Post #4748050 · Elektrine

2026-09-18 11:17 UTC

My conclusion is blunt: the unchecked race of ever larger, privately controlled training bets has to stop. I do not mean research, every new model, or the use of LLMs. I mean that this cannot continue as normal. OpenAI and Anthropic appear to recognize at least part of the problem. Some industry leaders have called for pacing the frontier; OpenAI says it would slow or stop when risks cannot be sufficiently safeguarded. But they are riding a tiger, and tigers are unhelpful when asked for safe dismounting instructions. Slowing threatens valuation, funding, talent, market position, and the story justifying infrastructure commitments. Continuing deepens the dependencies. I see no credible off-ramp. If the companies cannot find one, politics and society must build it from outside. The brake cannot depend on the riders alone. We need public rules, coordination, transparency, and a way to absorb the economic consequences. 13/34

Replies (1)

@masek@infosec.exchange 2026-09-18 11:18

I have seen technological dominance disappear before. In 1998, Netscape named me “Partner of the Year.” Netscape appeared to rule the internet. US antitrust records show its browser share falling from roughly 76% in early 1997 to 19% by 2000. The company itself had been acquired by AOL. Where is Netscape today? This is not a prediction that today’s AI leaders will vanish. It is a reminder that technological eternity can be surprisingly short. Market leadership, capital, and cultural inevitability are not the same as durable value. A company can shape an era without owning its destination. That memory makes me skeptical when temporary corporate dominance is used to justify permanent infrastructure, dependency, or public risk. We should govern the transition for society, not build policy around the survival needs of its current leaders. 14/34

Open ##4748114