• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
Technology

Sacks tells OpenAI and Anthropic to slow down alone

The Next Web says Trump's former AI czar opposes antitrust cover for a joint slowdown and favors product liability over an AI approval regime.

TN
SA
CU
16 Sources, 20d ago, first seen 20d ago

TLDR

The Next Web reports that OpenAI and Anthropic want a joint slowdown, which David Sacks calls a “cartel.” The outlet says Trump's former AI czar told the companies to slow down individually and stop asking for antitrust cover in return. It also describes his view that product liability, rather than an approval regime, should discipline AI.

Combined views

9.4M

16 Sources, first seen 20d ago

85.1K likes6.7K comments12.1K saves10.1K reposts

Combined views

9.4M

16 Sources, first seen 20d ago

85.1K likes6.7K comments12.1K saves10.1K reposts

Sentiment

Positive39.1%60.9%Negative

Summary

Replies welcomed David Sacks’ skepticism of AI danger warnings because past predictions have not materialized, while negative replies objected that risks cannot be controlled and companies are abandoning safety pledges.

Based on 213 sentiment-bearing replies from 184 accounts across 5 conversations.

Sentiment

Positive39.1%60.9%Negative

Summary

Replies welcomed David Sacks’ skepticism of AI danger warnings because past predictions have not materialized, while negative replies objected that risks cannot be controlled and companies are abandoning safety pledges.

Based on 213 sentiment-bearing replies from 184 accounts across 5 conversations.

16 Sources

@thenextwebSacks calls it a cartel. OpenAI and Anthropic want a joint slowdown. Trump's former AI czar told them to slow down alone and stop asking for antitrust cover in return. https://thenextweb.com/news/sacks-pacing-frontier-eu-liability20d
@samaThere are two ways AI progress could go very badly and that we must avoid. First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people. To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities. Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian. Avoiding these two threats requires walking a narrow middle path; for example, one country could gain too much power. Another example is one lab ending up with too much power.19d
@michaeljburryLet's all take a moment to understand how self-serving it is for OpenAI, Anthropic and other execs of big hyperscalers to talk of slowing things down. 1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down. 2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents. 3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery 4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out19d
@NeowinFeedSacks argues that the leading AI labs can pace development voluntarily without suspending antitrust laws or establishing third party evaluation boards. #OpenAI #Anthropic #DavidSacks https://www.neowin.net/news/david-sacks-blasts-openai-and-anthropic-over-slowdown/19d
@BullTheoryioBREAKING: Michael Burry says OpenAI and Anthropic's AI safety warnings are fake hype to cover for slowing growth ahead of their IPOs. "we are so awesome it could become dangerous"19d
@burrytrackerBreaking: Michael Burry says OpenAI and Anthropic are faking the AI warnings due to slow growth ahead of IPOs Below are his reasonings: 1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down. 2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents. 3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery 4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out19d
@WatcherGuruJUST IN: 🇨🇳 China rejects calls to slow down AI development, says it is "fear-mongering."19d
@InsideAIPolicySacks, Khan highlight product liability in reaction to top AI developers’ pacing call https://ow.ly/8MJi106EIlc19d
@CBSNewsEXCLUSIVE: Trump AI advisor David Sacks tells CBS News' @JoLingKent that tech leaders like Anthropic CEO and co-founder Dario Amodei have a responsibility to ensure their products are safe — and should "step aside" if they can't control what they're building.19d
@BreitbartNews.@AlexMarlow: Doomers like Dario want to crush open-weight (publicly accessible and modifiable) models so "only the elites control the AI." "They want a too-big-to-fail infrastructure for AI. If you think they're just being altruistic, no, absolutely not."18d
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI

    16 Sources

    @thenextwebSacks calls it a cartel. OpenAI and Anthropic want a joint slowdown. Trump's former AI czar told them to slow down alone and stop asking for antitrust cover in return. https://thenextweb.com/news/sacks-pacing-frontier-eu-liability20d
    @samaThere are two ways AI progress could go very badly and that we must avoid. First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people. To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities. Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian. Avoiding these two threats requires walking a narrow middle path; for example, one country could gain too much power. Another example is one lab ending up with too much power.19d
    @michaeljburryLet's all take a moment to understand how self-serving it is for OpenAI, Anthropic and other execs of big hyperscalers to talk of slowing things down. 1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down. 2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents. 3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery 4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out19d
    @NeowinFeedSacks argues that the leading AI labs can pace development voluntarily without suspending antitrust laws or establishing third party evaluation boards. #OpenAI #Anthropic #DavidSacks https://www.neowin.net/news/david-sacks-blasts-openai-and-anthropic-over-slowdown/19d
    @BullTheoryioBREAKING: Michael Burry says OpenAI and Anthropic's AI safety warnings are fake hype to cover for slowing growth ahead of their IPOs. "we are so awesome it could become dangerous"19d
    @burrytrackerBreaking: Michael Burry says OpenAI and Anthropic are faking the AI warnings due to slow growth ahead of IPOs Below are his reasonings: 1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down. 2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents. 3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery 4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out19d
    @WatcherGuruJUST IN: 🇨🇳 China rejects calls to slow down AI development, says it is "fear-mongering."19d
    @InsideAIPolicySacks, Khan highlight product liability in reaction to top AI developers’ pacing call https://ow.ly/8MJi106EIlc19d
    @CBSNewsEXCLUSIVE: Trump AI advisor David Sacks tells CBS News' @JoLingKent that tech leaders like Anthropic CEO and co-founder Dario Amodei have a responsibility to ensure their products are safe — and should "step aside" if they can't control what they're building.19d
    @BreitbartNews.@AlexMarlow: Doomers like Dario want to crush open-weight (publicly accessible and modifiable) models so "only the elites control the AI." "They want a too-big-to-fail infrastructure for AI. If you think they're just being altruistic, no, absolutely not."18d
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet