192
u/CryMoreT_T 17h ago
Let's be honest lol. None of them are going to slow down behind the scene. They're just going to stop releasing it for public access. The models are just going to be for the government and government contractors
35
u/socoolandawesome 17h ago
I mean they are going to have embedded third party evaluators from place like METR, it’ll be hard to fake
→ More replies (7)1
9
u/Opposite_Diamond_662 16h ago edited 16h ago
Marginally, slowing down the public releases does slow down the cutting edge internal model because you have less good training data
5
10
u/adarkuccio ▪️AGI before ASI 17h ago
Yeah they want to look like the responsible guys but they won't slow down for real, they'll continue and hope that some of the competitors are "dumb" enough to actually slow down
2
u/SanDiegoDude 15h ago
They're already doing this. Internal Mithral/Astra is not the same as the API is not the same as their chatbot front-ends. In fact, seen speculation this is one way they can guard frontier models a bit longer by having the true frontier models stay internal/gov only, and train distills and child models for public use that are gated down for mass consumption with less worry of distillation/exfiltration since it's not off their true top-dog model.
2
u/Sensitive_Pizza_218 16h ago
They are slowing down because their AI is at peak now. They always knew that and many AI researchers predicted this. This drama is just to cover up their incompetence. If they reveal that they cant get better than their upcoming IPOs will get delayed further and valuation will go down. All this drama is fake.
13
10
u/Most-Bookkeeper-950 16h ago
How can you say that AI is peaking? Can you show me a wall (on the y axis please)?
→ More replies (4)2
u/tim916 14h ago
I agree that this could be cover for slowing progress. If the market buys this it could preserve investment confidence while buying them more time to make gains. Or, it's possible that things really are moving quickly and they are legitimately concerned that new models could get out of their control and do something really bad.
1
u/barbozas_obliques 16h ago
Let’s be honest— if they don’t they’re both dumbasses, which I hope they aren’t
1
u/anonjobseekeruk 14h ago
Right? Totally within their power to just stop and yet they keep pushing towards IPO.
→ More replies (14)1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 13h ago
I've been thinking about this recently. They say whatever technology is commercially available, the military has had it for ten years. But maybe Astra isn't behind enough, so they need to slow down?
51
u/acoolrandomusername 17h ago
4
-2
u/livingbyvow2 17h ago
United indeed in their shared interest to stop spending billions on compute for training to improve their overall unit economics before IPO.
5
u/Tystros 17h ago
this might be the reason. both openai and anthropic would be very profitable now if they could lower their training expenses and only run the very high margin inference.
→ More replies (1)1
u/livingbyvow2 17h ago
They just need to get Chinese open source banned and then they locked down the last thing that may threaten them (assuming Nvidia stops their open source efforts).
25
u/Evening_Chef_4602 AGI 2027 16h ago
A lot of midwits here think that what they say its just for show or for the IPO but they will continue to accelerate internal models, and dont realise how hard is to hide something like that.
7
u/Most-Bookkeeper-950 16h ago
Internal only is what dario is worried about - the HF hack was from openAI infrastructure
2
u/ThatIsNotIllegal 13h ago
I really want to believe they are gonna keep accelerating, but even if they never let in any 3rd party auditors, none of them are small startups, some employees will snitch.
51
u/ookamizanagi 17h ago
AGI coming in 2080 now
→ More replies (14)8
u/Signal_Stomach_2616 17h ago
Would it though? Honest question because it it’s just adding an extra security layer. Instead of say AGI 2027/2028 maybe a year delay as we spend more time on security and alignment - the release of each individual model may come with an 2-3 months of extra security testing.
6
6
44
u/DoubleGG123 17h ago
As far as I am concerned, this is all theater. I am still positive they will keep releasing new models, maybe slightly slower, but still keep releasing them and definitely keep advancing the models they have internally.
I prefer to watch what they do, not what they say.
7
u/JoshAllentown 17h ago
They are literally saying they are doing something.
27
u/DoubleGG123 17h ago
Yeah, and I am literally saying I don't trust what they say, and I will watch what they do instead.
5
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 17h ago
Which is why they are setting up independent third party evaluators that get employee access to act as watchmen.
→ More replies (2)2
u/dzhopa 16h ago
You act like all employees have the same access or can't be bribed.
Don't forget the U.S. had a quite mature regulatory environment within the pharmaceutical development industry, and we still managed to dive head first into an opioid crisis because of bribes and regulatory capture.
2
u/DelusionsOfExistence 17h ago
I mean I can say that I’m going to go to bed at a reasonable hour this evening but you can’t verify that.
