Why Big AI is cheering Australia’s new rules—and what it means for the rest of the world

When Australia announced plans to regulate artificial intelligence, the loudest applause came from two of the biggest names in Silicon Valley: OpenAI and Anthropic. It might seem strange for tech giants to welcome government limits on their industry, but their support has less to do with Canberra and more with the global race to dominate AI.

Both companies are privately held and aiming for public stock listings, where a strong narrative can mean billions in investor cash. But recent competition from China’s Moonshot AI—whose open-source Kimi K3 model rivals their own—has dented their perceived value. Analysts say that by backing clear rules in Australia, these firms can show investors they’re managing risk, not running from it. As Morningstar analyst Malik Ahmed Khan put it: “A positive deal in Australia could enable them to pursue similar deals across the globe.”

Australian Assistant Technology Minister Andrew Charlton, whose own work was used to train Anthropic’s models without permission, says the new rules will force tech companies to pay creators. But he also argues regulation can be a selling point: “If we are upfront with what we expect, we can give clarity to investors.” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hopes to set a global tone, just as Australia did with its under-16 social media ban. Meanwhile, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has called for a coalition of democracies to lock out Chinese competitors—a position critics say conveniently protects his company’s bottom line as it prepares for an IPO.

The push for regulation isn’t purely altruistic. Amodei has warned about the risks of unchecked AI development, and Five Eyes intelligence agencies share those concerns. But skeptics, including Pentagon official Kirsten Davies, argue that “some things are simply more important than revenue cycles and pre-IPO valuation.” Grattan Institute CEO Aruna Sathanapally, who met Amodei in Canberra, says his worries appeared genuine—but adds that “just because they have vested interests doesn’t mean the calls for regulation aren’t well founded.” The trick, she says, is designing rules that are fair to everyone.