5428 stories
·
17 followers

Antitrust lawsuit filed against AI companies challenges coordinated slowdown efforts | AP News

1 Comment and 2 Shares

A new lawsuit claims Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made an illegal deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development.

The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the leading AI companies violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, and that doing so would reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions.

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.

It is clear that an agreement among the chief rivals in AI that their progress “should be slower than competition would otherwise produce has an anticompetitive effect on consumers,” the plaintiffs argue.

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.

The plaintiffs don’t object to the companies individually deciding to slow their own progress in favor of safety. They instead argue in the complaint that antitrust laws forbid them from taking the “shortcut” of agreeing to “substitute collective restraint for individual accountability.” A competitive market allows for responsibility and genuine progress, the lawsuit argues.

“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,” said Nick Rowley, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.

In his initial essay proposing the slowdown, Amodei acknowledged potential antitrust challenges, writing that it would be helpful for the U.S. government to mediate “or at least enable” these cross-lab discussions. The government wouldn’t need to participate, he wrote, but it would need to “issue a narrow waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations.”

In response, Altman said on social media that OpenAI welcomes the idea of a “federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements,” but said “we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence.”

While the recent conversations about pacing development were spurred by increasing concerns about AI evading human control, several leaders in the AI space have long talked about developing a shared set of standards or otherwise coordinating to ensure safety efforts remain paramount.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend they are not against the AI companies asking Congress, the White House or any other agency to develop AI regulation, nor are they against the companies asking for an antitrust exemption.

But achieving that kind of collaboration with the federal government could be an uphill battle.

President Donald Trump rejected the calls for regulation on social media. He has claimed that any efforts to limit the technology are part of a “conspiracy.” He called into question why the industry leaders would be calling for regulation that, he says, “if strongly implemented, will drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy.” Trump said Saturday on social media that he is forming an AI task force and will appoint an “AI czar,” but he provided scant detail.

The Trump administration has been vocal about wanting American AI labs to outpace and excel against Chinese competition. While several Democratic leaders and candidates have called for sweeping action on AI regulation, Republicans have largely mirrored Trump’s position.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said in a recent Senate hearing that “there is no world” in which he would agree to give “the most powerful companies in the history of the world” an exemption from antitrust laws to collaborate, arguing that they could collude together and stifle competition.

Read the whole story
mareino
2 hours ago
reply
Of all the ways for the AI Slowdown Pact to fail, I did not expect the Sherman Antitrust Act
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
2 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

i will be DAMNED if i lose to a CONCEPT

2 Shares
archive - contact - sexy exciting merchandise - search - about
September 16th, 2026next

September 16th, 2026: This is of course a work of fiction - I achieved inner peace YEARS ago and not gonna lie: it's been RAD. Just like... peace for DAYS.

– Ryan

Read the whole story
mareino
1 day ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

There is a thread that runs between

1 Comment

There is a thread that runs between

  • Contemporary left-wing purity politics (the “of course we don’t want people like that in our coalition” business, which has caused so much ink to be spilled of late)
  • Contemporary right-wing immigration politics
  • Contemporary anti-homeless politics
  • The way that contemporary business leaders talk about hiring and retention

…which is, of course, the basic idea that you can deal with problem people (and the problems they cause) by just Not Having Them Around. The urge isn’t to reach for rehabilitation or reeducation, or for punishment, or even for exploitation or destruction, but for banishment.

I am not speaking out against this logic, in any kind of generalized way. There are obviously many situations in which you can, and should, address your problems by trying to put an access barrier between yourself and the problem people. A lot of my social advice boils down to Did you know that you can just build a walled garden?, and that’s probably more useful than any political advice I have to offer.

But it’s also obvious, if you think about it for a moment, that this logic breaks down at scale. The problem people might not be around your neck of the woods, but they have to be around somewhere. The more of the overall system you’re trying to manage, the less responsible it is to deal with problems solely by shunting them off onto someone else.

Like every age, our age is wedded to its own particular customs and social technologies, so no surprise that it’s got this kind of bias. But it would be nice to see more attempts to solve large-scale problems of this kind that don’t basically amount to access barriers.

[And of course this isn’t even getting into object-level questions like Which people are really the problem people? and What really constitutes a problem?]

Read the whole story
mareino
3 days ago
reply
The oldest social problem of all time -- annoying people. How do you make the institution bear the emotional burden?
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Aside from that

1 Comment and 3 Shares

One of those niche curiosities, I tried to run down an old joke that’s variously attributed to Bob Newhardt, Tom Lehrer, and many others. I’ve seen a lot of variation in wording, but the core joke was always:

Well, aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

The inestimable Barry Popik has the earliest citation to a famous midcentury political humor column:

22 May 1957, The Evening Star (Washington, DC), “Potomac Fever” by Fletcher Knebel, pg. A-23, col. 4:

What TV interviewing would have been at the time of the Civil War: “Well, aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?”

By the time I found this I had gone through a fair amount of false leads and slop, so I wanted to confirm and provide a convenient copy for future citations. The Library of Congress has helpfully digitized this page:

screenshot of article, including the exact quote cited

And here’s the page pdf for convenience.

