25 September 2026
Heard In AI
Daily email

A story we follow

Dario Amodei Publishes 'We Must Pace the Frontier' Essay Calling for Coordinated AI Slowdown

Tracks Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's September 2026 essay 'We Must Pace the Frontier': its three-step proposal (embedded third-party evaluators, coordinated US lab standards with legislation or a narrow antitrust waiver, and escalating international coordination), endorsements by other lab leaders, political reactions including the White House and Congress rejecting a 'cartel' or waiver, related proposals such as Elon Musk's cross-lab testing idea, and the debate over whether it is sincere safety policy or regulatory capture.

A story page follows one specific event across podcast discussions, with an overview and a timeline of what changed. It updates when new episodes discuss the event, and you can get those updates by email or push. How our formats work

Updated

Overview

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a roughly 3,800-word essay, We Must Pace the Frontier, arguing that the industry should deliberately slow capability improvements so safety work can keep up. It proposes three steps: Anthropic unilaterally giving third-party evaluators permanent embedded access; a critical mass of US labs adopting shared standards, enabled by legislation or a narrow antitrust waiver; and escalating international coordination, from a bioweapons ban to a full pause, which Amodei treats as least plausible. According to Moonshots hosts, Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis and Elon Musk endorsed it quickly, while President Trump called it a hoax and China called it a Cold War trick. Alex Wissner-Gross said he coined the term safety cartel and that the White House and the Speaker rejected any cartel or liability waiver; no document was cited for those positions. A later Moonshots episode reported, and played a clip of, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent telling the House Financial Services Committee that labs should not get a blank check on liability, because being held responsible is the best safety guard, and urging Congress not to consider a waiver. Peter Diamandis framed this as the Treasury half rejecting a deal of pacing in exchange for antitrust and liability cover. Dave Blundin objected that the labs never asked for liability relief, only for an antitrust waiver so they could meet to discuss slowing down; the essay itself, as described in the research, raises antitrust waivers and government mediation but not a liability waiver. Views on the panel differ: Wissner-Gross praised Bessent for resisting what he calls a manufactured moral panic or pacing provocation and said labs seeking liability relief want the profits of a private industry without its liabilities; Vlad Tenev said the right liability regime depends on the potential blast radius of harm; Peter said labs must stay responsible for their agents. Earlier readings also differ on whether the essay is sincere safety policy, a clumsy bid for a cartel, or regulatory capture. These remain interpretations.

What changed

Dates show when each podcast discussion was published.

  1. New information

    Moonshots covered the essay's three-step proposal, a clip of Amodei asking government to supervise industry coordination, reported endorsements from Altman, Hassabis and Musk, and what Alex described as White House and congressional rejection of a safety cartel or liability waiver. The panel debated sincerity versus regulatory capture, and discussed Musk's All-In proposal that labs test each other's models before release.

  2. New information

    Moonshots reported that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the House Financial Services Committee that AI labs should not receive a liability exemption, and played a clip of him urging Congress not to consider one. Dave Blundin disputed the framing, saying the labs had only sought an antitrust waiver to discuss slowing down. Alex Wissner-Gross praised Bessent, Vlad Tenev tied the question of liability to the scale of possible harm, and Peter Diamandis argued labs must remain responsible for their agents.

Podcast discussions

Sources

  1. 01
  2. 02
  3. 03
  4. 04

Our coverage

Policy & Power Briefing

Robinhood's Vlad Tenev says AI rules should match the scale of potential damage

On a Moonshots episode recorded September 18, 2026, Robinhood chief executive Vlad Tenev argued that ordinary legal liability may be enough when AI failures are small, but not when the possible damage is catastrophic. He pointed to Robinhood's experience with what he called "probably dozens" of regulators and said AI regulation does not have to mean regulatory capture or an end to progress. Alexander Wissner-Gross objected on two grounds. He argued that AI safety evaluators have an incentive to overstate risk, and that the way nuclear energy was controlled after World War II shows how badly regulation can go wrong. Dave Blundin said the labs had asked for antitrust permission to discuss slowing down, not immunity from liability, and called for clear rules.

10 min read
Policy & Power Briefing

Moonshots panel debates whether Amodei's plan to pace AI is safety policy or a cartel

On a Moonshots episode recorded September 16, 2026, the hosts discussed "We Must Pace the Frontier," an essay by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. The essay proposes three steps: outside evaluators working inside AI labs, coordinated safety standards among US labs through government mediation or a narrow antitrust exemption, and step-by-step international agreements. Alexander Wissner-Gross called the plan an attempt to form a "safety cartel." Dave Blundin said competitors may need legal permission before they can coordinate at all, but he agreed that shared safety rules could shut out startups. The panel also discussed Elon Musk's alternative, in which rival labs would test each other's models before release.

11 min read

Version history

  • 25 Sep 2026 · Version 2

    Moonshots reported that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the House Financial Services Committee that AI labs should not receive a liability exemption, and played a clip of him urging Congress not to consider one. Dave Blundin disputed the framing, saying the labs had only sought an antitrust waiver to discuss slowing down. Alex Wissner-Gross praised Bessent, Vlad Tenev tied the question of liability to the scale of possible harm, and Peter Diamandis argued labs must remain responsible for their agents.

Your privacy

Necessary

Keep forms secure, remember your cookie choice and support editor sign-in.

Always on

Help us see which articles get read and whether readers return. With your permission, we use a random browser ID. We store statistics on our own server for up to 180 days.

Refusing analytics will not change your access to articles or the daily email.

Cookie details · Privacy