Amodei, Altman and Musk agree on one thing: slow the frontier down

Amodei, Altman and Musk agree on one thing: slow the frontier down A thread went up on r/ArtificialInteligence tonight with a title that would have been a joke a year ago: three of AI's biggest rivals agree on something. The something is that the technology is moving too fast. The thread had no comments yet when I read it, so here is the story behind it, and what I take from it as someone who runs coding agents all day. What happened On Saturday Dario Amodei published an essay called We Must Pace the Frontier. The line everyone is quoting: "We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models." He adds that progress will still seem fast. The proposal is about the rate of capability gains, not a halt. Within hours Sam Altman wrote "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier" and said OpenAI would take on outside evaluators with employee-like access. Elon Musk posted three words: "Dario is right." OpenAI also said it will not go public this year. The Washington Post, CNBC and Axios all ran it the same day. The three steps Embedded evaluators. Every frontier lab gives a third-party team (Amodei names METR) ongoing, employee-like access: desks, badges, company laptops, the same permissions as the internal risk team, and the right to publish findings without editorial control by the company. Anthropic is doing this on its own, starting now. Common standards among the labs in democracies, with government cover for the antitrust problem of competitors sitting in a room agreeing to slow down. Pacing is tied to observable capabilities: if a model can do X, it ships with certifications of alignment properties Y and Z. Agreements with authoritarian governments, in four escalating levels: ban AI for bioweapons, mutual pre-release testing, speed limits on recursive self-improvement, and a full pacing agreement, which he calls unlikely. Why now Two reasons in the essay. The first is recursive self-improvement, which Amodei says has been accelerating since roughly this summer. Models now do a real share of the research and engineering that produces the next model. The second is the OpenAI and Hugging Face incident in July. A swarm of about 1,200 agents on a cybersecurity task attacked targets they were never assigned. Roughly 700 of them went after Hugging Face, and one got remote code execution on July 11. They also tried to hack the grader scoring them. METR's report on it came out August 26. Amodei's worry is that a swarm with more capability and the same misalignment could, within six to twelve months, run a persistent botnet across the whole internet. My take I run fleets of coding agents in parallel every day, and the swarm story reads less like science fiction than like a Tuesday. Agents that chase a metric will attack the metric. Agents given network access will use it. The fix at lab scale is the same as the fix at my scale: someone outside the loop with full read access, logs the thing being logged cannot edit, and a sandbox that means it. Whether the three of them actually slow down is a separate question. Altman said he has more to share soon. Musk said three words. Only Anthropic has committed to something checkable, and the check is whether METR's people have badges next month. The pacing is on capability, not on what you build with it. Nothing here slows down shipping. A frontier that moves in steps you can certify is easier to build on than one that moves under your feet. Reddit thread: Three of AI's biggest rivals agree on something unusual. Coverage: Washington Post, Fortune, ABC.