Lawsuit Says Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI And Google Made Illegal Agreement On AI Slowdown (apnews.com) 113
Tom's Hardware reports:
Four plaintiffs subscribed to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, or Gemini filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the developers of these AI models violated antitrust laws when they agreed to slow AI development. According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit argues that this agreement would "reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions" and that this coordination started in July 2026 after the leading AI labs signed a statement admitting there is "intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow" development.
The plaintiffs recognize the need for AI development to slow for the sake of safety, but they say that Anthropic founder Dario Amodei's cooperation proposal is a "shortcut" that "substitutes collective restraint for individual accountability." Attorney Nick Rowley, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, says, "AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol ... to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world's most powerful 'for profit' technology companies."
"Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond..." reports the Associated Press: The coordination largely took place on Sept. 12, the lawsuit argues, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging for industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements in favor of enhanced safety measures. That same day, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk and Google DeepMind's co-founder and chair Demis Hassabis each publicly responded to Amodei's proposals in agreement. But the lawsuit also alleges that the coordination began to take shape months earlier. It points to a statement from July 2026 that high-ranking employees from several of the leading AI labs signed that acknowledged the "intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow" development. That statement called on the government to support a global effort to slow automated AI development.
Sam Altman even specificially said "we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence," notes Tom's Hardware. However, the Trump administration shot down this idea... Chinese state media also criticized this announcement, saying that the call to put the brakes on AI development is nothing but a response to Chinese competition, especially as Amodei's essay explicitly mentioned the desire to slow China's progress and widen the U.S.'s gap over Beijing
The plaintiffs recognize the need for AI development to slow for the sake of safety, but they say that Anthropic founder Dario Amodei's cooperation proposal is a "shortcut" that "substitutes collective restraint for individual accountability." Attorney Nick Rowley, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, says, "AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol ... to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world's most powerful 'for profit' technology companies."
"Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond..." reports the Associated Press: The coordination largely took place on Sept. 12, the lawsuit argues, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging for industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements in favor of enhanced safety measures. That same day, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk and Google DeepMind's co-founder and chair Demis Hassabis each publicly responded to Amodei's proposals in agreement. But the lawsuit also alleges that the coordination began to take shape months earlier. It points to a statement from July 2026 that high-ranking employees from several of the leading AI labs signed that acknowledged the "intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow" development. That statement called on the government to support a global effort to slow automated AI development.
Sam Altman even specificially said "we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence," notes Tom's Hardware. However, the Trump administration shot down this idea... Chinese state media also criticized this announcement, saying that the call to put the brakes on AI development is nothing but a response to Chinese competition, especially as Amodei's essay explicitly mentioned the desire to slow China's progress and widen the U.S.'s gap over Beijing
Standing? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump probably already shopped around for a favorable court.
Re:Standing? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Lawyers representing four named plaintiffs, who pay for subscriptions to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini, are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other paid subscribers to those services."
In this case it's in the article linked to in the linked article, but it's covered.
From your own Wikipedia article it says:
"The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[2] For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees from the defendant if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film, or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a district attorney to do so."
I believe that's what applies here, though I am not a lawyer. The law in question is the Clayton Act.
“Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . .”
https://www.govinfo.gov/conten... [govinfo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The hand-waving you open with doesn't apply to what you cited.
You cited a statute that merely shifts it so that a class can sue before the anticipated harm, whereas normally you'd have to wait for the harm to happen to sue.
They still need loss or damage.
"The product might have been better" isn't a harm.
Re:Standing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not that a single company's product will not improve as quickly. It's that the plaintiffs think the big players got together and decided to to slow down development of their products, supposedly to increase profits at the expense of subscribers. In effect, the plaintiffs are claiming that's a cartel.
It's not so much "the product might have been better" as it is "you're trying to make it so that nobody's product will get better." If all the big AI players sign on, then subscribers are stuck with a non-competitive market with lost value for their subscriptions.
Frankly I see the AI companies prevailing, not because the plaintiffs can't show harm, but because they can claim a "public safety exception." And if that doesn't work, then they can negotiate a settlement so that the lawyers and the class representatives get something modest, others get a token payment, and the industry has more time to figure out how to protect against renegade AI.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and this is likely also an attempt at regulatory capture, to get lawmakers to set the bar high enough that new players would find it very difficult to gain traction.
