deanwball@deanwball4h ago

David Sacks: “the easiest way not to build superintelligence is for [OpenAI and Anthropic] to agree not to build it.” Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 1 (15 U.S.C. 1): “Every contract… or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” David’s use of the term “agree” here is the linchpin; he is suggesting (unknowingly, I’d guess) that OpenAI and Anthropic engage in a conspiracy to constrain commerce. Literally any lawyer will tell you that “agree” is *the one word* you should not say in this context; it is the textbook example of a bad word for antitrust law purposes. David says the antitrust exemption is the thing that creates a “cartel,” but the opposite is true: Labs “agreeing” to suspend commercial activity IS the thing current U.S. law considers to be cartel behavior. The Sherman Act and other antitrust laws are well-intentioned but they are extraordinarily broad. U.S. lawmakers have created numerous exemptions from antitrust law in times of emergency or when other special circumstances present themselves. It is common in U.S. history in fields like defense, energy, cybersecurity, and elsewhere. The labs are suggesting this is one such exceptional moment. You can disagree; ultimately this is an ask to democratically elected policymakers for an exemption to a part of the law many of Americans hold sacred. It’s a serious thing, it should not be taken lightly, and serious skepticism of the labs is warranted. I think, if you consider the facts of our present circumstances, the case for a narrow and time-bound exemption to antitrust law for coordination on safety is warranted. But David’s is proposing an unworkable catch 22. He’s recommending that OpenAI and Anthropic engage in what U.S. antitrust law would consider textbook cartel behavior, while simultaneously arguing that a request for an exemption from those laws is the thing that would constitute a cartel. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I’m also not sure it’s really true that not building superintelligence is something OpenAI and Anthropic have the power to stop. Mark Zuckerberg just penned a long essay about his vision for superintelligence and funds to the tunes of hundreds of billions “Meta Superintelligence Labs.” Ilya has “safe superintelligence.” Elon speaks of building digital superintelligence routinely. To say nothing of China, which David would be the first to remind you is breathing right down our necks. And of course there is DeepMind, which kickstarted this whole thing in the first place. There is a broad-based race underway to build superintelligence, and the notion that it is within the power of two companies to stop it is flatly wrong. The question I am more interested in hearing David answer would be whether he thinks we *should* ban superintelligence. He has asserted, falsely imo, that Sam and Dario, *could,* but is he saying that they *should*? That would be a large update indeed from David Sacks. (For what it’s worth, I am anti superintelligence ban).