ixotope's Shortform

ixotope

ixotope's Shortform — LessWrong

ixotope's Shortform

16th Sep 2026

1 min read

2

This is a special post for quick takes by ixotope. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

9 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:03 PM

[-]ixotope8d508

News today that Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google are being sued for alleged anticompetitive behavior in agreeing to slow down development.

Plaintiffs assert that "… antitrust laws do not permit competitors to decide among themselves that competition is too dangerous.“

[-]ajskateboarder8d*7-23

"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.

I appreciate the decoupling here, and I think this is what has made me uncertain about the frontier companies unilaterally agreeing on slowdown (speaking from a first glance and not considering any further motives of the plaintiffs; there are worse possible versions of this statement)

[-]MichaelDickens8d50

Article says there are "four named plaintiffs", but in typical news article fashion, it does not provide any information that could allow me to determine who the plaintiffs are or what their motivation might be. Are these just four random people? What kind of damages do they hope to gain?

[-]Zack_M_Davis8d270

The docket is Buist v. Anthropic, PBC (3:26-cv-10693) in NorCal District Court. The complaint identifies the plaintiffs as follows:

Plaintiff Charles Buist is a resident of Florida. During the Class Period, he personally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. He continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Plaintiff Cheyenne Hunt is a resident of California. During the Class Period, she per- sonally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. She continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Plaintiff Christine Bullock is a resident of California. During the Class Period, she personally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude. She continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Plaintiff Nick Spetsas is a resident of Florida. During the Class Period, he personally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. He continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Best wishes, Less Wrong Reference Desk

[-]_rpd8d21

Nick Rowley, one of the lawyers who filed the suit in the Northern District Court of California on behalf of four plaintiffs, said the case was filed to ensure “private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies” don’t result in AI “quickly spin[ing] out of human control.”

“Humanity deserves iron clad safeguards when it comes to extinction event threats such as nuclear warfare and now the biggest risk to mankind in history,” Rowley said in a statement. “The rule of law should be established transparently and lawfully by our government, with accountability to the public.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/18/anthropic-openai-spacexai-google-sued-over-calls-to-pace-ai-development-01085023

Rowley is playing the AI safety card, but the plaintiffs are all attorneys and ...

the plaintiffs signaled they intend to try to expand the case into a class-action on behalf of others impacted by any decision by the companies to slow down.

they stand to make bank.

[-]less_raichu7d3-9

Actually, I support this lawsuit. The labs have an easier option which is to say they can't scale it because they don't know how, and they're talking with competitors for how to fix the alignment issue and continue scaling, which is not an anti-trust issue. Sam Altman used this language in his 9/16 post: "would be irresponsible to continue scaling at maximum speed for much longer." That's quite a significant admission that he can't.

I strongly prefer they use this because it frames it like anyone who is attempting to build the bad thing is attempting economic destruction and is a crazy person and should be singled out and punished. Our Congress, public, business sector and culture should see this as the only obvious possible coordination point: if try to kill everyone, the state will crush you, the public will scorn you, and investors (who seem to be the hold-up here) will flee you. The current framing is anyone attempting to build the bad thing is a noble capitalist.

[-]ixotope11d185

This morning, Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted

Today, I'm calling to immediately press pause on the development of advanced AI while lawmakers and regulators put systems in place to keep people safe…
We've already seen that the recent calls by AI industry leaders to ‘pace the frontier’ are insufficient, and their suggestions that we must weaken antitrust protections in order to confront the AI threat are transparently self-serving.

By what method does “labs request government intervention to coordinate slowdown, to avoid running afoul of antitrust” (this is my read of Dario’s essay) weaken antitrust and benefit the labs—but “government denies the request and instead coordinates a pause” keep antitrust intact and the labs in check?

Is this a case of posturing? Is Sen. Warren asserting that the government doesn’t take its cues from the private sector? Or am I missing some material difference between these two scenarios?

[-]less_raichu11d20

"Labs request govt..." is not when they wanted to weaken antitrust, that was when they wanted to weaken Sherman Act https://www.wired.com/story/openai-wants-to-know-if-an-ai-industry-slowdown-would-even-be-legal/.

Yes, she's taking credit for their 'pacing' suggestion by saying she wants to go further. I think this is good, because I want Congress to own pacing (or pausing or something else), not merely implement pacing.

[-]phoenix11d23

Warren is highly distrustful of corporations generally, I would be genuinely surprised if an announcement from her didn't have this kind of bent to it. She founded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so the suspicion is on brand for her, warranted or not.

Moderation Log

More from ixotope

Curated and popular this week

9Comments

9 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:03 PM

[-]ixotope8d508

News today that Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google are being sued for alleged anticompetitive behavior in agreeing to slow down development.

Plaintiffs assert that "… antitrust laws do not permit competitors to decide among themselves that competition is too dangerous.“

[-]ajskateboarder8d*7-23

"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.

[-]MichaelDickens8d50

[-]Zack_M_Davis8d270

The docket is Buist v. Anthropic, PBC (3:26-cv-10693) in NorCal District Court. The complaint identifies the plaintiffs as follows:

Plaintiff Charles Buist is a resident of Florida. During the Class Period, he personally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. He continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Plaintiff Cheyenne Hunt is a resident of California. During the Class Period, she per- sonally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. She continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Plaintiff Christine Bullock is a resident of California. During the Class Period, she personally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude. She continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Plaintiff Nick Spetsas is a resident of Florida. During the Class Period, he personally purchased a paid individual consumer subscription to Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. He continues to subscribe and intends to continue subscribing.

Best wishes, Less Wrong Reference Desk

[-]_rpd8d21

Nick Rowley, one of the lawyers who filed the suit in the Northern District Court of California on behalf of four plaintiffs, said the case was filed to ensure “private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies” don’t result in AI “quickly spin[ing] out of human control.”

“Humanity deserves iron clad safeguards when it comes to extinction event threats such as nuclear warfare and now the biggest risk to mankind in history,” Rowley said in a statement. “The rule of law should be established transparently and lawfully by our government, with accountability to the public.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/18/anthropic-openai-spacexai-google-sued-over-calls-to-pace-ai-development-01085023

Rowley is playing the AI safety card, but the plaintiffs are all attorneys and ...

the plaintiffs signaled they intend to try to expand the case into a class-action on behalf of others impacted by any decision by the companies to slow down.

they stand to make bank.

[-]less_raichu7d3-9

[-]ixotope11d185

This morning, Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted

Today, I'm calling to immediately press pause on the development of advanced AI while lawmakers and regulators put systems in place to keep people safe…
We've already seen that the recent calls by AI industry leaders to ‘pace the frontier’ are insufficient, and their suggestions that we must weaken antitrust protections in order to confront the AI threat are transparently self-serving.

Is this a case of posturing? Is Sen. Warren asserting that the government doesn’t take its cues from the private sector? Or am I missing some material difference between these two scenarios?

[-]less_raichu11d20

[-]phoenix11d23

Moderation Log