I won't be surprised if DeepSeek gets banned entirely from the USA and ordered to be blocked by ISPs
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and this is likely also an attempt at regulatory capture, to get lawmakers to set the bar high enough that new players would find it very difficult to gain traction. I won't be surprised if DeepSeek gets banned entirely from the USA and ordered to be blocked by ISPs
Possibly but regulatory capture is not illegal or an anti-trust violation and a common practice for many industries. Even if the US decided to block DeepSeek and it didn't get thrown out on First Amendment grounds, VPNs make banning a whack a mole game.
Re: (Score:3)
1st Amendment grounds? What the fuck are you smoking? DeepSeek is a Chinese company. It doesn't get ANY of the protections of the US Constitution, you clown. It's a foreign entity.
US citizens who use (or want to use) DeepSeek, would have a 1A claim. It's not a clear-cut situation. PS. I'm not making a value judgment on either side of argument. I'm just pointing this specific angle.
Re: (Score:2)
1st Amendment grounds? What the fuck are you smoking? DeepSeek is a Chinese company. It doesn't get ANY of the protections of the US Constitution, you clown. It's a foreign entity.
DeepSeek offers services in the US and thus would come under the protection of teh 1st Amendment, teh same as any foreign company offering services in the US, the Constitution doesn't discriminate between US and non-US entities in teh US as far as their rights are concerned. A more tenuous argument, IMHO, would be such a ban violates he ight to freedom of association of those in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolute and utter bullshit. It MIGHT be the case if DeepSeek had offices and/or facilities in the US. It does NOT. Merely offering services in the US doesn't get you anything.
I'm not sure United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez aapplies like you think it does. If that were teh case, any foreign corporation without a physical/substantial presence do not have to comply with US law even if tehy offer services in the US, or foreign banks comply with US reporting laws on US citizens.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was about a search and seizure of a non-US citizen in a foreign country. Teh question is does offering services in the US via teh web and charging for tehm establish enough o
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations with no physical presence here to NOT have to comply with US law, moron.
However, if tehy sell a product in the US, tehy do have at least an economic nexus, and DeepSeek certainly does, which is teh company I was referring to.
Of course, the US government has a bit more reach than most, so not complying could mean facing lockouts from the global financial systems. You think I give a rat's ass that my website isn't compliant with EU privacy laws even though an EU citizen can reach it?
That of course, is teh challenge with teh transnational nature of teh internet. There isn't a whole lot teh EU could do if tehy decided a foreign website violated tehir laws, beyond say requiring ISPs to block your website, unless of course they sold stuff to EU citizens. Teh question I posed is an economic nexus enough to trigger Constitutional protectio
Re: Standing? (Score:3)
That is not how anything works and claiming others are clowns when you are busy demonstrating your abject lack of knowledge on this subject is some real fuckery.
Some rights have been generally assumed to apply only to citizens, but the first amendment is not among them.
A quick web search could have disabused you of this ludicrous notion if only you were the kind of person who cared about accuracy.
Re: Standing? (Score:2)
No one who still calls people "retarded" has anything worth hearing to say.
Your comment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how things actually work yet you're insulting others.
If someone in this discussion has a disability, it's your inability to not be shit.
Re: (Score:2)
"protect against renegade AI"
This is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. It's like: "How do we stop humans from being humans?"
Saying that's your objective is fundamentally dishonest. You can't protect against the unknown. You can't protect against anything without covering all the corner cases, and AI, by it's very nature, is almost exclusively corner cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> whereas normally you'd have to wait for the harm to happen to sue
False. You can file a suit for any reason at any time. You do not have to wait until any harm is done. This does not, of course, mean the judge has to accept your filing.
But in this case, the 'harm' is that they are slowing down development/improvement of a product you are paying for. If you buy into a service on the promise or reasonable expectation that the vendor of that service will continue to improve it, and then they declare that t
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I struggle to see what part of "anti-trust law" is in place here. Nothing what is being accused of here covers the act of monopolising. Following a common standard approach is not anti-trust, in fact whole bodies exist to standardise how things are done, and whole industry bodies self regulate the way industries operate.
The question of standing is legitimate. No one is entitled to a product of improving performance. They are entitled to receive what they pai
Re: Standing? (Score:2)
"I struggle to see what part of "anti-trust law" is in place here. Nothing what is being accused of here covers the act of monopolising"
You struggle because you still think antitrust is only about monopolies despite this never having been true.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing what is being accused of here covers the act of monopolising. Following a common standard approach is not anti-trust, in fact whole bodies exist to standardise how things are done, and whole industry bodies self regulate the way industries operate.
What's being alleged here is closer to price fixing, which is also an antitrust violation. Hypothetically, let's say four major automakers got together and said, "We all know we have access to the latest in brake technology, but we collectively agree not to deploy it until two years from now," presumably for business reasons. That kind of collusion is illegal.
Re: (Score:1)
They'll have trouble proving even 1 cent of harm, since they don't pay for results they pay for access.
You can't sue that your burger could have been better, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are suing for some capability that doesn't exist and wasn't promised anyway. Or was it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, was it? Is that your claim, or not? Were they subscribing now for a future discount, or was the subscription for current use? Seems pretty straightforwards. Note that it doesn't matter what they anticipate unless it was promised.
Sometimes a company does make future promises to get people to subscribe now based on FOMO. Is that the case in these services? I don't use them, but my understanding is that people are merely subscribing to what is currently offered.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, was it? Is that your claim, or not? Were they subscribing now for a future discount, or was the subscription for current use? Seems pretty straightforwards. Note that it doesn't matter what they anticipate unless it was promised.
Sometimes a company does make future promises to get people to subscribe now based on FOMO. Is that the case in these services? I don't use them, but my understanding is that people are merely subscribing to what is currently offered.
I do subscribe to one and use it for work. They basically promise access with usage limits at various tiers, and offer more powerful models on a pay as go basis for the basic tier. No where do I recall being promised ongoing development of ever more powerful models. You do expect that given how computer development occurs, but it is not unreasonable to think they may at some point decide what they offer is powerful enough and not introduce more powerful ones.
Re: Standing? (Score:2)
Except for all of their public statements about ongoing development which completely destroy that argument, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for all of their public statements about ongoing development which completely destroy that argument, sure.
Slowing down development is still ongoing development, just a different pace.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't destroy the argument. Ongoing development is simply being slowed down, not stopped. And even then, I've not located any clause in the terms of their subscriptions that you'll enjoy the benefits of highly accelerated bleeding edge development. I've never heard of that from any software company selling subscriptions.
The whole lawsuit is a flop.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that it's not getting better fast enough might be a better analogy. It's such a strange thing to feel entitled to, I can't think of anything that's getting better.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that it's not getting better fast enough might be a better analogy. It's such a strange thing to feel entitled to, I can't think of anything that's getting better.
Welcome to an age where everyone is entitled...
Re: Standing? (Score:2)
How about that it doesn't do what they say it does so they should get on that? Amazing how perspective changes everything.
Re: (Score:2)
What do "they" say it does that it doesn't do?
Re: (Score:2)
The theory seems to be about the coordination. You can't sue that McDonald's refused to use some better ingredient, but if all the burger joints jointly announced they were all working together to refrain from using that ingredient, then you might have something.
This is precisely why they needed the governmental regulation they asked for, when they 'self-regulate', it can come off as anti-competitive.
Of course, plenty of examples of industries collaborating, they just generally need some spin that has it a
Re: (Score:2)
In normal circumstances, yes, because you could go to a different burger shop that sells better quality burgers.
But, if all the burger shops in the area got together and agreed to sell rubbish quality burgers, that would be an anti-trust violation, and you would have grounds to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case several companies haven't agreed. Of course, the one's I'm thinking of aren't US companies, and aren't currently frontier models, but they sure exist and are available.
Re: Standing? (Score:3)
Wait until you find out that antitrust law applies not only to successful but also unsuccessful attempts to manipulate markets.
This place is like a fucking day care. Just a bunch of toddlers putting buckets over their heads and then running into walls all god damned day.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying you need to read that, but next time you can just post it in response instead of getting angry.
Oh good (Score:2)
So we'll have precedent to sue the oil companies when the courts rule in favor of Tru.... I mean the "plaintiffs".
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what a precedent is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares?
I paid for a handbasket license (Score:2)
And they are colluding to slow the speed of my handbasket towards its destination.
the four plaintiffs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps it's the plot of the latest direct-to-streaming Terminator movie, in which the clankers are sent back through time to dress up as plaintiffs and use their prodigious legal-argument skills to thwart this attempt against Skynet!
