/Tech54m ago

OpenAI's roon argues unofficial AI licensing is positive, while Nathan Lambert warns it disrupts investment and tech diffusion

Joshua Achiam backed federal oversight to protect global infrastructure.

89435346116.4K

#44

Original post

roon@tszzl#44inTech

today it’s popular to say the unofficial AI licensing regime is slowing down innovation or whatever but ppl are not looking at the big picture of how quickly this enormously consequential technology is moving

the particular circumstances around Mythos may have accelerated all this slightly but it was inevitable, and earlier is better than too late. any good choice will look “early” inside the exponential

i think it’s a positive development that the feds understand the gravity of this technology; models being publicly delayed by a week here or there is really not the end of the world. procedurally this is not the right way to do it but they’ll figure it out

one very sad outcome will be if non Americans are just left behind from the frontier forever. the “pax technologica” of the free world (and frankly later on the unfree world) should be maintained

6:41 PM · Jun 25, 2026 · 18.4K Views

Sentiment

Positive users praised the researcher's argument for an AI licensing regime as a sensible position, while negative users responded with personal insults and accusations of bias toward powerful entities.

Pos

40.0%

Neg

60.0%

6 comments with sentiment.

Cluster Engagement

Digg Deeper

No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.

Posts from X

Most Activity

VIEWS1.2KBOOKMARKS4RETWEETS1REPLIES3

Joshua Achiam@jachiam0

Pax Technologica is enormously important to preserve. A world that is free, just, prosperous, and democratic requires shared technological infrastructure.

roon@tszzl

one very sad outcome will be if non Americans are just left behind from the frontier forever. the “pax technologica” of the free world (and frankly later on the unfree world) should be maintained

50m1.2K184

LIKES32

Nathan Lambert@natolambert

@tszzl It's not slowing down innovation is destabilizing investment and diffusion, kneecapping future investment

and we agree it was inevitable but it didnt need to be handled like a yolo and could've been in CAISI with proper staffing or new orgs we can build.

roon@tszzl

one very sad outcome will be if non Americans are just left behind from the frontier forever. the “pax technologica” of the free world (and frankly later on the unfree world) should be maintained

51m1.1K322

Dylan from 2045@dylan2045ad

@tszzl How can we be sure China doesn't leapfrog us with a GLM 5.5 or a distillation? while we squabble internally

52m1691

🌌 ͜ʖ🌌@seldon_seen

@tszzl I don't accept this confidence of control when, as you note with every other country, the sense of deprivation will drive more development/diffusion with more obscurity, as well as provide further advantage to any circumvention of banned import. nothing else changed.

42m1681

shako@shakoistsLog

@tszzl @pashmerepat clearly correct take but if still rather gamble

5m362

losslandscape@losslandscape

@tszzl I think it's incredibly premature, and once they start meddling they only increase their involvement, never decrease.

It won't slow development, but it's going to slow broad access, and by more than a week or two.

40m595

Mehdi Ataei@AtaeiMe

@tszzl If one “truly” believes the exponential (closing your eyes and imagining it near the top). Do you really believe being American would save anyone? It may delay the cut off a bit, but that’s it.

33m501

𝕱𝖚𝖑𝖑 𝕶𝖊𝖑𝖑𝖞@full_kelly_

@tszzl Kudos to you for having a sensible, well-thought out position on this. I am nervous that we are not on a trajectory to anything resembling useful legislation on this front, but here's hoping I'm wrong

28m122

Christian Catalini@ccatalini

@tszzl @soumitrashukla9 Fair. But it also locks us into a very idiosyncratic market structure with high barriers to entry. And well before we even know if the security-by-“medallion” model is superior to a broader diffusion + distributed white hatting?

33m342

Meridian@MeridianMindset

Why should we believe this administration is doing this in good faith, and not doing it dole out access to companies/countries that they like, or worse to coerce AI companies into fine-tuning their models in a way to supports their political views?

They are not my master, they have no right to determine what information I have access to outside of a few very rare exceptions that have survived strict scrutiny.

25m43

Matthew Schrager@MatthewSchrager

@tszzl I think a lot hinges on whether this ultimately coalesces into a well-defined and expedient path to deployment, or an arbitrary set of hoops placed at the whims of politicians.

52m36

Harry Hawk@hhawk

Except @tszzl except I believe the risk is overstated and if anything it creates security through obscurity.

These models, are not creating any new risks. It's only discovering risks already there.

Nation states that purposely hoarded zero days are at risk of losing them and they may be trying to find new ones. These models didn't put us at any greater risk. However denying people/businesses access to leading-class security and debugging does puts us at risk.

38m1522

CuddlySalmon@nptacek

@tszzl it sets a precedent, and as far as precedents go, this one was sloppy af

they need to bring on someone who actually understand both AI and cybersecurity at the requisite depth for each because the posturing is giving incredible amateur hour vibes all around

i'd be happy to help

27m712

Ian Bach ☯︎@Ian8ach

@tszzl agree

52m652

Aleph@woke8yearold

@tszzl Yes. People are acting like they won’t be released until like 2027. Part of it is open source bros trying to convince themselves this means open source will win (ha, no)

51m1881