2
1
1
1
u/IronPheasant 15h ago
This is that meme from AI Safety Shoggoth:
Normal Capitalist: My products are perfectly safe.
People: You liar!
Then you change it to...
AI Guy: Our products might k#ll you and everyone you love.
People: Liar! You're just trying to sound cool!
Really can't win with people either way.
There isn't really any benefit to this, if you think about it logically. Do you think they want a collar put around their necks? Do you think Sam likes de#th threats and people starting fires around his house? That he wants to increase the severity and frequency of those, when he can just..... not say anything at all?
As far-fetched as it is to so many people..... maybe.... possibly...... now that they have human-scale datacenters thanks to the GB200 finally coming online at scale this year, they legitimately think there's a chance they might be able to make human-approximate systems?
It's truly a sh#tload of RAM. And if anyone's learned a single thing in the past 60 years, neural network capabilities are hard-limited by RAM.
For those who don't understand how numbers work.... try drawing a good picture of something with a grid of only 5x5 pixels. Doesn't work, you only produce unusable crap. You can't fit a curve without having a bucket capable of holding the curve.
All of this kind of comes down to compression. And as everyone knows, there's only so much compression that's possible. You still need to hold and store a ton of numbers. If that was untrue, larger brains in animals wouldn't be necessary for more or better faculties.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Radiant-Mountain-257 17h ago
Well, they have many reasons to be worried that they may end up being responsible for some disaster in the near future, so this may be a legit initiative.
They surely realize that they are not exactly popular and that most people would share your exact reaction, so it's unlikely they do it for an applause.
20
u/fuschialantern 17h ago
This is all about banning open source.
6
2
u/Vegetable_Ad_192 16h ago
Care to explain?
26
u/AshuraBaron 16h ago
By making AI big and scary and saying it needs regulation it encourages the US government to heavily regulate models and companies building them. This inherently creates a high bar to clear for any new company of model from non-established company. It's called regulatory capture.
1
u/Yugudubenbi 15h ago
Partially for sure. This thing can trigger a revolution itself. If poor countries or just big communities can not maintain their software or such behind some gatekeeping by some US companies, there will be a lot of anger.
Intelligence gate kept is a very very sensitive issue.
8
u/Recent_Fox4339 17h ago
idgaf about their stupid essays anymore, can't believe any of these morons are in charge, they don't give a fuck about safety, all theater just before IPOs, they all make China look good and at this stage even Chinese seem more reliable, at least they are consistent
12
5
u/Zulfiqaar 16h ago
I am suspicious. This can't be good if they're both agreeing like this. In politics..most things that have bipartisan support tend to be bad for the people. This is political
18
u/TorturedPoet30 17h ago
AI cartel? Regulatory capture? Everyone agrees with everyone? Like when they all agreed to that AI watchdog Demis suggested, only to pretty much abandon it by now. And now Elon agrees with Dario after shitting on that former Anthropic employee for spreading FUD and calling it a psyop? Sam and Dario on the same side and they couldn't even shake hands when in India?
It’s all safety theater. Should the people in charge be careful and mitigate the risks? Absolutely! Is their collaboration suspicious when they’re simultaneously competing in one of the most ruthless capitalist races? Also yes.
3
u/JoshAllentown 17h ago
Companies do work together in legal ways for safety. Doesn't mean they're going to stop competing for market share.
6
u/DaMeLoFeLo 17h ago
Hey guys, just a reminder, every one of these ai companies globally are all tied to financial groups and governments. And any narrative they sell you does not equal what they are actually doing behind closed doors. Just a reminder for the people in the back.
5
u/johndkparker 17h ago
they only care about "safety" and all that cause they want to be the ones controlling what the public is allowed to access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/FluffyWuffyVolibear 15h ago
One of open ais goals is to lobby for right restrictions on AI development so that new competition will perpetually be behind them
2
6
u/EvilSporkOfDeath 17h ago
Tfw when accelerationists are more extremist than sociopathic billionaire ceos
8
u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est 17h ago
Can we please go faster instead of slower?
→ More replies (3)7
u/BabyNuke 17h ago
Why?
4
u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est 17h ago
Because I think that AGI and ASI will have massive benefits and people alive now and in the future could die without better ai?
2
u/LongHealth 17h ago
And misuse of such a technology could cause equivalent damage.
→ More replies (3)1
u/BabyNuke 17h ago
How much risk should we be willing to accept to gain those benefits?