What should be a straightforward engineering... (Score:4, Interesting)
...project has turned into a crapfest of irrational investment, exaggerated nonsense, all sorts of skullduggery and political manipulation.
I suspect that the nonsense will get worse as monopolists and governments use every dirty trick in the book.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse is that it came up at a time when everything else is hitting economic headwinds. It has become the one shaky pillar vaguely holding up the entire stock market. Hence Trump's panic over the only saving grace of his remaining decent economic indicator being put at risk.
They are scared, billions gone, no chance for RoI (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not believe a single word how they are worried about humanity.
They are only scared of their investors... They spent hundreds of billions, if not more with no chance for any RoI...
Additionally they did not do it safely, have no control so their AI starts to do actual damage, break-ins, multiple wrong decisions in US military using AI...
And they are doing it to cover their as..s ... as any "care for humanity" needs to include China et all and I do not see that in any near future...
Re: (Score:2)
They want regulation to block competitors. Regulation makes startup investors quest, for good reason -- as it can easily prevent a business from succeeding.
Re: (Score:3)
The worries are coming from every level within the companies, from junior developers to safety officers to the C-suite and board.
The worries are coming not just from within the companies, but also from people who left the companies. Including a huge number who left specifically to whistleblow about how worried they were that the companies were risking safety.
Also, most of the people at these companies were already worried about the topic even before they joined - again, at all levels.
The worst-fear scenari
Re: (Score:2)
I am not worried.
I am worrying about much worse things - evil people like Putin or Xe using AI and drones.
For me people are responsible and you are just repeating narration that "models" are responsible...
No, it is people who let them lose. And I do believe we will have our side under control.
What worries me is the other side - Putin's and Xe's and what you or they are saying does not address this bigger problem at all....
This is why I believe the worry is fake...
Re:They are scared, billions gone, no chance for R (Score:4, Insightful)
We won't have 'our' side under any better control than the other side. Essentially kids playing with landmines, triggering all sorts of unexpected mess while playing with the technology.
I don't even know if you want to consider the likely ones calling the shots 'our' side. For example, a quote from Larry Ellison on AI augmented surveillance:
“Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on."
Note the pronoun choices, *their* best behavior (not *our* best behavior) because *we're* constantly recording. Clearly his natural go to language has already set up an 'us versus them' scenario that puts the average citizen on the 'other side' compared to wherever Larry is sitting.
Re: They are scared, billions gone, no chance for (Score:2)
AI is worse than land mines because they are at least predictable, and stay where you put them. AI could go in any direction with no sense behind it since it doesn't have any
Not mutually exclusive (Score:2)
It's possible for the stated high-level worries to be a combination of fear of rogue bots AND angry investors, and thus they got together to collude...I mean agree to a slowdown.
Re: Not mutually exclusive (Score:2)
The fear really isn't rogue bots, is it? It's fear that their security is shitty. Which in turn is fear their bots are shitty, because they're using the bots to tell them how to do the security, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, these tech companies that are pushing AI have been on an ever increasing quest to create the next worst thing since before the social networking thing exploded into becoming a political cancer for the entire world. And there have been just as many people stating the lack of moral or ethical direction for these companies since around that same time. I'm not sure why anyone thought that a whole slew of morally foggy degenerates were going to suddenly develop a moral compass when it came to their
Re: (Score:2)
Do we actually have any evidence for any of these AI models autonomously hacking into outside webservers, and doing all of this nefarious stuff? Recently I looked into an AI agent to take care of a high school's internal intranet (basically have admin access, and respond to queries such as "replace attendance poster X with this one" by normal human users. And I found such a thing was well beyond any AI agent I could find. At most they could seem to be a fancy kind of autocomplete.
So when I hear stories
Re: (Score:2)
The worst-fear scenario was always the Paperclip Optimizer [decisionproblem.com] - that models would become so set on achieving a goal that they'll violate all ethics to achieve it.
How much compute power will that take?
Re: (Score:2)
The worries are coming from every level within the companies, from junior developers to safety officers to the C-suite and board.
The worries are coming not just from within the companies, but also from people who left the companies. Including a huge number who left specifically to whistleblow about how worried they were that the companies were risking safety.
Also, most of the people at these companies were already worried about the topic even before they joined - again, at all levels.
