California ballot measures that appear aimed at – Business News
A push in California to clamp down on AI giants has taken a weird twist – after ballot measures that appear to be aimed at Sam Altman’s OpenAI have been filed by the stepbrother of an government at archrival Anthropic, The Post has discovered.
In December, a California resident named Alexander Oldham filed a pair of ballot measures that would empower the state to crack down on main AI corporations, partly by placing a particular deal with policing “public benefit corporations” – the company construction that OpenAI just lately transformed its for-profit arm into.
“I think these are all reasonably common sense measures to take but background wise I’m a nobody,” Oldham advised Politico, including that AI regulation was “just something I find interesting.”
Dario Amodei, CEO and co-founder of Anthropic, attends the annual assembly of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 23, 2025. AP
As it seems, Oldham is the stepbrother of Zoe Blumenfeld, who since 2024 has been head of inner communications of Anthropic – the fast-growing AI giant that has been squaring off in opposition to OpenAI for dominance within the sector, in keeping with public data and social media accounts reviewed by The Post.
Oldham has strenuously denied that his familial relationship with Blumenfeld had any affect on his determination to suggest the ballot measure. Anthropic has moreover denied that it or Zoe Blumenfeld has performed any function within the ballot measures. Blumenfeld declined to remark.
“Anthropic has had no involvement in, coordination with, or knowledge of any ballot proposals filed by Alexander Oldham, and the company does not support either proposal,” a company spokesperson mentioned in a assertion.
Meanwhile, Oldham additionally has ties to tech entrepreneur Guy Ravine, best identified for his bitter legal battle with OpenAI over who got here up with the thought for the company, sources with information of the scenario mentioned.
The ballot proposals, which obtained a title and abstract from the California legal professional basic’s workplace final week, call for the creation of state-appointed our bodies that would have energy over AI firms – one of which might have the facility to approve or reject actions by AI firms that restructure as public benefit firms.
While OpenAI just isn’t explicitly named, the measure is “clearly” focused at Altman, in keeping with Perry Metzger, chairman of Alliance for the Future, a Washington, DC-based AI coverage group.
“This is the ‘Be Nasty To Sam Altman Because I Don’t Like You Act,’” Metzger advised The Post. “Anyone reading this who knows anything about the players immediately knows that OpenAI is the company that the first one is aimed at.”
Anthropic can also be a public benefit company and has been one because it was based in 2021, whereas OpenAI was initially structured in 2015 as a nonprofit. Experts say Anthropic would doubtless have an simpler time complying with a safety-focused commission than OpenAI, which solely accomplished its restructuring in October and whose critics have long accused of prioritizing speedy innovation over humanity’s well-being.
Anthropic denied any involvement within the ballot proposals and mentioned it doesn’t help them. AFP by way of Getty Images
In reality, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and his sister Daniela cofounded Anthropic after leaving OpenAI over considerations Altman was not centered enough on security.
The filings sparked chatter in Silicon Valley – largely as a result of Oldham has not donated to any California political causes and doesn’t appear to have beforehand labored on AI coverage. Politico has described Oldham as a “mystery to many in the AI policy space.”
“Let me make this very clear: Neither Guy Ravine nor Zoe Blumenfeld are involved in this initiative,” Oldham advised The Post in a written assertion. “I haven’t been in touch with Guy Ravine in nearly a decade and I have not been in touch with Zoe in more than two years. This initiative was filed, created, and funded by me.”
In response to a detailed record of questions, Oldham mentioned he had used AI chatbots to craft the ballot proposals and was not suggested by legal professionals. He additionally insisted that the measures weren’t meant to focus on a particular company.
“I spearheaded this initiative because I have been interested in AI safety since 2023,” he added. “I wanted to create a public document to spark a necessary debate on AI regulation and get the public thinking about these ideas.”
Oldham is listed as a resident of Point Richmond, Calif. Based on social media accounts, Oldham seems to have labored for years at Passage Nautical, a yacht chartering business based and run by his mom, Deborah Reynolds – who was sentenced to a yr in state jail and needed to repay $1.3 million after pleading guilty to tax evasion in 2022.
Zoe Blumenfeld is a senior communications worker at Anthropic. LinkedIn/Zoe Blumenfeld
A 2006 obituary within the San Francisco Chronicle for Michael Blumenfeld calls him the “beloved father of Zoe” and “beloved stepfather of Alexander.” In his will, Zoe is listed as one of his three organic youngsters. Oldham’s mom, Deborah Reynolds, was Blumenfeld’s spouse.
Ravine vehemently denied that he had colluded with Oldham in any means or had any foreknowledge in regards to the ballot measures, a sentiment echoed by Oldham.
