Researcher questions frontier pacing pacts: with only two labs, why binding agreements?
scottleibrand · x · 2026-09-11
AI safety researcher deredleritt3r questions a foundational premise of proposed frontier pacing agreements: whose actions are they meant to constrain?
- If the target is OpenAI and Anthropic, that's only two actors — why would a legally binding agreement be desperately needed when each lab can pace its own development?
- OpenAI is already pacing the frontier unilaterally.
- It would be relatively simple for each lab to publish more safety-related work (including details of its own safety measures and incidents prevented) so the other can implement lessons learned.
- Both labs already publish extensive safety materials regularly; expanding this seems easier than new pacts.
The thread argues the mechanism design of pacing proposals remains vague.
More from AGI Musings
- Joshua Gans' three lessons: keep discovery joy, stay self-critical with AI writing — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Economist Joshua Gans reflects on his year-long experiment using AI to accelerate research — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Joshua Gans: ChatGPT 5.2 Pro wrote a full paper in 19 minutes, but quality ideas still matter — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Economist's year-long AI paper experiment: rigorous theory, human insight — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Blogger predicts 2027: every major AI lab will match OpenAI's superintelligence — Dr_Singularity · 2026-09-11
- Four-Color Theorem Gets a Rare New Proof, Revisiting Its Controversial 1970s Computer-Assisted Solution — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-11