Bloomberg Intelligence Sep 16, 2026
With Matthew Bloxham, senior media and technology analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence
The White House answer to the industry's call for a slowdown was that the industry should slow itself down. Matthew Bloxham reads the letter behind that exchange as an admission rather than a proposal.
Anthropic's founder published a 3,800-word essay over the weekend setting out options, the first of which was that the industry self-pace. Bloxham's point is what sits underneath it: a company that paces itself while a rival does not has handed the rival an advantage, which is why the letter asks for outside help rather than restraint.
And therefore, there'd be a competitive advantage.
He covers media and technology for Bloomberg Intelligence from London, and was on air to read the letter, the China question and OpenAI's funding talks in the same frame.
The full segment is covered here so you can skip it.
Here are the 3 takeaways that matter.
Key Takeaways
The self-pacing proposal carries an admission: pacing yourself while a rival does not creates a competitive advantage for the rival
A binding US–China agreement on AI is treated as a very low probability outcome
China's leverage is rare earths, which matter to the military and the technology complex alike
OpenAI's new funding talks were started by investors, not the company
The delayed listing and the funding round are the same story: the cash burn has to be covered from somewhere
1. What the Letter Asks For
Bloxham was asked how to read the administration daring the industry to slow itself down. He started by saying the two sides are closer than the headlines suggest.
The parties agree more than the headlines suggest
Yeah, it's a very complex situation, actually, when you look beyond the headlines. Actually, there is a fair amount of common ground between the different parties.
Matthew Bloxham
Self-pacing was the first of the options on the table
Obviously, Anthropic's founder put out a 3,800-word essay over the weekend where he set out a few options. And, first and foremost was the kind of a proposal that the industry should kind of try to self-pace.
Matthew Bloxham
The unstated worry is that rivals will not pace themselves
But, I think in admission, and perhaps written between, not really written, but between the lines that they may be worried that if they self-pace, some of their other competitors might not.
Matthew Bloxham
That is why the ask is for outside guardrails rather than restraint
And so trying to push this view that there's a benefit for society at large for some kind of controls and that perhaps the industry needs some outside help to put those guardrails in place.
Matthew Bloxham
2. Rare Earths Against Chips
A host raised the argument that the United States and China will eventually have to work together, and asked whether anyone in the industry believes it can happen.
A binding agreement is priced as very unlikely
I think it's seen as a very low probability outcome.
Matthew Bloxham
It was the third option in the essay, and the essay conceded the difficulty
the third was geopolitical agreement between democratic and non-democratic nations. And China called out as the most obvious example there, but acknowledgement that binding agreement between, say, the US and China would be incredibly difficult.
Matthew Bloxham
Washington reaches for chips; Beijing holds rare earths
Perhaps the Trump administration would want to use familiar tools of constraining access to technology in China, particularly chips. China has, a stranglehold almost over the rare earths industry.
Matthew Bloxham
Those inputs feed the weapons industry and the technology industry at once
And that's crucial for both the military complex, but also the technology complex. And I think China's prepared to use that in leverage to get access to technology.
Matthew Bloxham
3. Investors Made the Call
OpenAI has said it is not listing this year but may raise again, and the reporting was that investors opened the conversation. Bloxham treated the two facts as one.
It fits the delayed listing
Well, I think it certainly fits with the delayed IPO narrative.
Matthew Bloxham
The cash burn is the reason the money is needed
I think these are companies that are burning through cash at a very vast rate. And so they probably do need more money.
Matthew Bloxham
Existing backers see a moment to raise their exposure before a listing
Bigger backers like, for example, SoftBank that may be seeing that they can perhaps increase their exposure a bit so that when it does find the IPO, they're getting a nice kickback on that investment.
Matthew Bloxham
A later listing means the spending still has to be funded
But for sure, if they're delaying the IPO, they'll need money from somewhere to sustain the investments that they'd be making.
Matthew Bloxham
Bonus Insights
The meeting the China question was pointing at
And, of course, that visit will be on September 24th with AI on the agenda, Xi Jinping visiting the U.S.
The column that set up the question
The host framed the US–China question around a Tom Friedman opinion piece in The New York Times, one of whose points was that the two countries have to work together at some level.
Products, Companies & Tools Mentioned
Anthropic (Whose founder published the 3,800-word essay proposing that the industry self-pace)
OpenAI (Not listing this year, in new funding talks that investors initiated)
SoftBank (Named as a backer that may want more exposure before a listing)
Other segments in this episode
Mandeep Singh, Bloomberg Intelligence, on enterprise token budgets
Adam Grant, BloombergNEF, on robotaxis no longer being science projects
Laura Rapaport, North Bridge, on the $1T commercial property maturity wall
Listen to the full episode
🟣 Apple Podcasts | 🔗 Episode page
If this was worth your time, send it to someone closer to the industry than you are.
Get the latest market chatter as it happens: