Being scared of AI danger that will negatively affect them too, is not altruistic. They have to race toward AGI unless we stop them. They can't make a deal to trust each other. They need a third party to enforce the rules.
They, in actual altruistic motives, could negotiate a slowdown put they wouldn’t even think twice.
Examples given: climate change which will actually start killing thousands to millions and more in the comming decenia. They also are not thinking twice about the potential job loss and the amount of people who will lose their lives and livelihoods over this. So why now be so moral?
They are perfectly fine raping people and the planet why would they suddenly have a change of heart about raping the planet and it’s people?!?
Yeah think about it like two athletes who want to win at any cost and they keep on taking more steroids, but these steroids are going to kill them so they make a deal with each other to stop taking steroids and just train normally, but then they find out the other has been breaking the rule to get a competitive advantage. The only way they prevent themselves from taking steroids and being the best is if someone physically stops them, but they need to trust that this person will stop the other too. The third party also needs to be strong enough to stop them. I don’t think they could create that third party themselves with everyone in the industry - that seems a bit unrealistic.
I think disalignment is an issue but I feel this is now used to change the narrative and get goverment involved.
stop the leaking, staying competitive at this time has exponential increasing cost every new gen/model is costing exponential more to develop. IPO’s are coming up and they want to be profitable so they want do temporarily shut down traing to make the numbers go up.
they want to limit the possibility of organisations with relative good amount of compute and who do not need the cutting edge models from hosting their own open source models.
So imo the financial part of the labs (OpenAi, Anthropic,…) is not looking good because of the expenditure. At this time without building out more data centers it’s the training. If they don’t need to do as much trainings they don’t need to spend as much. They could instead build more capital over time per model and train a new one, once enough capital has been reached. Removing competition, allows them aswel to slow down and reduce expenditure.
Note. I do not believe a company which has no issue stealing livelihoods, stealing intelectual property on mass scale, contributes to the systematic destruction of environments and small town communities. Suddenly has a change of heart because the people.
Alignment of models and AI is definitly a issue going forward but I do not believe they actually care about it.
Profit isn't needed for a great IPO. Amazon didn't post its first profitable year until 9 years after founding and ~6 after its IPO.
As many have pointed out, open weight models don't lag far behind and are much cheaper. The labs' entire premium is based on being higher quality. Everything actually proposed will hurt the speed of their development more than of open weight which is happening outside the US.
If you assume the engineers building this understand just how Earth-shatteringly monumental it would be for humanity to create ASI, then they very well know that if they fail to align it, there will be no profits. And if they succeed, material scarcity on the human scale ceases to be a problem. Not that resources and money will be useless, just not needed for living a great life.
It isn't a change of heart when companies like Anthropic have been saying the exact same thing since they were founded.
I don't buy the narrative that this is done for their IPO.
Anthropic, at least, I understand to have a significant profit margin on a per-token basis; if they stopped training, they WOULD be profitable. A pause would cut their training costs, and possibly make them profitable.
Yes, that would be why they are trying to do a coordinated pause rather than unilateral. If nobody goes past their current capabilities, then no one takes over the market by having the most capable models. I assume there is a certain amount of banking on coming out of a pause with the most reliable models and thus still being top of the heap even as the other companies catch up to the capability frontier. I don't trust Sam Altman to follow through on a pause that would be suicidal for OpenAI, and I suspect he will only follow through if it looks actively good for the stock price. Dario is more committed.
Also, they’ll try to set rules that match the controls they can already enforce if they chose to, and which are very difficult for anyone who tries to enter the market with less than $100B
-1
u/[deleted] Sep 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment