News related to
Anthropic

Bae said South Korea was still trying to close the gap with leading AI powers while creating new markets, making its position different from countries or companies at the technological frontier. “We cannot afford to slow down AI right now,” he wrote on social media, describing the government’s approach as one of “speed responsibility” rather than speed control.

His remarks place Seoul firmly on the acceleration side of a widening debate over whether developers should moderate the pace of capable AI systems. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has called for a slowdown in frontier model development to allow more time for safety work, while OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and other technology leaders have voiced support for stronger precautions as capabilities advance.

Bae said South Korea should continue expanding research, industrial adoption and home-grown model development while strengthening protections against deepfakes, cyber threats and privacy violations. Faster progress, he said, required safety and trust measures to move at the same pace rather than follow after deployment.

The minister pointed to a broader technology agenda that includes sovereign foundation models, systems capable of processing vision and language, and models able to interact with physical environments. He said the country also needed to prepare for AI becoming deeply embedded across industries and everyday life.

The government has made domestic foundation-model development a central part of its ambition to place South Korea among the world’s top three AI powers. The Ministry of Science and ICT has been running a sovereign AI foundation model programme intended to improve domestic capabilities and reduce dependence on foreign technology.

Three teams led by Upstage, SK Telecom and LG AI Research advanced after the programme’s second-stage evaluation this year. The ministry has said models developed under the initiative were built with comparatively limited resources but were released as open source as part of an effort to expand the domestic AI ecosystem.

Bae indicated that further details on the next phase of the foundation-model programme would be announced after ongoing reviews. His comments also referenced government work on security-focused AI models and frontier systems, alongside an “AI for All” initiative intended to spread adoption across the economy.

The policy push is being developed alongside South Korea’s AI Basic Act, which establishes rules covering both the development of artificial intelligence and the creation of a framework for trust. The law’s stated purpose includes protecting rights and human dignity while supporting quality of life and national competitiveness.

That legal structure gives Seoul a basis for pursuing faster adoption without presenting safety as a separate objective. Bae said competitiveness and sustainability were linked, arguing that development speed and safeguards should advance together.

The global dispute has intensified as leading executives and policymakers weigh the economic benefits of faster AI deployment against concerns over misuse and loss of control. Amodei has proposed independent safety evaluators, coordination among major laboratories and greater international cooperation, while Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang has argued against slowing technological progress and favours advancing safety alongside innovation.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday backed calls for greater caution and said frontier AI laboratories would be invited for talks on managing risks. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, by contrast, said AI companies already had strong incentives to build systems safely and did not require an industry-wide slowdown.

Bae’s intervention highlights the competitive pressures facing countries outside the United States and China, where most frontier AI investment and model development remains concentrated. South Korea has strong semiconductor and technology industries, but its government has acknowledged the need to strengthen domestic models, computing capacity and commercial adoption to narrow the gap.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Monday that artificial intelligence was a consequential technology for humanity and should be developed openly and inclusively. Asked about calls from Dario Amodei, Sam Altman and Elon Musk for companies to slow frontier development, Guo warned that “fear-mongering, confrontation and vicious competition” would hinder sound global AI governance.

The response came as Washington’s debate over AI safety widened into a strategic argument about China. Anthropic chief executive Amodei has urged tougher safeguards for advanced systems and has argued that a Chinese lead in frontier AI could create national security risks for the United States. OpenAI chief executive Altman and Musk have also called for stronger precautions as systems become more capable.

Trump, however, has resisted proposals that could materially slow US development. He said this week that America already had tools to police the industry and stressed the importance of maintaining leadership over China. House Speaker Mike Johnson similarly rejected a moratorium, saying any pause could hand Beijing a competitive advantage and create national security risks.

The dispute places AI governance among the issues likely to shadow the Trump-Xi meeting scheduled for September 24 in Washington. The leaders are also expected to confront trade disputes, semiconductor restrictions and China’s controls on rare-earth exports, all of which affect the broader contest over computing capacity and advanced manufacturing.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is due to meet Vice-Premier He Lifeng before the summit.

China has presented a different framework for AI governance, emphasising access, development and multilateral rules while opposing measures it regards as technological containment. At the BRICS summit this month, Xi proposed an open-source and inclusive AI initiative and said China would help establish a BRICS AI open-source community and digital ecosystem platform.

Beijing has nevertheless acknowledged the risks posed by increasingly powerful systems. Chinese officials have called for stronger global governance and risk awareness, while arguing that safety should not become a justification for blocking technological diffusion. The government has also supported the establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, whose founding agreement was signed in Shanghai in July by 29 countries.

The argument over safety is closely linked to semiconductor controls. Washington has maintained restrictions on the export of advanced computing technology to China, although the Commerce Department in January shifted applications for Nvidia H200, AMD MI325X and comparable chips to case-by-case review under specified security conditions. Beijing has repeatedly criticised US technology restrictions as discriminatory and has threatened countermeasures when Chinese companies are targeted.

China’s Commerce Ministry last week also challenged a US cybersecurity advisory accusing China-based AI companies of using distillation campaigns against American models. The ministry said China was prepared for an intergovernmental AI dialogue with the United States but would respond if Washington used such allegations to suppress Chinese firms.

That exchange underscored the difficulty of separating AI safety from the strategic rivalry. US officials and technology executives increasingly frame advanced models as both commercial assets and national security capabilities, while China portrays broad restrictions as attempts to preserve US dominance.

There are areas of overlap. Both governments have said advanced AI presents risks requiring governance, and the two sides have agreed to launch an intergovernmental dialogue on the technology. Informal discussions among researchers and policy specialists have also continued, though official positions remain far apart on access to chips, model controls and the balance between safety and development.

The September 24 summit follows Trump’s May visit to China, when the two leaders agreed to pursue what the White House described as strategic stability and set up new bilateral trade and investment mechanisms. Artificial intelligence was not the centrepiece of those agreements, but it has since moved higher on the bilateral agenda as concerns over model capabilities, export controls and industrial competition have intensified.

The decision was conveyed in a letter dated September 11 after the central bank considered Tata Sons’ March 28, 2024 application and subsequent correspondence, people familiar with the matter said. The RBI advised the company to take the steps needed to comply fully with requirements applying to upper-layer NBFCs.

Tata Sons had sought to give up its Certificate of Registration after reducing debt and arguing that it could operate as an unregistered core investment company. Approval would have removed the principal regulatory basis for a compulsory market listing and allowed the company to remain privately held.

The rejection closes that route. RBI rules require an NBFC classified in the upper layer to list within three years of identification and subject it to tighter standards covering capital, governance, disclosures and risk management. Tata Sons was first placed in the upper layer in September 2022, making its original listing deadline September 2025.

The company remained unlisted while its deregistration request was under examination. When the RBI published its upper-layer list for 2024-25 in January 2025, it retained Tata Sons as a core investment company but said the inclusion was without prejudice to the outcome of the pending application.

The central bank subsequently revised its scale-based framework. Under the current approach, very large NBFCs face enhanced supervision, with an asset threshold of ₹1 trillion among the key criteria. Tata Sons’ standalone assets were about ₹1.75 trillion at the end of March 2025, placing it comfortably above that level. More recent accounts cited in corporate filings and regulatory discussions put the asset base above ₹2 trillion.

The company had repaid more than ₹200 billion of borrowings before seeking deregistration, a step intended to eliminate reliance on public funds, but the regulatory framework also considers circumstances in which access to funding may arise through group entities.

RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra said in August that entities meeting the applicable criteria continued to fall within their respective regulatory layers. At that stage, Tata Sons’ application to surrender its core investment company registration had not been decided.

The latest communication therefore resolves the central regulatory question that had kept the company’s listing status uncertain. It does not, by itself, set out the structure, timing or size of any share sale, and Tata Sons has not publicly announced an IPO plan following the RBI decision.

A listing would have significant consequences for the ownership of Tata Sons, which sits at the centre of a group spanning technology, automobiles, steel, consumer businesses, airlines and financial services. Tata Trusts collectively hold roughly two-thirds of the company, giving the philanthropic trusts decisive influence over the holding company.

The Shapoorji Pallonji Group is the largest minority shareholder, with an interest of about 18 per cent. A market listing has long been important to the shareholder because it could create a transparent route for monetising part of that holding, while sections of Tata’s controlling shareholder base have favoured keeping Tata Sons private.

The regulatory decision arrives as Tata Sons is also dealing with leadership uncertainty. Chairman N Chandrasekaran has said he will not seek another term when his current tenure ends in February 2027, adding another major governance issue for the board and shareholders to address.

Tata Sons controls or holds substantial stakes in several listed companies, including Tata Consultancy Services, Tata Motors and Tata Steel, while also overseeing unlisted businesses. Its position as the group’s principal holding company means any listing would require extensive work on disclosures, capital structure, shareholder arrangements and regulatory compliance.

Global research explores how newer wealth, continued business ownership, and family stewardship influence philanthropic practices among Asia’s wealthiest families

• Roughly 94 percent of Asia‘s wealthiest families are first- or second-generation wealth holders
• Approximately 95 percent of Asia’s wealthiest families retain control of the businesses that generated their wealth

SINGAPORE – Media OutReach Newswire – 8 September 2026 – As private wealth continues to expand globally and an estimated US$74 trillion is expected to transfer between generations over the next 20 to 25 years, understanding how wealthy families approach philanthropy is becoming increasingly important. New research from The Bridgespan Group, based on analysis of 186 of the wealthiest individuals and families across 20 economies spanning Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas, sheds light on how the world’s wealthiest families give, what they fund, how they organise their philanthropy, and how they seek to create change.

Supported by Bridgespan’s Funders Council comprising the Institute of Philanthropy, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Gates Foundation, and with contributions from the Financial Services Development Council and Wealth Management Institute, High-Impact Family Philanthropy: What Makes Family Giving Distinctive marks the third year of the High-Impact Philanthropy series, building on previous research on institutional philanthropy and corporate giving.