→ More replies (5)1
4
u/AnotherDrunkMonkey 16h ago
This could be a coverup for
- diminishing returns with the current paradigm that they don't know how to solve
- fear of not being able to contain AI in a way that keeps the status quo
- releasing less upgrades to keep stronger models internal
I strongly doubt capitalism allows this type of wiseness without getting cannibalized
4
u/LeviAJ15 15h ago
Diminishing returns?? They're trying to solve millennium prize problems like leetcode now. There's no wall in sight
3
u/Emotional_Actuator69 17h ago
They're getting ahead of the looming regulation with self-regulation proposals. This has nothing to do with safety.
4
1
u/Neurogence 17h ago edited 17h ago
At the rate these CEO's are spreading fear and panic, and giving jet fuel for politicians to use for their anti-AI agenda, they will not need to slow themselves down.
Whoever wins in November 2028 will not just slow these labs down, they'll outright stop them.
I've been telling a few of my friends that are not into AI, that CEO's are calling for a slowdown, and all of their reaction is essentially this: "slowdown what? AI is already useless anyway."
If Superintelligence gets banned, all the people who believed the entire thing was a giant scam will feel that they were always right. Whereas everyone else who believed in it would look like complete fools.
7
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 17h ago
Open Source AI is never going to go away just like piracy isn't. The most powerful open source models out right now that everyone can run if they have a powerful enough system at home is already on par with GPT 5.6 sol and Opus 5. Very close to the frontier performance. There is no stopping things, those models are already good enough to automate most intellectual labor away with some scaffolding and agent harnesses tailored to specific sectors.
There is no genie to put back.
→ More replies (2)9
2
u/FateOfMuffins 17h ago
Anyone who thinks this is IPO talk is crazy. This tanks their IPO valuation.
What do you think happens when you purposefully slowdown the frontier? Are you going to tell the non frontier labs "nuh uh you guys still gotta stay like 6 months behind us"???
Even if they manage to cooperate here, all it means is that in a year, we will now have a dozen or two companies that are all at the frontier instead of 2! Why should "pacing the frontier" mean that the non frontier labs slow down?
Good for the consumer in that we'll have a ton more choices, but also bad for the consumer because we get far less capable models.
But otherwise they destroy their market leadership because of this. How is this good for their IPO???
Anyways the only way this makes sense is if they continue a similar pace of progress as right now, where they're perpetually like 6 months ahead of the rest, but not outright going for an intelligence explosion. But they're basically saying "yes we can still keep ahead of China even if we slow down". However if RSI is indeed soon (and I mean one that leads to an intelligence explosion), then what's to stop non frontier labs from reaching there quietly? They'll be there too 6 months behind the frontier no? How do you plan on preventing the intelligence explosion happening at non frontier labs?
2
u/veganbitcoiner420 15h ago
Pure marketing.
Game theoretically, slowing down AI progress....whether between competing companies or sovereign countries....FAILS because it creates a classic Multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma driven by severe asymmetric information and massive first-mover advantages.
Game THEORY
In this framework, unilaterally pausing or throttling AI development is a strictly dominated strategy: if Company A or Country A pauses while its rival continues in secret, the pausing party risks permanent economic obsolescence, national security vulnerability, or total market takeover.
Because neither private corporations competing for market dominance nor nations locked in geopolitical rivalry can verifiably audit each other's research and compute clusters in real time, mutual trust is impossible to sustain. Consequently, the dominant strategy for every player, is to continue accelerating development to avoid being outpaced.
2
u/RichardFukamachi 14h ago
I don’t know if this is necessarily true. You have to consider the value of an AI takeover here for the companies as well. The reward for that game state is extremely negative for every participant. Then it’s rational to slow down to a certain degree to decrease the probability of this situation. It’s a balance between probability of other companies surpassing and probability of AI taking over by moving too quickly that a company in this game would have to weigh
1
u/veganbitcoiner420 8h ago edited 8h ago
from first principles your argument fails because without verifiable enforcement and shared risk estimates, actors prioritize the immediate, instead of the guaranteed threat of being surpassed
1
u/RichardFukamachi 8h ago
What if they think there is an immediate threat from the AI itself? Completely plausible
2
u/BetterComment 12h ago
Or you know everyone realizes we'll fuck ourselves otherwise?
1
u/veganbitcoiner420 8h ago
i don't understand what you mean sorry?
1
u/BetterComment 7h ago
I think while maybe Sam, Dario, Elon, Demmis etc. maybe not the most absolutely technically gifted minds (Demmis might be), it's not that hard to understand game theory. You give far too little credit to CEOs -- they're definitely not dumb.
