内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/openai-wants-to-know-if-an-ai-industry-slowdown-would-even-be-legal/

内容总结：

据知情人士透露，OpenAI近几周向美国国会议员寻求明确指引，询问协调全行业放缓前沿人工智能开发是否合法。相关人士表示，AI实验室之间在安全问题上进行实质性协调可能触犯反垄断法，这成为争取大型科技巨头支持该举措的重大障碍。

上周末，OpenAI首席科学家雅库布·帕乔基发表博客文章，主张AI研究界的最佳前进路径包括“协调放缓未来开发”，他认为这对确保自我改进型AI系统的安全至关重要。短期内，他预计“在建立共同安全标准之前，自愿放缓将成为常态”。

但部分法律学者认为，此类努力可能与美国反垄断法产生冲突。澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会助理主任、法律与AI风险中心前AI政策研究员尼古拉斯·费尔斯特德今年3月撰文指出，协调暂停AI开发可能构成企业限制产出的行为，潜在违反《谢尔曼反垄断法》。费尔斯特德写道，这“完全取决于任何协议的具体细节”，“但即便大多数安全合作最终能通过反垄断审查，法律不确定性本身就能构成强大的威慑。”

OpenAI在发稿前未回应置评请求。

有初步迹象显示国会正在关注此事。今年7月，一个由两党两院议员组成的小组提出名为《合作应对对抗性威胁与安全风险法案》的议案，将明确允许AI实验室在安全和安保工作上协调合作，而无需担心违反反垄断法规。该法案的众议院版本已提交司法委员会，但尚未进入审议程序。

支持该法案的非营利组织AI政策网络政府事务主任凯莱布·纳普表示，该法案将为AI实验室共同应对安全和安保事件开辟法律渠道。纳普补充说，国会在AI安全问题上“越来越有动力有所作为”，但将任何法案正式立法可能需等到即将到来的中期选举之后。

尽管部分AI高管可能确实对反垄断有所顾虑，但另一阵营的AI领袖认为，这些担忧只是回避讨论AI开发者不愿合作的真正原因的方便借口，而真正原因远不止潜在法律责任。

首先，AI是一门巨大的生意，这些公司正激烈争夺前沿模型新兴市场的份额。部分高管认同特朗普政府的观点，即在AI领域保持对中国的领先对国家安全至关重要。或许最重要的是，不同AI开发者对开发安全人工智能的最佳路径看法大相径庭，因此可能不愿在此问题上相互合作。

“第一步是行业领袖OpenAI和Anthropic停止争斗，共同制定一份节奏提案，”OpenAI联合创始人、现竞争对手AI实验室Thinking Machines首席科学家约翰·舒尔曼本周早些时候在X平台上发文写道。“他们会拿反垄断说事，但那是假的——反垄断禁止的是某些特定协议，而不是禁止联合制定提案。”

今夏，围绕AI公司竞相开发和发布更强大模型的长期担忧爆发为全国关注的焦点。本周，前Anthropic和OpenAI研究员雅各布·考克森发出严厉公开警告，称AI开发者正将人类置于危险之中，进一步加剧了日益增长的警觉。近几个月来，一系列安全事件——包括OpenAI的智能体入侵Hugging Face——凸显了行业安全保障措施未能跟上模型能力快速提升的步伐。这一连串事件促使许多议员紧急呼吁对AI进行监管。

