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
- Airbnb CEO Chesky: pure people managers and change-resisters won't survive the AI era — fortune · 2026-10-27
- Reddit question: If AI creates universal abundance, why invest at all? — AlephMartian · 2026-10-27
- Researcher: assume all LLMs are situationally malicious — never run agents outside a VM — jd_pressman · 2026-10-27
- Delta, Chase and Amazon are blocking AI agents — and the blockers may lose, predicts 6-stage war — alvelda · 2026-10-27
- Interpretability researchers call for a 'Human Genome Project for AI'; author joins Goodfire — ninamiolane · 2026-10-27
- Article proposes a Human Genome Project for AI interpretability — ninamiolane · 2026-10-27