading is material: a requirement for an EU weakening request on the exact hearing date would remain unresolved.
- Supporting regulation generally is compatible with opposing particular provisions.
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
We believe it is essential to develop regulations that incentivize AI safety
Why it matters here: Altman's written congressional testimony explicitly supports regulation. The retrieved company page carries a June 22 submission date, later than the hearing.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: TIME,
OpenAI’s skepticism centered on the E.U. law’s designation of “high risk” systems
Why it matters here: The report describes meetings with EU regulators and objections to classifications that would impose additional safety duties. This supports advocacy for reduced obligations near the testimony date.
- Where
- Paragraph 3
- Publisher
- TIME
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: TechCrunch,
we have met with Washington-based and Brussels-based EU representatives.
Why it matters here: The contemporary report reproduces OpenAI's disclosure of EU lobbying contacts and identifies the AI Act as its lobbying subject. It corroborates actual engagement rather than public criticism alone.
- Publisher
- TechCrunch
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation
And even as Altman was telling Congress that he supported AI regulation, his company was lobbying the EU to water down its AI act.
- Where
- paragraph 17
- Published
- 2025-05-16
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-9cfc7b-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-9cfc7b-a1.