Read the whole story
mareino
4 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
4 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
jepler
4 days ago
reply
[on the campaign against malaria] Conservative Republican: "You take the quinine. Make mine hemlock."
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm

My new strategy for making friends: the “Hey, you’re my long-lost pal from camp!” technique. | Gretchen Rubin

1 Share

Something that has made me very happy lately has been the launch of my internet movie, The Years Are Short (and the movie is short, too – just one minute). Check it out!


Everyone from contemporary scientists to ancient philosophers to religious leaders agrees: a KEY to happiness is having close relationships with other people.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out, “To like many people spontaneously and without effort is perhaps the greatest of all sources of personal happiness.”

But what if you’re having trouble liking other people? When I meet people, I often feel distracted, wary, or self-absorbed, instead of friendly.

I’ve discovered a trick.

Research shows that although we think that we act because of the way we feel, in fact, we often feel because of the way we act. That’s why one of my Twelve Commandments (see left-hand column) is to Act the way I want to feel.

As improbable as it may sound, it really works. Try it. If you don’t like the way you’re feeling, act as you’d like to feel—and your feelings will change. It’s uncanny.

So if you want to have warmer relationships with people, act more warmly.

I started a strategy that I call the “You’re my friend from camp!” technique. When I meet someone, I try to imagine that he or she is a long-last pal from summer camp. Even though I don’t really fool myself, it makes my tone and attitude warmer. My smile is sincere, instead of a perfunctory grimace. I honestly feel more friendly.

And not only does this strategy make me feel more friendly to that person, it also makes that person feel more friendly in return.

That’s because we tend to like people who like us.

This just happened to me. There’s a woman I encounter regularly whom I’d describe as an “acquaintance.” When I came back from winter vacation, she was suddenly much friendlier to me. In return, I felt much more friendly towards her – even though nothing had changed.

In a nutshell: by acting friendly, we make ourselves feel more friendly, and as a consequence, others respond in a friendly way. Science backs this up. A study found that when volunteers were asked to treat subjects as if they liked them, these volunteers did indeed end up genuinely liking those people — and the subjects, too, liked the volunteers better.

When I was in sixth grade, my classroom had a poster that said, “If you want to make a friend, be a friend.” I guess that just because a piece of advice can be found on a Snoopy poster doesn’t mean that it’s not worth trying.

From 2006 through 2014, as she wrote The Happiness Project and Happier at Home, Gretchen chronicled her thoughts, observations, and discoveries on The Happiness Project Blog.

Read the whole story
mareino
5 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Regret is an Unreliable Emotion

1 Share

I have long believed that thinking about regret is a powerful motivator for action. When you’re feeling indecisive, trying to figure out if a particular step is a good one, consider how you’ll feel if you don’t take the step. Often this leads you to what seems like the right direction.

But while mental models can be helpful, most of them also have limits. Lately I’ve realized there’s a flaw in the logic of focusing your attention on the avoidance of regrets. Simply put, regret is an unreliable emotion.

Think about that for a moment—what does it mean?

It means, in short, that regret is both difficult to anticipate and even harder to characterize in retrospect. If you feel certain about your choices in either direction—either looking back or looking forward—you may be basing your interpretations on selectively chosen information.

This post on asymmetric opportunities influenced my thinking on this topic. The author explains the argument in more context here:

You only experience regret when you later learn something that reveals a past mistake.

If you exit a failing relationship, you’ll never see how things might have gone, and so of course you’ll never wish you had stayed. On the other hand, if you stay too long, you might find out it’s a waste of time and wish you had left earlier.

Regret in these instances is purely a function of selection bias, and has little to do with which decision was actually better.

Similarly, a round of company layoffs that doesn’t include you could pave the way for rapid promotions. If you leave, you’ll think ‘Thank god I got off that sinking ship!’, and never learn about what could have been.”


Looking back on past decisions, we assume we have the benefit of hindsight … but how could we? We only have the benefit of what we’ve discovered on one path. Maybe the other path branched out into an alternate universe, but if so, it’s not one we have access to.

In other words, how often do we really know we made the right decision? The best answer is: rarely, if ever!

There’s always the road not taken, the choice left behind. If you feel satisfied with the choice you made, that’s great—but could you really say it’s better than any other?

Of course, in some cases I think it’s a pretty safe bet to say we did the right thing, objectively speaking. My choice to start writing online and setting out to visit any country, for example—that decision came about when I started thinking seriously about regret.

I can’t imagine any alternate universe in which I thought about writing online but decided instead to get a job at a bank, or dreamed of seeing the world but decided instead to stay home.

That one seems pretty clear-cut to me. Still, I suppose there’s always a counterfactual that remains unknown, the limited information by which we are constrained. If I had died in an accident just as I began my quest, I might have spent my last few moments of life thinking, Hmmm, maybe this wasn’t such a great idea after all.

Or maybe it’s like Sylvia Plath’s classic metaphor of the fig tree. In the story, the protagonist stands before an unfolding set of choices, literally branched out before her in the shape of a tree. Feeling a deep sense of overwhelm, she’s unable to choose a single one.

The moral of the story is: you just have to choose. If, in the end, you look back and think “I’m so glad I made that choice,” perhaps this is merely positive self-talk. But perhaps it also doesn’t matter. Since you’ll never know for certain one way or another, you might as well choose to be happy with where you ended up.

Regret, meanwhile, is an emotion hindered by bias—sometimes helpful for making a decision to move forward, but rarely definitive in our interpretation of the ideal life.

###

Read the whole story
mareino
5 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories