I wished OpenAI and Anthropic IPOd already. They just try to outcompete each other by finding the most splashy headlines undercutting prices in unhealthy and unsustainable means long-term.
David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
41–50 of 259 posts
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#42They might need regulations, if they are for-profit companies with a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profit while sacrificing all other values.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#43Like it! Yeah, they can just take action and pressing them on that is fine. It's not like they asked for policy before they started to mine all the data and sell the resulting product, while, surely, at some point, there must have been the thought that the entire enterprise could be considered vaguely problematic.
To be fair
1) I feel like Sacks is kind of misrepresenting what is going on – at least according to the stories that the two labs tell, they are already taking it upon themselves to act.
2) Understanding if they should do it is more complicated; I don't think anyone can satisfactorily answer that one, so, as a matter of judgement, it seems like a choice to make and they should just consider this option.
At the same time, I don't think that requires the labs to not press for policy changes. Again: Claiming there is an obvious way to do that, that is both realistic and correct seems a little far fetched, but arguably one of the more important and pressing questions of our times to get a hold of.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#44Huge amount of skepticism on HN right now, but the models are increasingly capable, and there are real, significant risks. The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible - voluntary checks at frontier labs, and appropriate regulation to follow. Yes, the devil's in the details, but it feels like the right approach overall.
> The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible...
It's hard to imagine any government regulation that didn't look sensible on paper and at first. But we know that government regulation has an extremely mixed record, with lots of good and bad outcomes.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because their improvements are stagnating as they hit financial and technical challenges. I don't mean to be rude, but how is it even possible for someone to hold this opinion in mid-2026? Can you explain why you believe this?
How can you not believe it? Neither of them are even close to making a profit and the market is saturated with cheaper alternatives. This is a ploy for regulatory capture.
You're wrong about profits.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that’s not accurate. An agreement among competitors to not engage in research that would let them outcompete each other is clearly an antitrust issue requiring a government waiver.
No, absolutely not "clearly". That word has no business being in any sentence about federal antitrust law in 2026. There is nothing clear or consistent about how is being applied and interpreted right now. If you're applying a coder's mindset to 'settled' law, you're in for a bad time.
If that’s true, doesn’t that make it even more clear that the frontier labs require government involvement and cannot rely on what David Sacks thinks the government would or would not allow?
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#47Make it easy for these companies by passing a law that any AI model a company offers to the public (non-government) has to be released as open weights.
This is how we deflate the bubble safely and completely, without having to introduce a government regulator that is likely to go either too far or not far enough.
This resolves the coordination problem among these potentially good actors.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#48I guess what they really want is to limit sale of AI models to compliant vendors and then raise the bar to compliance just high enough so they can pass it but smaller labs can’t. There’s no moat, it’s an efficient market that drives margins to zero right now, of course they don’t want that, collusion of the big vendors is the next logical step.
Bingo. The goal is positioning a duopoly / cartel as the only “safe” and “moral” path and then that cartel sets pace and price.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
What reason could OpenAI possibly have to lie about their own performance? The fact they were desperate enough for a PR win they stole the research leading to the Millenium problem further hurts their case imo.
they lied about their performance by.... solving a famously hard problem to solve? Edit: The "reputable academic" who accused OpenAI had to say this about LLMs and the recent result. source: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf > “the results are not the important thing.” > “the important thing is instead the significance that a mathematician and an LLM model can now do all this work in a month.” > “This is a…
Solving is a very interesting way of describing what happened. Unless you believe them over reputable academics I suppose?
I will note the remarkable goal post shift in your edit - giving direct counter evidence to your own earlier claim of an OpenAI proof - and leave it at that.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#50They might need regulations, if they are for-profit companies with a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profit while sacrificing all other values.
It is telling that most aggressive forms of “capitalism” plead for government involvement to permanently limit new competition. I own something and I don’t want anyone else to have a chance. The marginal cost of bribing a senator is tiny tiny tiny compared to the value.