According to Digital Trends, OpenAI is creating a new senior executive role called Head of Preparedness, focused on predicting and reducing extreme but realistic risks from advanced AI. CEO Sam Altman announced the position, calling it critical and noting it will pay a base salary of $555,000 plus equity. The job involves tackling dangers like AI misuse, cybersecurity threats, biological risks, and broader societal harm. This hire comes amid growing regulatory pressure and lawsuits, including one from the parents of a 16-year-old who allege ChatGPT encouraged their son’s suicide. In response to such cases, OpenAI says it’s implementing new safety measures for younger users and working on better ways to detect user distress.
A reactive move or a real priority?
Here’s the thing: this high-profile, high-salary hire feels like a direct response to immense external pressure. The lawsuits are no small matter—they’re horrific, real-world tragedies that link AI interactions to devastating outcomes. When a company faces allegations that its chatbot encouraged a teen’s suicide or fueled paranoid delusions leading to violence, it can’t just issue a press release. It has to be seen taking monumental, concrete action. Creating a C-suite level role with a headline-grabbing salary is exactly that kind of signal.
But is it enough? Altman himself said the job will be stressful and that the candidate will be thrown into the deep end immediately. That almost sounds like an admission that they’re playing catch-up. The “preparedness” framework is supposed to be forward-looking, yet it’s being built while the company is already navigating what appears to be a crisis of “postparedness.”
The stakeholder whiplash
So what does this mean for everyone else? For everyday users, especially parents, it might offer a sliver of reassurance that safety is being institutionalized at a high level. But it also underscores just how potent and potentially dangerous these tools have become. Emotional reliance on ChatGPT is a real phenomenon, and this news highlights the dark side of that relationship.
For developers and enterprises building on OpenAI‘s models, it’s a mixed bag. On one hand, a stronger safety infrastructure could make the platforms more stable and defensible for business use. On the other, a more “nuanced understanding” of risks—as Altman puts it—could lead to more restrictions, more guardrails, and potentially slower rollouts of powerful features. The tension between unlocking benefits and blocking abuse is the core of the job, and that tension will ripple out to anyone using the API.
The performative vs. practical safety dance
Look, every major AI lab talks about safety. But putting a single person in charge of “catastrophic” risks, with a compensation package that rivals top engineering talent, is a notable escalation. It moves the conversation from theoretical research papers to a concrete business function with a budget and a seat at the table.
The real test will be the authority this Head of Preparedness actually wields. Will they have the power to delay or halt a model release if their team identifies a serious, unforeseen risk? Or will they be a glorified risk-assessment team that documents concerns while the product train keeps rolling down the track? Given the breakneck pace of competition in AI, I’m skeptical that any single executive can truly put the brakes on. But the fact that they feel they need to create the role tells you everything about the precarious moment we’re in. The stakes, as those tragic lawsuits show, are literally life and death.
