一起针对 4 家 AI 前沿实验室的集体诉讼已在加州联邦法院提起,指控其协调限制 AI 开发违反《谢尔曼法》第 1 条。诉状把这一协同追溯到 9 月 12 日,Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei 呼吁行业协调限制 AI 进展,同日 3 家竞争对手的高管公开支持该提议的部分内容。
Some key language from the class action lawsuit that was filed against the 4 AI Frontier Labs
- “The antitrust laws do not permit competitors to decide among themselves that competition is too dangerous. Whether frontier AI should develop more slowly is a question for each company acting alone, or for Congress and the agencies.”
- “A firm that slows alone loses customers, revenue, and technological leadership to rivals that keep going. Amodei’s proposal solved that problem the way cartels always have: by agreeing to slow together, so that no participant bears the competitive cost of restraint.”
- “An agreement that slows improvement lowers the quality of what subscribers receive for the price they pay. That is an overcharge, and it is an injury of the kind the antitrust laws were enacted to prevent.”
A new class action lawsuit just filed, suing 4 AI frontier labs over the alleged "AI slowdown" pact. Filed in California federal court, it says coordinated limits on AI development violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint traces the alleged agreement to September 12, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei urged industrywide coordination to limit unchecked AI progress. And then executives at 3 rival frontier companies publicly supported parts of that proposal the same day, which plaintiffs characterize as acceptance of a common restraint. Their argument treats slower capability growth as reduced output because paid subscribers expect continuing improvements in reasoning, coding, agents, context windows and other features. The plaintiffs say a company slowing independently risks losing customers, revenue, talent and technological leadership, while collective restraint could remove that competitive penalty. They seek to represent a nationwide class of people paying for 4 major AI assistants and are requesting an injunction plus treble damages. The filing also stresses that plaintiffs are not challenging unilateral safety testing, outside evaluations, environmental safeguards or government regulation. Ofcourse, the lawsuit remains an allegation, and public statements supporting similar safety goals do not by themselves establish that competitors formed an unlawful agreement.在 X 查看被引用的帖子
来源:@rohanpaul_ai · x.com