Nathaniel Whittemore

It would change who the frontrunner is, but would not create the wider deliberative process that is currently missing.

In the coming months, we will organize conversations where policymakers, researchers, civil society, and other AI companies can help answer some of the questions this piece raises, especially around full recursive self-improvement and how to create better options for coordination and deliberation.

The window to investigate the questions together is here, and people outside AI companies should be involved in this deliberation.

Now, the responses to this fully run the gamut.

Some in the AI safety community are thrilled.

The AI safety memes account sums up, wholly blank, let's blanking go.

Yet others, like If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies co-author Nate Suarez writes, one big quibble is that they aren't thinking big enough.

The tone reads like, RSI could happen, but don't fret too much, it'll probably be fine, rather than OMFG, we're possibly on the brink of AIs that make smarter AIs.

Society needs to act.

Others, though, find that the whole thing kind of leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Sean Ralston writes, No way that Anthropic slows or temporarily pauses frontier AI development.

What an insincere and silly sentiment.

If they really feel that way, then let them act that way.

Corey Quinn writes, Asking your competitors to pause development right after you file your S1 is the single most effective moat-building exercise I've seen pitched as ethics.

Did they not realize the quiet period is for them, not homework they assign their competitors?

Now, there's an even broader critique of Anthropic that recently came out on the All In podcast from legendary investor Bill Gurley, who spent 30 days reading everything that Anthropic had ever written, coming to the conclusion, I don't think they're writing software.

I think they're midwifing a deity here.

I don't know which one I'm more afraid of, the regulatory capture or this Dr. Frankenstein theory.

Jason Kalkanis chimed in, Now, even if you don't think that that's exactly what's happening, the fact that that idea is coming up in mainstream conversation will give you some idea why the public discourse gets so frustrated with these companies who talk about the huge implications of their work and yet proceed on with it at an ever-increasing pace.

Former AI czar David Sachs wrote,