Cato: AI Pause Would Shield Dominant Firms, Not Safety — SkimNews
Get the Tech newsletter
Daily tech — startups, AI labs, chips, the launches that shape the next decade. Free.
- Cato Institute's Jennifer Huddleston argued in a Monday blog post that a government-mandated AI pause would likely fail to improve safety, could shield dominant companies from competition, and would risk weakening U.S. cybersecurity while foreign rivals advance.
- Jack Dorsey, Block's chairman and co-founder, posted on X Monday opposing industry-wide limits negotiated by current AI leaders, saying such rules could create barriers to entry and preserve commercial advantage rather than serve safety.
- Dorsey said he supports independent testing, publicly accountable enforcement, and open releases that allow researchers to inspect models, accepting restrictions only when evidence shows a release would materially increase catastrophic risks.
- Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar have proposed pausing advanced AI development until federal safety standards exist and permanently banning artificial superintelligence.
- OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has backed slower development and urged companies to strengthen safeguards without waiting for the federal rules he supports.
- A recent Atlantic Council analysis argued competitive pressure demands enforceable AI safety standards, while U.S.–China distrust complicates international cooperation.
- OpenAI has asked lawmakers whether rival developers could legally agree to slow development, raising antitrust questions about industry-wide coordination.
Why it matters: Cato's pushback lands as Sanders and Casar push legislation to pause advanced AI entirely, while Altman's OpenAI has separately asked lawmakers whether competitors could legally coordinate on slowing development—so the companies most associated with frontier AI are now central to a debate that could either entrench their dominance through regulation or force binding federal standards on the industry.
Ask SkimNews
