Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager famous for predicting the 2008 financial crisis, has launched a scathing critique of OpenAI and Anthropic, labeling their recent calls to slow down AI development as "self-serving." The accusations, reported by the New York Post on September 14, 2026, suggest that Burry views these major players not as cautious stewards of technology, but as incumbents using regulatory fear to stifle competition.
The "Big Short" Critique
Burryโs intervention highlights a growing tension between financial investors and AI developers. By characterizing the slowdown rhetoric as "self-serving," he implies that OpenAI and Anthropic are prioritizing their own valuation and market position over genuine safety concerns. This move resonates with a broader skepticism among some investors who feel that the "AI safety" narrative is being weaponized to create barriers to entry for smaller rivals.
Implications for the AI Race
This clash underscores the diverging interests within the AI ecosystem. While developers argue that rapid, unchecked scaling poses existential risks, critics like Burry suggest that the primary risk is monopolistic control. As the industry matures, the line between ethical caution and strategic gatekeeping is becoming increasingly blurred, with high-profile investors taking sides in the debate.
Key Takeaways
- Michael Burry explicitly criticized OpenAI and Anthropic for advocating a slowdown in AI development.
- He characterized these calls as "self-serving," suggesting they are motivated by profit and market control rather than pure safety.
- The criticism reflects a growing divide between financial investors focused on growth and AI labs emphasizing caution and regulation.
The Bottom Line
Burryโs attack signals that the "AI safety" narrative is now a contested political and financial battlefield, not just a technical one. Investors are increasingly willing to frame caution as a tool of corporate protectionism.