David Sacks accuses OpenAI and Anthropic of seeking regulatory capture
The fight is over whether warnings about Chinese open-weight models are safety policy or a way to squeeze open competition.
Entities: David Sacks, Anthropic, OpenAI, Kimi
In a post on X, David Sacks argued that OpenAI and Anthropic are trying to use government pressure to hobble open-source competition, especially through informal warnings about Chinese open-weight models rather than an outright ban. The post lit up a familiar fault line in AI politics: whether calls for caution are public-interest regulation or incumbent self-protection. The accusation also fits a broader clash between Sacks and Anthropic, including his earlier charge, reported by CNBC, that Anthropic was pursuing "regulatory capture."
Combined views
250.7K
10 posts, first seen 1d ago
Reactions from ranked influencers
10 posts
I totally agree w David that America needs a thriving open source ecosystem & robust competition between open source & closed frontier labs to keep America in the lead. Reg capture is bad in all forms. The frontier labs - like Apple - will thrive even w great open source. 🇺🇸🚀
I’m not sure whether Dean Ball is confessing to a regulatory capture strategy or simply predicting this will happen (he now says the latter). Either way, the weaponization of regulatory uncertainty as a competitive tool should be completely unacceptable. He argues there’s no need to ban Chinese open-source models — just direct agencies to issue soft-law warnings that create enough FUD so regulated enterprises back off. “It needn’t be that well justified.” Wrong. Regulatory decisions should always be well justified and grounded in facts, logic, and evidence, not the deliberate exploitation of fear and uncertainty. Implementing a surreptitious policy through manufactured doubt — rather than strong and explicit justification — corrodes the rule of law and invites future abuse against anyone. We are at a critical inflection point in AI policy. The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition. They have laid their cards on the table. It is time for the rest of Silicon Valley — the vast majority that still values open competition — to do the same.
OPEN. Agree with @DavidSacks and he was in a position to witness first hand the intent of the CLOSED LABS. “the leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition. They have laid their cards on the table. It is time for the rest of Silicon Valley — the vast majority that still values open competition — to do the same.”
I’m not sure whether Dean Ball is confessing to a regulatory capture strategy or simply predicting this will happen (he now says the latter). Either way, the weaponization of regulatory uncertainty as a competitive tool should be completely unacceptable. He argues there’s no need to ban Chinese open-source models — just direct agencies to issue soft-law warnings that create enough FUD so regulated enterprises back off. “It needn’t be that well justified.” Wrong. Regulatory decisions should always be well justified and grounded in facts, logic, and evidence, not the deliberate exploitation of fear and uncertainty. Implementing a surreptitious policy through manufactured doubt — rather than strong and explicit justification — corrodes the rule of law and invites future abuse against anyone. We are at a critical inflection point in AI policy. The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition. They have laid their cards on the table. It is time for the rest of Silicon Valley — the vast majority that still values open competition — to do the same.
openai spent a lot of time building good will here through codex & endless usage limit resets but this one post cost them a lot in at least motivation & perception. say whatever you want about anthropic, at least they are buttoned up, clear in their positions, & have never had this type of stuff happen.
@DavidSacks @sunny_gonna It’s too bad they took your power away and don’t seem to listen to you
Good points from David. Regarding "grounded in facts, logic, and evidence, not the deliberate exploitation of fear and uncertainty," the exact same point could be made about large swaths of the media and certain financial writers. Y'all know who I'm talking about. -- "Regulatory decisions should always be well justified and grounded in facts, logic, and evidence, not the deliberate exploitation of fear and uncertainty."
I’m not sure whether Dean Ball is confessing to a regulatory capture strategy or simply predicting this will happen (he now says the latter). Either way, the weaponization of regulatory uncertainty as a competitive tool should be completely unacceptable. He argues there’s no need to ban Chinese open-source models — just direct agencies to issue soft-law warnings that create enough FUD so regulated enterprises back off. “It needn’t be that well justified.” Wrong. Regulatory decisions should always be well justified and grounded in facts, logic, and evidence, not the deliberate exploitation of fear and uncertainty. Implementing a surreptitious policy through manufactured doubt — rather than strong and explicit justification — corrodes the rule of law and invites future abuse against anyone. We are at a critical inflection point in AI policy. The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition. They have laid their cards on the table. It is time for the rest of Silicon Valley — the vast majority that still values open competition — to do the same.
For the current AI technology, there is no duopoly, as China was forced to take the open-source position, thanks to the genius fear-mongering strategy taken bythe US duo. As for true intelligence, it has yet to be implemented technologically, but Nature has already democratised it… Nobody or no government can monopolises it.
“The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition.” Gotta say I agree with @DavidSacks. https://twitter.com/davidsacks/status/2078826291638522127