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.

AI leaders don't slow down for safety because of a classic "tragedy of the commons." If one company pauses, competitors will race ahead to capture the market and IPO rewards. They publicly call for regulation as a way to force a collective, industry-wide slowdown they can't achieve on their own.

Legal experts warn that an industry-wide agreement to pause or slow AI development could be interpreted as an 'invitation to collude' under antitrust law. This coordination among dominant firms to limit progress, even for safety reasons, could attract significant legal and regulatory scrutiny.

Frontier AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic are not genuinely planning to slow development. Their public calls for regulation serve strategic purposes: virtue signaling, legal cover (CYA), and most importantly, 'monopoly masking'—pretending the market is more competitive than it is to avoid antitrust scrutiny of their emerging duopoly.

Acknowledging their safety plans might be inadequate, leaders from multiple frontier labs have begun to seriously entertain a coordinated slowdown. This represents a major shift, as they also explore legal "safe harbors" to collaborate on safety without triggering antitrust violations, breaking the frame of the current race.

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.

The public discourse on slowing down AI development for safety reasons may have a secondary, financial motive. Since training frontier models is the largest expense for AI labs, a collective pause or slowdown serves as a "great way to reduce costs ahead of an IPO," improving financial optics.

The term "pacing the frontier" intentionally bundles two distinct concepts: creating a voluntary standards body and a coordinated slowdown of R&D. The latter raises antitrust collusion fears, which is why some leaders claim they need government waivers, while others argue they can act alone.

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.