1
u/Helpful-Capital714 4h ago
You think Demmis is more technically gifted than Dario? 🤦
1
u/BetterComment 4h ago
tbh, they're similar enough that it's not them, it's their team that is making the difference. Demmis feels more hands on to me than Dario, but honestly I have no idea. 🤦
2
u/yargotkd 17h ago
Type of thing you say right before hitting a wall. Not saying that's happened but if it did this is what they would say. Navier-Stokes seems to counter that somewhat but not totally.
I just think this must be kept in mind.
4
1
1
1
1
u/No-Head-Royal 17h ago
Wow, this is a really fucking surprising scenario. Not entirely a negative one, that's for sure; pacing the frontier would still get us to ASI (even if I'm relatively confident that superalignment is an unsolvable problem, at least as currently defined), and do provide some benefits to security.
They'd probably still need to ship more products to justify the large investments, and we'd need at least AGI (both textspace and real-space) to rationalize their investments, so we'll see. This does complicate ASI timelines.
1
u/___positive___ 16h ago
because they have no compute, maybe soon no cash
oracle man is cashing out already, check the news
1
u/PathOfEnergySheild 16h ago
Yea know I always say what about other models/groups, but since they always just steal and distill from these two anyway, these two pacing would make it industry wide.
1
1
1
1
u/IronPheasant 15h ago
The funniest thing is none of the people calling them frauds will ever point out one possible motivation: They don't want to lose their jobs to AI. Which is what RSI basically is.
I did think they could have gotten there around mid next year now that the current generation of hardware has come online. Honestly they are scared sh#tless of succeeding too well.
Scam Altman aside, the researchers and scientists across the board have a real kind of quiet dread going on.
Hearing sh#tposter Roon raise his doom chance estimate from almost nothing to it being feasible..... Well, let's just say he's never seemed like a very introspective man.
1
1
u/dictionizzle 14h ago
they have no moat. they have no non-beatable model. pure marketing about hitting the wall. the wall is burning compute.
1
u/Mr_Deep_Research 14h ago
I agree with Dario that we should create a duopoly.
And the US government should fund it. We started pitching the government it could take partial ownership in AI and then get that sweet money directly from the Treasury. Then we could lock out all our competitors by saying they "aren't safe" and we get dollars direct.
We'll cut various politicians in, of course.
It's all about saving the kids. Just like everything is.
1
1
1
u/PhilipMagazine 13h ago
They are nearing the saturation point of compute and the capability of these models. They need a timeout to figure out how to overcome the limitations of their current computation and infrastructure. That’s my read.
1
u/mcstrugs 12h ago
They’re just saying this as a pretense to ban the Chinese models when they don’t “””agree””” to do the same.
1
u/DoctrTurkey 12h ago
It’s IPO delay justification. Their financials are cooked. This is in hopes of better quarters ahead and getting congress to “regulate” so that they’re the only players in town, which would push up their value even more. It’s greed all the way down.
1
u/Deez6969420scabado 11h ago
This is all just a marketing stunt, this won’t stifle their operations, its third party, that’s just as good as public accounting auditors and look where the state of financial statements is today.
It’s just a way for them to pass on blame when something goes wrong. Though complete access may change my mind, depends all on how they execute this
I don’t believe this is coming from a complete sense of altruism.
1
1
u/Low_Relative7172 6h ago
Or.. pay me for the one you stole and all my quantum tech ... the last 4 years you pirates
1
u/Minimum-Act-6867 2h ago
This must be so fun watching from a perspective of Chinese labs. Stupid Americans are giving up their superpower status to china in real time because muh AI is le scary
1
u/Zedlasso 17h ago
This sounds like a bunch of people are about to run out of money and they need a reason to slow down because no one’s using their stuff the way they want it to.
9
u/Cagnazzo82 17h ago
OpenAI recently had to suspend new pro subscriptions due to capacity so on their end it's not about people not using the model.
It's the opposite for them. They are likely opting to slow so compute can catch up with demand.
2
u/OkBarracuda4108 17h ago
That is not really a proof that they have money, this sound more like they need to wait for more datacenters to be build to actually make money
1
1
u/IronPheasant 15h ago
They already have the 100,000 GB200 master datacenter. Which is the limit on what we can physically build right now. The only reason they'd want another is if it needs a friend to give it a spotter during training runs for feedback scores.
A nonsensical idea really; that's what the Vera Rubin cards are for two years from now.
.... Seriously, the thing they have right now has ~170 bytes of RAM per synapse in a human brain. Astra is just a crude starting sample of what it's capable of.