What else is new? All of us have been hearing this for north of three years now (more generally decades). Distinctly remember around the ChatGPT 4 release in 2023. There was even a conspiracy making rounds one of the GPT4 era whistleblowers had been assassinated some time later.
When we replay the sensational garbage with what is now considered by everyone as a toy crap model people will rightfully laugh in your face.... but but but today's models are different and not like yesterdays models and so you sh
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's even more simple than that. Just wave a couple trillion dollar in the air and see how many people will sell their own mother for it.
Bullshit Lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to agree with you, and appreciate the spin of a 'safety standards committe'.
However, they could make the argument that an agreement to 'slow down' at current prices, means an agreement to keep prices high rather than someone developing an advancement to make it cheaper.
That said, it's completely counter to the trend where they have been making it more and more expensive, and doesn't seem to be interest in more competitive pricing anyway.
Re: Bullshit Lawsuit (Score:2)
These companies keep making public statements about how they are making it better and more powerful to benefit their customers, so yes it certainly does. Every public statement they make is relevant. That's how everything works, not just corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies keep making public statements about how they are making it better and more powerful to benefit their customers, so yes it certainly does. Every public statement they make is relevant. That's how everything works, not just corporations.
However "better and more powerful" doesn't imply a pace of development. Slowing it done is not incompatible with "better and mire powerful."
Re: Bullshit Lawsuit (Score:2)
Go read what they actually wrote about their products and competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Go read what they actually wrote about their products and competition.
I have, and nothing in there or their T&Cs asserts they will always develop at some specific pace; their statements are very subjective and is the usual marketing puffery which is not some guarantee of anything and not grounds for a lawsuit. They talked about rapid scaling and increasing capabilities, but made no promises as to what that means in terms of how fast or what those capabilities will be, merely that it would get better and more powerful; and it still will, at a different pace. They talked a
Re: (Score:2)
"there is no implied obligation to keep making it faster or more powerful"
That's why they don't allege slowing or lack of improvement as a cause of action, they allege collusion. Slowing or lack of improvement might be a overt act used to prove collusion, but is neither sufficient nor necessary to that proof.
Re: (Score:2)
"there is no implied obligation to keep making it faster or more powerful"
That's why they don't allege slowing or lack of improvement as a cause of action, they allege collusion. Slowing or lack of improvement might be a overt act used to prove collusion, but is neither sufficient nor necessary to that proof.
And collusion is all so not illegal, as standards committees prove.
who filed (Score:3, Insightful)
The named plaintiffs in the case are:
Cheyenne Hunt, an attorney and activist.
Charles Buist, an attorney from Florida.
Nick Spetsas, an attorney from Florida
Christine Bullock, a California resident
Buist and Spetsas formed a firm, Spetsas Buist, that handles serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, ambulance chasers is the way I read that. Cheyenne Hunt is an 'influencer", i.e. has big mouth and found the intertubes welcoming for that. Christine Bullock seems similar.
My guess is that these folks are merely looking for a big payday, i.e., please pay us to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise known as a Cartel (Score:2)
Hopefully when the AI bubble bursts it causes as little damage to ordinary folk as possible.
And maybe we'll learn that capitalism often makes dumb decisions, is technically illiterate and socially irresponsible when its purely driven by greed.
I am all for little capitalism, people owning businesses and making their own way, improving the world and their lot, that's great, long live it.
But big capitalism, the dragon's den , VC mob working in tandem with Internet marketers, just in it for the money, they are
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Otherwise known as a Cartel (Score:2)
Cuckservatives always mischaracterize capitalism because that's part of how they oppress others. If the people understood how they were getting fucked and that the system is literally designed to enable that, they would revolt. So they can never tolerate you describing it accurately.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this - money is a store and representation of value. Productive value. Capitalism optimizes for the increase of value through production.
Re: Otherwise known as a Cartel (Score:2)
People spend all kinds of money on all kinds of stupid unproductive shit so that's obviously wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and our states have completely failed to protect us from it, in most cases helped it.
I can see the appeal to a politician to privatise as much as possible and be responsible and accountable for as little as possible, to be able to just blame the market or economic conditions. Managing stuff like the utilities of survival is complicated, everyone bitches about it and it makes you unpopular, and politicians hate being unpopular. We had that in the UK , some greedy weak politicians and administrators sold
Re: (Score:2)
Or are they developing industry standards for safety?