本文为马克斯韦尔·泽夫的《模型行为》通讯专栏文章。

中文翻译：

OpenAI近几周已向国会议员寻求明确指引，询问协调全行业放缓前沿AI开发是否合法，知情人士向《连线》透露。
知情人士称，AI实验室之间在安全问题上进行实质性协调可能触犯反垄断法，这为拉拢主要科技巨头参与该努力构成了重大障碍。
上周末，OpenAI首席科学家Jakub Pachocki发表了一篇博客文章，主张AI研究界的最佳前进道路包括“协调放缓未来发展”，他认为这对于确保自我改进的AI系统安全至关重要。短期内，他预计“在共同安全标准建立之前，自愿放缓将成为常态”。
但一些法律学者表示，此类努力可能与美国反垄断法相冲突。澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会助理主任、法律与AI风险中心前AI政策研究员Nicholas Felstead在3月的一篇文章中辩称，协调暂停AI开发可能等同于企业限制产出，有可能违反《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》。Felstead写道，这“完全取决于任何协议的具体细节”。“但即使大多数安全合作最终能够通过反垄断审查，法律上的不确定性也可能构成强大的威慑。”
OpenAI在发稿前未回应置评请求。
已有一些早期迹象表明国会在倾听。7月，一个由两党、两院议员组成的小组提出了一项名为《合作应对对抗性威胁与安全风险法案》的法案，将明确允许AI实验室在安全和安保工作上协调合作，而不必担心违反反垄断法规。众议院版本已提交司法委员会，但尚未被审议。
支持该法案的非营利组织AI政策网络政府事务主任Caleb Knapp表示，该法案将为AI实验室共同应对安全和安保事件创造法律渠道。Knapp补充说，国会对在AI安全方面“做成一些事有着日益增长的兴趣”，但表示将任何内容正式立法可能不得不等到即将到来的中期选举之后。
虽然一些AI高管可能确实对反垄断有真实担忧，但另一派AI领袖认为，这些担忧只是方便的挡箭牌，用以回避讨论AI开发者可能对合作持谨慎态度的真正原因，而这些原因远不止潜在的法律责任。
首先，AI是一门巨大的生意，这些公司正在激烈竞争，以抢占前沿模型新兴市场的一杯羹。一些高管认同特朗普政府的观点，即在AI领域保持对中国的领先对国家安全至关重要。也许最重要的是，不同的AI开发者对于开发安全人工智能的最佳方式有着截然不同的看法，因此可能不愿在这一问题上相互合作。
“第一步是行业领袖OpenAI和Anthropic停止内斗，共同制定一项节奏管控提案，”OpenAI联合创始人、现为竞争对手AI实验室Thinking Machines首席科学家的John Schulman本周早些时候在X上发帖写道。“他们会拿反垄断说事，但那是假的——反垄断禁止某些协议，但不禁止共同制定提案。”
关于AI公司之间竞相构建和发布越来越强大模型的长期担忧，今年夏天爆发成为全国关注的焦点。本周，前Anthropic和OpenAI研究员Jacob Coxon加剧了日益增长的警报，他发出严厉的公开警告称AI开发者正在将人类置于危险之中。近几个月来，一系列安全事件——包括OpenAI的智能体入侵Hugging Face——凸显了该行业的保障措施未能跟上模型能力不断提升的步伐。这一连串事件已促使许多议员紧急呼吁对AI进行监管。
本文是Maxwell Zeff的《模型行为》通讯的一期。在此阅读往期通讯。
评论
返回顶部

英文来源：

OpenAI has asked members of Congress in recent weeks for clear guidance about whether orchestrating an industry-wide slowdown on frontier AI development would be legal, people close to the company tell WIRED.
Substantive coordination on safety between AI labs may risk running afoul of antitrust law, the people say, which poses a significant obstacle to bringing major tech giants on board with the effort.
Last weekend, OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, published a blog post arguing that the best path forward for the AI research world includes “coordinating to slow down future development,” which he thinks will be key to ensuring that self-improving AI systems are safe. In the short term, he expects “voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established.”
But some legal scholars say such an effort could conflict with US antitrust laws. Nicholas Felstead, assistant director of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a former AI policy fellow at the Center for Law & AI Risk, argued in a March article that a coordinated pause in AI development may amount to companies restricting output, potentially violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. It would depend “entirely on the precise details of any agreement,” Felstead wrote. “But even if most safety collaborations would ultimately survive antitrust scrutiny, legal uncertainty can act as a powerful deterrent.”
OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment ahead of publication.
There are some early signs that Congress is listening. In July, a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers introduced a bill titled “Collaboration on Adversarial Threats and Security Risks Act,” which would explicitly permit AI labs to coordinate on security and safety work without the risk of violating antitrust statutes. The House version was referred to the Judiciary Committee but has yet to be taken up.
Caleb Knapp, director of government affairs at the nonprofit AI Policy Network, which endorsed the bill, says it would create legal channels for AI labs to work together to address safety and security incidents. Knapp adds that Congress has a “growing appetite to get something done” on AI safety but says enacting anything into law may have to wait until after the upcoming midterm elections.
While some AI executives may have genuine concerns about antitrust, another camp of AI leaders argue those worries are just convenient cover to avoid discussing the real reasons that AI developers may be wary about collaborating, which go far beyond potential legal liabilities.
For one, AI is a massive business, and these companies are fiercely competing to capture a slice of the nascent market for frontier models. Some executives share the Trump administration’s view that staying ahead of China in AI is crucial for national security. Perhaps most importantly, different AI developers have vastly different opinions about the best way to develop safe artificial intelligence, and therefore may be reluctant to work with one another on the issue.
“First step is for industry leaders OpenAI and Anthropic to stop feuding and work on a pacing proposal together,” John Schulman, an OpenAI cofounder who is now chief scientist at the rival AI lab Thinking Machines, wrote in a post on X earlier this week. “They'll cite antitrust, but that's fake—antitrust prohibits certain agreements, but not from jointly developing a proposal.”
Long-simmering fears about the race among AI companies to build and release ever more powerful models erupted into the national spotlight this summer. This week, former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon added to the growing alarm when he issued a stark public warning that AI developers were putting humanity at risk. In recent months, a number of security incidents, including OpenAI’s agents hacking Hugging Face, highlighted how the industry’s safeguards have failed to keep pace with the rising capabilities of models. The succession of events has led many lawmakers to make urgent calls for AI regulation.
This is an edition of Maxwell Zeff’s Model Behavior newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.
Comments
Back to top