5 ms·
He's right that if all the frontier labs are in agreement that they should slow down, they don't need the government to do that.
by nba456_ 4d ago
He's right that if all the frontier labs are in agreement that they should slow down, they don't need the government to do that.
- SpicyLemonZest 4d agoNo, that’s not accurate. An agreement among competitors to not engage in research that would let them outcompete each other is clearly an antitrust issue requiring a government waiver.
- jubilanti 4d agoNo, absolutely not "clearly". That word has no business being in any sentence about federal antitrust law in 2026. There is nothing clear or consistent about how is being applied and interpreted right now. If you're applying a coder's mindset to 'settled' law, you're in for a bad time.
- AndyNemmity 4d agoI mean, they said it was clearly an anti trust issue. It is. It is also true that nothing in law is currently clear, or consistent. Both are true. But you stated it's one or the other.
- SpicyLemonZest 4d agoIf that’s true, doesn’t that make it even more clear that the frontier labs require government involvement and cannot rely on what David Sacks thinks the government would or would not allow?
- esafak 4d agoAnd kids don't need parents to eat their vegetables and do their homework.
- tootie 4d agoIdk how sincere they are being, but taking them at their word then asking government to set rules is entirely reasonable and, in fact, the entire reason government exists. The feds can, should and arguably must set actual safety limits. Biden actually took a stab at it and Trump instantly rescinded. They should not need an open invitation from CEOs. Just do it. Like immediately.