Is the Big Tech Cartel Real? The Slowdown in AI Development Raises Questions

A slower pace opens room for speculation about a background deal

According to an analysis by The Verge, the current slowdown in artificial intelligence development is facing growing skepticism. What major market players present as a responsible approach to safety and alignment with long-term risks is beginning to be perceived differently by parts of the expert community. Concerns are emerging that under the guise of protecting society, a silent cartel is forming aimed at cementing the current distribution of power in the market.

These speculations are based on the fact that the costs of developing state-of-the-art models are growing exponentially. A joint approach and artificially slowing the pace could thus represent a more economically advantageous strategy for the giants than an endless arms race.

For open-source and startups, such a cartel would pose a threat

If it turns out that efforts at safety regulation are motivated more by protecting market share, it will have drastic consequences for innovation. Setting overly strict and financially costly certification processes for AI development would effectively cut smaller companies and open-source initiatives off from the ability to compete at the cutting edge of development.

This approach would create an environment where the future of technology is decided by a narrow group of corporations that designed the rules of the game for themselves. Innovative pressure would decrease, and the market would centralize around a few dominant infrastructures.

The line between safety and monopoly is very thin in practice

The responsibility for developing safe systems is undeniable. However, distinguishing a genuine effort to protect against existential risks from an effort to maintain a monopoly is difficult. Large tech companies have both the financial resources and political influence to define what safety means in practice. And it is likely that this definition will primarily suit them.

This conflict of interest is the main reason why many independent researchers are calling for greater transparency and the involvement of the broader public in the standard-setting process.

Forcing transparent audits will reveal the companies' true motivations

The proof of whether this is a sincere effort for safety or building a monopoly will be the willingness of large companies to submit their models to independent audits. If they allow external experts and government agencies to oversee testing and data sharing, they will confirm their commitment to the public. If, however, they insist on a closed ecosystem and internal controls, suspicions of a cartel agreement will only grow.

Lilith's verdict

Regulation is a useful brake for billionaires right when someone smaller is lacing up their running shoes in front of you.