The tech world is having a meltdown over AI safety, and one former antitrust chief thinks the companies asking for help are mostly just scared. Jonathan Kanter, who ran the DOJ’s antitrust division under Biden, sat down with Decoder to talk about why the big AI labs want the government to step in — and why that request might not mean they’re plotting a cartel.
The Request for Antitrust Exemptions
Several researchers working at Anthropic and Google DeepMind have left their posts publicly, warning that the models present genuine dangers and that safety precautions are not being treated with sufficient seriousness throughout the field. Other researchers have estimated that the odds of AI causing our extinction exceed 10 percent. The chief executives of these companies have responded by calling for development to proceed more cautiously and for rules to be put in place, including requests for antitrust exceptions that would allow them to work together on safety concerns.
Kanter heard the requests and saw something simpler. He told Decoder that the companies don’t necessarily like each other. They’re in a prisoner’s dilemma, and they need an outside force to enforce a policy framework. The phrase Dario Amodei from Anthropic is using is to “pace the frontier.”
From Google to Ticketmaster
While serving as antitrust chief, Kanter pursued major antitrust actions against Google, Apple, and Ticketmaster. Working alongside Lina Khan, he oversaw a complete overhaul of American antitrust policy. The victories came against Google and Ticketmaster, while the case against Apple remains active at the Trump DOJ, which has surprised many observers.
A number of unexpected partnerships have developed within the AI discussion since the reboot. A self-described libertarian and a former Trump AI czar, David Sacks, has been giving his stamp of approval to tweets from Lina Khan, arguing that no antitrust exception is necessary.
The Cartel Question
Kanter offered a reading from the most generous to the most cynical, neither of which should result in any sort of antitrust exemption. The generous version is that the companies are afraid of the pace of innovation and the lack of regulation. They don’t know where to drive and they’re worried about hitting somebody else. They’re begging for the government to step in and do something.
The more cynical version is that they’re spending so much money, they’re hemorrhaging cash and they can’t keep this up. Pulling back would affect their valuation as part of the IPO.
Why the Government Might Step In
Kanter views the demand as a real worry. He thinks the businesses genuinely believe the worst-case outcome could end humanity. He’s unsure whether that scenario is correct, but he’s convinced they hold that belief.
The appeal was cast as a demand for plain standards rather than a claim to authority. Businesses carry obligations, and so does the state. It is the state’s duty to establish the rules, while firms ought to obey them.
The State of Play
It is striking how the Trump administration appears to be declining to participate in certain matters, “no,”. That stance is unusual for a federal government, which seldom simply refuses to take part in the way the current administration seems to be refusing to take part.
The companies themselves don’t necessarily like each other. They’re in a prisoner’s dilemma, and they need an outside force to enforce some kind of policy framework. The request for an antitrust exemption comes from a group that doesn’t trust itself.
What Comes Next
The discussion carries on through the second portion of the Decoder series. Kanter intends to look at how regulation could be put into practice, including its possible effects on antitrust law, competition policy, and our dealings with China.
For now, the takeaway is simple: the companies are asking for help because they don’t trust each other. Whether that’s a plea for survival or a bid for control remains to be seen.
Key Facts Box
- Former DOJ antitrust chief: Jonathan Kanter
- Current posts: professor of law at WashU, professor of technology policy at Carnegie Mellon
- Cases won: Google, Ticketmaster
- Case still live: Apple, in the Trump DOJ
- Anthropic researcher exit: noisy and public
- Researcher calls: slow down development, develop regulation, antitrust exemptions for safety coordination
- David Sacks: libertarian, former Trump AI czar, approvingly retweets Lina Khan
Related Questions
- What happens if the government declines to regulate?
- How do companies respond when they can’t coordinate?
- Can the government set rules without creating a cartel?
Kanter’s reading is generous: the companies are scared, and they want help. The cynic’s reading is that they’re broke and they want cover. Either way, the request is a signal that the industry has passed a threshold. It’s asking for rules, and it’s willing to ask publicly.
An outside force is needed to enforce a policy framework because the companies find themselves in a prisoner’s dilemma. The request for an exemption simply signals that dilemma rather than resolving it.
Source material: “Does AI need an antitrust exemption so it doesn’t kill everyone????,” The Verge.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.