I think both presented plans are suboptimal.

However, Dario’s plan is BY FAR the least compelling and non-sensical. I think a constructive discussion should identify issues with current proposals so that we can instead develop something valuable.

Dario’s plan is bad because:

1. It’s blatant window-dressing to monopolize and concentrate power in a field in which, currently, no company has established moat and there is no practical path to create that. Anthropic knows that and doesn’t like that. That is exactly what his incentives are and proposals from him should be viewed through this lens. Just like how SHELL has a clear conflict of interest with progressive proposals on CLIMATE POLICY.

2. It clearly is ineffective in achieving the presented goal of ‘moral alignment’. Chinese labs are open weighting and are 3-6 months behind US labs. What levers does the US currently have to align on this? The answer should be in international diplomacy, but given that Jared Kushner was the US delegate sent to talk about NUCLEAR issues in Iran, one should draw the conclusion that this lever is broken. Any meaningful repair work (which is non-trivial and will take a long time anyway), cannot even start within 2 years.

3. Anthropic is and has long been working with the Department of War on killing machines. Their machines were and are being used in the US war with Iran. This is only shocking to people that read about their news stunt that made Anthropic seem so distinguished. This is what exalted Dario to become the pop-posterboy of an “ethical AI” company. Objectively, guidance based on his moral compass should be challenged and this media campaign should not cloud that. Again, this relates to the earlier point I made that Dario’s for-profit company incentives being fundamentally misaligned with the public interest.

4. Your government, the United States, is authoritarian and that is the biggest threat to any altruistic “moral alignment” endeavours happening there.

Yet, Dario misidentified the state of the system that his company exists and operates within when he wrote:

> “The US and other democratic governments attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments”

A valuable discussion can start when “the US and other” is moved to the part after “coordinate with”.