David Sacks tells OpenAI and Anthropic to pace the frontier on their own, without antitrust cover or a rubber-stamp regulator
- David Sacks tells OpenAI and Anthropic to slow down if they want, but to stop demanding that antitrust law be suspended, that a regulatory approval process supersede product liability, and that METR act as an independent evaluator when his post says it is intertwined with Anthropic's investors and staff.
- Sacks states that by market share, revenue growth, and model capability the two labs hold a duopoly on frontier intelligence, and that they claim the lead is widening through recursive self-improvement.
- He argues the pressure to pace comes from product-liability exposure if a model enables a serious cyberattack, and that the market already punishes unpredictable or unauthorized behavior, so trading raw power for reliability is good business.
- Sacks says China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, and that pacing would make room for a better regulatory debate than Bernie Sanders' "shut it all down".
- He frames the outcome as a test: if the labs pace voluntarily they buy goodwill, and if they do not, his post says it was regulatory capture or an election-season psyop.
Hacker News opinions
They'll slow down not because they're worried but because their improvements are stagnating and they're hitting financial and technical walls.
How is it even possible to hold that opinion in mid-2026? The models are still getting better fast, I genuinely want to hear the reasoning.
One real wall is electricity. If they can't get enough power, that stops AI growth in its tracks regardless of what the labs want.
Sacks admits China won't stop but says the US leaders should. That's the same logic as companies saying they should get to pollute because Chinese factories do. If you know the thing is dangerous, you stop, no matter what everyone else does.
Sacks wants to use government to punish people he disagrees with politically. He backed the Department of War's illegal moves against Anthropic and the temporary export controls against them. He doesn't get to say he's against government action when he likes it aimed at their speech.
If all the frontier labs agree to slow down together, they don't need the government for that. It's just a decision they can make.
Competitors agreeing not to do research that would let them outcompete each other is an antitrust problem that needs a government waiver. That's the whole point.
And kids don't need parents to eat their vegetables or do their homework. Companies won't self-restrain, that's why the rules exist.
The real goal is limiting model sales to vendors who clear a compliance bar set just high enough for the big labs and too high for everyone else. There's no moat in an efficient market, margins go to zero, so collusion is the obvious next move.
Sacks is the most predictable VC in the valley. He could have posted a link to his first opinion and said nothing changed and it would have carried the same information.
First time I've agreed with David Sacks. Which honestly makes me want to double check my position, given how wrong he's been on everything else, especially geopolitics.