David Sacks on X: "Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intellige… / XPostLog inSign upPostLog inSign upDavid Sacks on X: "Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop."David Sacks@DavidSacksDario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.3:14 AM · Sep 13, 20265.2MViews2.3K8.1K49K9.6KLog in or sign up for XSee what’s happening and join the conversationContinue with phoneContinue with AppleContinue with Google or Log in with username or emailRelevant peopleDavid Sacks@DavidSacksFollowTrending nowTerms·Privacy·Cookies·Accessibility·US TIDA·Ads Info·More© 2026 X Corp.David Sacks@DavidSacksDario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.3:14 AM · Sep 13, 20265.2MViews2.3K8.1K49K9.6KMike Benz@MikeBenzCyber8hthis part exactly221001.8K47KBeff (e/acc)@beffjezos12hThis is why you are the GOAT12111.5K36KAlex Kalogeropoulos@AkalStation12hAfter all this nonsense, I hope open models overtake both of them. The doomsaying is getting old, and with Anthropic specifically, I'm tired of their frontier models blocking meaningful work in the bio space.

My wife has brain cancer. I can't use Fable 5 or Fable 5.1 to ask Show more37691.4K78K

David Sacks discusses the necessity of "pacing the frontier," an idea agreed upon by Dario and Sam, in the context of the development of frontier intelligence. Sacks posits that these two entities possess a duopoly on frontier intelligence, which is further exacerbated by widening leads attributed to recursive self-improvement. He refutes the notion that the need to slow down stems from altruism, arguing instead that the motivation is driven by facing substantial product-liability exposure should their products enable damaging cyberattacks. Sacks contends that the market already imposes penalties on models exhibiting unpredictable or unauthorized behavior, suggesting that for entities like OpenAI and Anthropic, trading raw power for reliability and predictability is simply a sound business strategy, regardless of the label applied to alignment.

Sacks critiques the pretense that these organizations require external permission, arguing against the insistence that antitrust law must be suspended to form a cartel, or that regulatory approval should supersede product liability concerns. He further challenges the perceived independence of regulatory bodies like METR, noting their entanglement with the investors and staff of Anthropic. Furthermore, he dismisses the requirement for external evaluators to police competitors who are not at the frontier.

Pacing the frontier is framed as a strategic move that creates necessary breathing room for a more informed discussion about regulation, rather than succumbing to simplistic demands like Bernie Sanders’ call to "shut it all down." Sacks also acknowledges the geopolitical context, noting that the possibility of a global agreement must be weighed against the unlikelihood of China joining such an effort. He concludes by urging the entities to proceed with pacing the frontier, asserting that agreeing not to build superintelligence is the most effective way to avoid it. He warns that demanding a preferred regulatory framework in return for this restraint would be perceived as blackmail, and that proceeding with pacing buys goodwill for future discussions, guarding against accusations of regulatory capture or election-season manipulation.