“I have had no involvement in his initiative,” Ravine mentioned. “I have not been in contact with Alex Oldham in approximately 10 years. My only connection to him is that his mother was an investor in a company I was involved with over a decade ago – a tenuous link at best.” He additionally famous that he “not have the financial resources to fund ballot initiatives.”
The Post has not seen any proof that Ravine was concerned within the ballot initiative.
US District Judge Yvonne Rogers granted OpenAI a abstract judgement within the case final July, ruling that Ravine had infringement on its trademark and even “copied” the company by launching a chatbot and image generator months after OpenAI did.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman attends an occasion to pitch AI for companies in Tokyo on Feb. 3, 2025. REUTERS
Buried in a little-noticed footnote within the ruling, Rogers references none different than Deborah Reynolds – Oldham’s mom. Reynolds, the decide wrote, was “Ravine’s ‘friend’ who hosted Ravine on more than 50 occasions and invested $450,000” into one of Ravine’s firms.
In reality, Ravine, Reynolds and Oldham have been as soon as half of the identical social circles, a source close to the scenario mentioned. The Post obtained a picture of the three sitting collectively at what seemed to be a household get together in April 2014.
“Neither Alex or I have seen Guy in decades,” Reynolds mentioned in a textual content message. “I have not seen Guy in over a decade. I have talked to him since 2014 a few times. Zoe and Alex have no relationship. There’s no connection to his initiative.”
Oldham’s aren’t the primary California AI ballot measures to spark controversy. OpenAI has formally accused a nonprofit known as Coalition for AI Nonprofit Integrity (CANI), which publicly challenged its restructuring plans, of being a entrance for Elon Musk, who’s at the moment suing OpenAI for abandoning its nonprofit mission.
CANI, which has confronted questions on its funding, is backing a separate ballot proposal filed by Poornima Ramarao, the mom of an ex-OpenAI employee-turned-whistleblower who was ruled to have died by suicide. Ramarao’s proposal explicitly goals to reverse OpenAI’s restructuring.
Oldham’s proposals would apply to OpenAI and different tech firms. NurPhoto by way of Getty Images
In a 2023 lawsuit, OpenAI alleged that Ravine, who acquired the new-defunct area title “open.ai” in March 2015, tried to register a trademark for “Open AI” a day after the company launched to “sow consumer confusion.”
It additionally submitted a 2022 e-mail during which Ravine advised Altman he would give up the web site if the company donated tens of millions of {dollars} to an “academic collaboration.”
Ravine countersued, making the sensational declare that Sam Altman had “hijacked” the thought that turned OpenAI from him and stolen his “recipe” for the pursuit of superior AI. His countersuit earned him a splashy Bloomberg profile titled “Why OpenAI is at war with an obscure idea man.”
One ballot measure launched by Oldham, dubbed the “California Public Benefit AI Accountability Act,” would create an “independent body” of state officers to supervise public benefit firms.
Oldham mentioned he has “decided to abandon” that proposal as a result of it was “not properly formulated” – although the state AG has already cleared it for circulation.
The second measure, titled the “California AI Worker Protection Act,” would equally set up an “AI Safety Commission” that would set guidelines on AI corporations to guard staff. It would have the facility to impose penalties, conduct audits and even deny how far the “frontier AI” system can advance technologically.
If permitted, the measure would empower the state to implement “distributed decision-making authority” and “board independence” to forestall “dangerous concentration of control over AI capabilities” – the principle allegation that OpenAI’s board levied at Altman previous to his notorious 2023 firing.
Anthropic brand is seen on this illustration taken May 20, 2024. REUTERS
Oldham mentioned the second initiative “is not going to get on the ballot because I don’t have the funding” to pursue a signature-gathering marketing campaign.
“If someone wants to fund it, I would welcome it, but this was not the point,” Oldham mentioned.
In California, ballot proposals need to secure the almost 550,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot by June. Experts mentioned such signature-gathering campaigns can price tens of tens of millions of {dollars}.
Meanwhile, some insiders have been skeptical about Oldham’s rationalization for his actions.
“That’s obviously bulls—t. You do not just casually file a ballot measure in California because it’s a topic you’re interested in,” a veteran California tech coverage advisor who reviewed the ballot measures opined to The Post.
Both of Oldham’s ballot proposals are drafted in a means that would permit state-appointed regulators to single out particular firms fairly than set industry-wide requirements, in keeping with a legal evaluation performed by CALinnovates.
“If you read the language of the measures, you have to squint, tilt your head, and look at this completely cockeyed, to not see how this is aimed at just about anyone other than OpenAI,” mentioned Mike Montgomery, CEO of the tech coverage advisory group CALinnovates.
Oldham mentioned any assertion that his proposals have been meant to focus on a particular company is “ridiculous and false.”