Re: (Score:2)
They are blocking competition. They are also managing the same problem that the ROI has been way overvalued and they need time to get their story straight.
If they had the remotest concern for safety why would they create something they claim is a threat to humanity?
It's bull shit. Are you defending bullshit or challenging definitions?
The definition of a cartel is not just about colluding on price, it's about dominating a market. Demanding regulation is an attempt to put a fence around it.
There is nothing
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of a cartel is to maximize profits through illegal market domination. Price controls, production level controls, and no-compete agreements are the means that define a cartel.
You could, I guess, argue that slowi
Re: (Score:2)
A non-secret private agreement to reduce the pace of development to maintain safety doesn't block competition
Another example of masterful marketing. We can expect they are using their own tools to market their tools, what stories to put out to maximise their news coverage based on past data. They have all the marketing content and strategy ever produced and all the social media data at their fingertips.
The whole AI is dangerous narrative is fear marketing. Gun lobby in US does the same thing. It's a version of what lords would say to the peasants, you are not safe I will protect you, all I ask of you is to break
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is in on topic. The marketing is part of the story of AI, it maybe the only story we remember , how a small group managed to dupe so many for so much. The cartel, market protectionism call it what you like is another chapter of a very clever marketing story, no doubt assisted by the product they are marketing.
"There's only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
Oscar Wilde said that over a hundred years ago.
The more we talk about AI, the more we are int
There is something in the air (Score:2)
There is something in the air. While the current president is doing his best to push AI stocks, I think the general population will continue to grow more and more discontent in AI. If there are no proper "NO-AI" candidates in the next elections, there is going to be a section of the population voting for the candidate they thing will hurt the US the most.
I know I am personally pissed that my work is being stolen from me and is being used by the lay man to tell me what I do has no value. Why the fuck would
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of reasons to be unhappy with AI. The weavers had good reason to fear the automated looms. But that doesn't mean it's not already more powerful than people have accepted, and it's not evidence that it isn't getting more powerful.
AGI is poorly defined hoopla, but ... slowing down and being more careful about safety seems like an EXCELLENT idea, and "prisoner's dilemma" means that in the absence of communication and agreement it won't happen.
China (Score:1)
Yep. The fix is in. (Score:2)
Always remember that a corporation never has your interests at heart. It only cares about the stock price and profits. Any actions it takes are in service of those two things.
Its all about the money (Score:2)
The data centres are a massive financial burden to build / run / maintain
The financial returns are such they have little or no chance of being profitable in any meaningful way (ie return on capital)
The data sets are now flooded with their own slop which is degrading their models
This is NOT about safety, its all about the money and how they all reached an
Lip Service (Score:2)
The various AI companies will - publicly - state they will be slowing down development and the models
they release for public use will certainly be handicapped / crippled to promote the illusion that they are,
in fact, slowing down said development.
However, this is a race they cannot afford to lose. To competing companies or Countries.
We are now trapped in a self propagating loop. We won't / can't slow down because your
competition won't / can't slow down and vice versa.
As a result, in private / secret, nothin
History repeats itself (Score:2)
* 1940s - DuPont's new nylon stockings were indestructible, they purposely weakened the polymer formula
* 1960s - IBM used hidden wires to slow down their mainframes, a technican would remove them if you paid a higher lease price
* 1970s - Big Oil kept their cleaner biofuel and synthetic fuel technologies locked away behind patents
* 1980s - Inkjet cartridges trigger artific
Re: (Score:2)
This is my take on it as well.
Bread-fixing again. (Score:2)
'Going forward is competitive and hard. Let's all agree to slowdown to not compe..I mean for the safety of people in regards of AI'
Pretty straight forward.
AI needs oversight, and not Technopeasant Trump's (Score:2)
Re: Joke's on them (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AI isn't a one trick pony. It's also not one thing, it's a bunch of things. Some are good in some areas, others are good in others. LLMs are good at predicting text...but that's only one piece of AI.
Re: Joke's on them (Score:3)
Re: Joke's on them (Score:2)
AIs are good at predicting stuff, but that's relatively good, not absolutely.
What they aren't good at is consistency, which breaks from everything else we do with computers.
This both means they can achieve new things and can fail in new ways.
With our current approach (replacing intuition with random numbers) AI can literally never be reliable.