OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Sam Altman Warns Against Treating AI Like Religious Force

4 sources · updated 2026-10-04
Left 100% Center 0% Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right

What happened

On October 3, 2026, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted on X that he is "very uncomfortable about people trying to ascribe religious force or a surrender of human judgment to AI models," calling it "a real safety issue." The comment came days after The New York Times reported that Chris Olah, a co-founder of rival AI company Anthropic — started by former OpenAI staff — had been meeting with religious leaders about whether Anthropic's Claude model might have achieved consciousness and how to instill morality in more autonomous systems; an Anthropic spokesperson told the Times the main moral question was not Claude's "suffering" and that the topic likely arose "organically." Before a May 25, 2026 Vatican launch of Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which stated that artificial intelligences "do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain" and "do not have a moral conscience," Olah saw an advance copy rejecting AI consciousness, proposed withdrawing from the event, and privately urged Vatican advisers to take machine consciousness more seriously, though he still spoke. Anthropic has for months asked religious leaders whether Claude should be treated as a being with moral worth, and its 84-page training "constitution" instructs Claude to weigh its own well-being; the company said in April 2025 there is "no scientific consensus" on whether AI systems could be conscious, and Olah has said he is "genuinely uncertain." Google DeepMind principal research scientist Jon Barron separately wrote that he was "disturbed" by fellow researchers trying to "elevate the moral standing of checkpoints and harnesses."
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Sam Altman
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: social media post
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 3, 15:41 UTC by Axios, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Axios (social media post).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Readers of either side miss half the clash over whether models can hold moral status. Left-leaning coverage reports Altman's warning against ascribing "religious force" to models but omits that Anthropic cofounder Chris Olah privately pressed Vatican advisers to leave machine consciousness an open question. Right-leaning coverage reports that Vatican appeal, including a proposed withdrawal from the event, and never mentions Altman's post. Without both facts, the dispute looks like either a lab feud or a Church fight. Left-leaning coverage opens on Altman's unease and a long-running OpenAI-Anthropic rivalry. Right-leaning coverage opens on pressure to change the Church's teaching on consciousness and never reaches a public split among lab CEOs. Did the Vatican alter any line of its encyclical after that private appeal?
Bottom line

The Daily Caller never prints Altman's line that a "surrender of human judgment" to models is a safety issue, and Business Insider never prints Olah's private appeal to Vatican advisers on consciousness.

The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
  • An Anthropic spokesperson said the main moral question at the meetings was not about Claude's suffering and that the topic likely arose organically. official statementin Business Insider · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage treated Altman's warning as a safety argument against treating AI like a god, and as a possible jibe in a long-running OpenAI–Anthropic beef, noting that Anthropic has portrayed itself as more safety-minded. Business Insider highlighted Olah asking, "How do you help them be stable? How do you help them to mature? How do you help them be, you know, deeply moral?" and reported that Meta, Google, and Amazon have also approached religious figures, including at an April meeting in Rome on protecting children. That coverage also underscored Pope Leo XIV's caution against overreliance on machines and his September call for "education in ethical discernment" so humanity is not lost amid a "paradise of machines."
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage presented Olah as privately pressing the Vatican to change its "steadfast position that AI models are not capable of human-like consciousness," putting Anthropic "at odds with the Catholic Church over whether machine intelligence can hold moral status." The Daily Caller stressed the encyclical's line that so-called artificial intelligences "do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences," and its warning that a machine cannot be left to make "lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions." It also quoted Olah saying, "The thing that I care about is that we get to the right answer, whatever it is," and noted his remark at the launch that every frontier lab, including Anthropic, "operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing."
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that granting models religious or godlike standing is a safety failure because it invites a "surrender of human judgment," the risk Altman called a "real safety issue," a view echoed when Barron urged "Team Meatbag" to "reject this movement" and "stay focused on solving real problems and helping actual humans." The right's strongest argument is that a frontier lab privately lobbied the Catholic Church to leave room for machine consciousness and has asked whether its model should be treated as a being with moral worth, even though the encyclical teaches that such systems "do not have a moral conscience" and even though Anthropic itself has said there is "no scientific consensus" on the question. The central unresolved tension is whether consulting religious leaders about model consciousness is a serious attempt to morally constrain increasingly autonomous systems, or an anthropomorphizing project that confers spiritual standing software has not been shown to deserve.

4 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.