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.
Analyst Gavin Baker suggests that embedding third-party evaluators is a savvy legal move for AI companies. It demonstrates a "duty of care," which can help limit liability in future lawsuits over model outputs, much like Section 230 protected early internet companies.
Contrary to the regulatory capture theory, slowing down may harm OpenAI and Anthropic's business. It could compress their margins and allow competitors like DeepMind and Grok to catch up to the "frontier," creating a more competitive oligopoly rather than preserving a duopoly.
Donald Trump is casting the AI safety movement as a "sick conspiracy" and a "hoax" designed to undermine America's technological lead. He argues that any slowdown in AI development directly benefits China, reframing the debate from safety to a zero-sum geopolitical race.
Critics argue that proposed third-party evaluators, such as Meter, lack true independence. Their staff often includes former employees from the very AI labs they would audit (OpenAI, Anthropic), creating a "revolving door" that raises questions about conflicts of interest.
A slowdown in "blitzscaling" AI data centers could free up capital and talent to address a more fundamental bottleneck: the American energy grid. This capital could be used to build out nuclear and solar power, relieving grid tension and creating cheaper energy for everyone.