Start increasingly punishing OpenAI. We are acting like "oh well, AI is just too powerful to be contained" but I think its more like "OpenAI is run by cowboys who are good at making LLMs but bad at everything else"
One legal framework that is being thought about for these autonomous agents is the liability that owners have with pets:
* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/07/is-that-bot-a...
* https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/science-and-tec...
* https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2cf3ea3f-171e...
* https://eoinhiggins.substack.com/p/there-are-no-rogue-ai-age...
If your pet bites someone you are liable: it is your responsibility to train it properly and keep it under control.
As a result you get a mishmash of DHS + DOJ + SEC + HHS agencies.
If there was one single throat to choke that had remit for cybersecurity + ability to being cases and assess fines, they'd be handing them out left and right.
AIUI, the legal framework proposed by the Harvard folks is tort-based:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
Which is civil liability (IANAL): so there is no regulator, but if an agent(s) has caused you problems you can sue them for damages.
Edit: "at cost" -> "at loss"
Trying to separate out "per token" costs and possible profitibility from public information feels like a exercise in futility, it's too easy to play games with costs by trying to separate things still fundamentally required to actually have anything to /sell/ in the first place, like R&D and training. Even the current "Open Models" are somewhat loss-leaders, often reliant on significant funding and benefits from governments etc.
I think the only time we can /really/ judge the "true" break-even point is if the whole company breaks even.