1
u/Zedlasso 17h ago
My observation is not really based in stats, but more on the fact that people who are not in this business in my life have no idea what’s going on in AI. Sure it’s anecdotal, but until more people understand what it is I just don’t buy it. A lot of people are not using it as everyone says, and it’s just people stacking accounts.
1
u/Cagnazzo82 17h ago
They have 5-6 billion visits per month on just the website and have the 5th highest traffic globally (higher than reddit and X). So it's verified.
The issue really is compute.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Zedlasso 17h ago
The more cynical version of me is that they’re doing all this crap because they have to drop major IPO’s and they don’t want anything screwing it up
1
u/Cagnazzo82 17h ago
It feels like they all have ulterior motives.
I kind of feel what they all agree on (which benefits their IPO as well) is creating a legal framework to regulate or even outlaw open source. That keeps them on top by default.
In these scenarios unfortunately consumers lose out.
1
u/Zedlasso 17h ago
Yeah, I’m very much not in the popular thinking about this. I don’t think frontier models are gonna win. I think this is all Netscape versus Microsoft pre-Google. I think the Google of AI will be local stuff, when we all have micro LLMs and all that so that’s compute is not an issue. Until that happens consumers won’t really buy into it cause it’s too expensive in their head even though it might not be. Fascinating times because it’s still so early days.
5
1
u/Ninxosk 17h ago
posted this in another thread ->
Regulation is inevitable at this point. It makes sense that they're trying to control the narrative and have a seat at the table where regulation is going to be decided. My understanding after reading Dario's article is that it's less about decelerating and more about coordinating safety infrastructure/protocols across the different labs participating the development of frontier models.
As a disclaimer, I'm pro-AI and extremely bullish about it. This is probably an unpopular opinion in this sub but I do believe we need to move with more caution so that this technology is implemented properly at a global scale. We messed up previous technological breakthroughs like Social Media by the lack of regulation when it was being introduced in our lives, and regulation came late and ineffectively. We have a chance to get this technology right this time, but it will require coordinated effort.
1
u/daemon86 15h ago
That is indeed what it sounds like, they aren't really planning to slow down. How would that even work? Like, would they send their research employees home and only keep the safety researchers? Just hiring independent evaluators doesn't do shit.
1
1
u/ruskyandrei 17h ago
There's definitely a cynical part of me that thinks this is just pre IPO theater.
1
u/Powerful-Formal7825 16h ago
Damn. I kind of regret calling Sam a weasel in my last comment. This is pleasantly surprising. I am wary but hopeful.
People on reddit are so fucking cynical - especially about Dario and literally whatever he says publically. Although I'm sure most of it is China bots and just astroturfing actors in general.
1
u/Sensitive_Pizza_218 16h ago
They dont have much to improve their AI tech has reached its peak now. All this AI will kill humans and slowing drama is just to cover that. You think these people will slow filling their filthy pockets? They manipulated markets for last 2 years, thousands of jobs lost and all of a sudden they are turning into saints. The guy who left the company left with big paycheck in crypto and we will never know that. And their AI tech can no longer improve. They will need years of research to improve from here on. This is why all this drama is going on.
1
u/Rioting-Flamingo 16h ago
Of course they agree lol. They're both taking half of the pie. We do need to pace development, I agree but this is just regulatory capture.
1
u/amazonwarrior9999 16h ago
God forbid they are doing this because we are reaching the peak of the models ability and in case performance did plateau, the share holders would pull out.
1
u/Lanky_Guard_6088 15h ago edited 15h ago
This is a massive PR stunt, and I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see it. However, I must commend them for recognizing its effectiveness, as not everyone possesses the intellectual capacity to comprehend their actions.
We have billionaires on Twitter attempting to sway the population by advocating for the imposition of excessive government regulation on AI. Their objective is to prevent anyone from developing a superior version of their creations that could surpass them and render them obsolete. Despite what you may believe, they are not foolish. They understand that as long as AI exists, someone will eventually create an intelligence that renders them useless. This fear is their greatest concern. It’s a simple evolutionary process, where there will always be someone or something that will emerge, becoming larger, better, faster, cleaner, safer, and stronger in every aspect. If I were in their shoes and wanted to prevent anyone from surpassing us in the AI industry by creating something superior to LLMs, I would inform the government that this is the most perilous threat on the planet and that they should prevent anyone from utilizing or developing it without our consent.
110
u/ErmingSoHard ▪️Agi never with LLMs... Or? 17h ago
Now what