Major AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic cannot legally coordinate on safety standards or development pace due to the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits collusion. This legal barrier is a primary reason they are publicly calling for government involvement, as it would provide the necessary waiver to work together without facing antitrust litigation.

A major obstacle to coordinated AI safety efforts is the fear of antitrust litigation. Labs are reluctant to agree on pacing or sharing safety techniques because it could be viewed as illegal collusion. Zvi Mowshowitz suggests a simple government action would be to provide an explicit antitrust waiver for such collaborations.

When companies like OpenAI and Anthropic pull products due to risk, it's a clear signal that they are unable to self-govern. This action is interpreted as a plea for government oversight, as relying on the social conscience of a few CEOs is an unsustainable model.

Top AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic cannot unilaterally slow development, even with safety concerns. They fear that competitors or foreign adversaries would seize an insurmountable advantage, forcing them to seek government-led coordination to pace development safely.

A significant barrier to voluntary safety pacts among AI companies is antitrust law. An agreement to slow development could be prosecuted as illegal anti-competitive collusion, as it would limit the technology available to consumers. This makes government-led frameworks essential for any coordinated industry action.

Major AI companies are not solely seeking to stifle competition with regulation. They are also signaling an inability to self-regulate amidst intense competitive pressure, effectively asking external bodies to impose a mandatory safety floor that applies to everyone.

Major AI labs like Anthropic and OpenAI cannot legally form agreements to "pace" development without government approval. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits such collusion, which could be seen as forming a cartel, even if the stated intention is safety.

Instead of direct regulation, the government could act as a reluctant mediator for AI safety. By setting a deadline for labs to form their own collaborative safety pact, it creates a powerful incentive: if they fail, the government will impose 'heavy-handed' and likely suboptimal regulations, an outcome all parties want to avoid.

Top AI labs are hesitant to collectively slow down development for safety reasons due to concerns about being accused of forming an anti-competitive cartel. This creates a paradox where the industry requires government involvement or a legal exemption to coordinate on risk mitigation.