“This research comes at a pivotal moment for family philanthropy, especially as private wealth continues to grow,” said Xueling Lee, co-author and partner at Bridgespan. “Our research helps fill a knowledge gap on how the world’s wealthiest families organise their philanthropy and pursue impact, and finds distinguishing characteristics in Asia.”

In Asia, where founders and second-generation leaders often remain closely involved in the businesses that generated their wealth, philanthropy is frequently connected to broader questions of stewardship, business ownership, succession, and community engagement. The research finds that these differences are shaped by factors including the relative newness of wealth, continued business ownership, and the close connection between family, business, and philanthropy. Bridgespan’s research on corporate giving highlights this dynamic: founder- or family-linked companies account for 11 of Asia’s 20 largest corporate funders, compared with four among the world’s 20 largest corporate funders.

“Beyond the scale of their giving, many families bring a long-term perspective, deep personal commitment, and relationships across sectors built over decades,” said Brian San, secretary-general of the Institute of Philanthropy. “These qualities are particularly relevant in Asia, where family-owned businesses remain a powerful force and philanthropy is often closely connected to family stewardship, business leadership, and community engagement. The report highlights how these characteristics can help families catalyse collaboration, support innovation, and contribute to meaningful impact over time.”

“This research confirms what we have seen firsthand: family philanthropy has driven some of today’s boldest solutions and most pioneering research. These funders are uniquely positioned to take risks and build coalitions that can solve big, complex problems at their root,” said Deepali Khanna, senior vice president and head of Asia (division) at The Rockefeller Foundation. “Some of the work we are proudest of, like the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet, started because family philanthropies were willing to commit early and jointly at a time when no single institution could have carried it alone.”

While the report finds that wealthy families around the world share many common philanthropic behaviours, it also identifies several characteristics that distinguish family philanthropy in Asia.

• Asia’s wealth is newer: Approximately 94 percent of wealth held by Asia’s wealthiest families sits with first- or second-generation wealth holders, compared with roughly 85 percent in high-income economies outside Asia. The relative newness of wealth influences how wealth is held, the degree of family involvement in operating businesses, the availability of liquid assets, and the form philanthropy takes.
• Asian families retain tighter control of their businesses: Approximately 95 percent of Asian families maintain control of the businesses that generated their wealth, compared with roughly 68 percent outside Asia. Where wealth remains closely tied to an operating business, philanthropic decisions often sit alongside broader considerations such as government relationships, succession planning, and reputation.
• Families fund remarkably similar issues across regions: Education, health, and support for marginalised and vulnerable populations are among the top issues supported by wealthy families. In Asia, families are more likely to support elderly care, religion, and sports, while families from other regions more frequently fund science and technology initiatives, including those related to artificial intelligence.
• Few families publicly report outcomes from their giving: More than 80 percent of families in Asia publicly report outputs from their giving, such as schools built or teachers trained, compared with just 45 percent of high-income families outside Asia. However, outcome reporting, such as learning gains or graduation rates, remains uncommon across all groups.

Beyond examining how families give, the companion report How the World’s Wealthiest Families Give explores approaches that help families translate their resources and influence into meaningful and sustained impact:

1. Taking risks others cannot or will not: Families often have the autonomy to move from decision to deployment more readily than institutional or corporate funders. In Singapore, for example, the Lien Foundation made a decade-long push into early childhood development, a sector that few had championed when it began. Its sustained work alongside government and other stakeholders contributed to broader sector development over time.
2. Facilitating collective action: Families with trusted relationships across sectors can bring together stakeholders who might not otherwise gather, helping fragmented efforts to evolve into coordinated action. In 2024, the Jollibee Group Foundation, led by Tony and Grace Tan Caktiong, partnered with the Provincial Government of Basilan, the Zuellig Family Foundation, and the League of Corporate Foundations to expand its school feeding programme. Together, the partnership supports the delivery of nutritious meals to nearly 25,000 children in 250 schools.
3. Mobilising multiple types of capital: A family with authority across philanthropic and investment decisions may be able to move capital across different instruments with fewer external negotiations, board approvals, or fiduciary obligations to outside investors.

Download the full reports:

• https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/high-impact-family-philanthropy-what-makes-family-giving-distinctive
• https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/how-the-worlds-wealthiest-families-give

Hashtag: #TheBridgespanGroup #Bridgespan #CSR #ESG #Philanthropy #FamilyPhilanthropy #InstituteofPhilanthropy

https://www.bridgespan.org

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

About The Bridgespan Group

The Bridgespan Group (www.bridgespan.org) is a global nonprofit that collaborates with social change organisations, philanthropists, and impact investors to make the world more equitable and just. Bridgespan’s services include strategy consulting and advising, sourcing and diligence, and leadership team support. We take what we learn from this work and build on it with original research, identifying best practices and innovative ideas to share with the social sector. We work from locations in Boston, Delhi, Johannesburg, Mumbai, New York, San Francisco, Singapore, and Washington, DC.