

It’s because they don’t want any candidates that want to make actual changes, they want to perpetuate the status quo. So radicals get filtered and slandered until no one is left who can fight back. The only time someone else gets through is when they can capture enough public attention that the Dems can’t smear them out of the running.
Or that’s what it looks like from the outside. I haven’t lived in the US in years, so maybe I’m way off nowadays.



















Here’s the thing. We should absolutely not trust any companies with this much power about anything they say, buuuuuuut to play the devil’s advocate here, let’s pretend they are absolutely altruistic.
They are still a company and must compete. Their market edge isn’t dominant enough that they could really take any moral stand like “stop research and development” when there are three other companies who will gladly step into the market leader position, so even if they do believe their message, without any assurances that everyone will agree to pause, they’d just be letting someone else take over their spot for a moral stance for an arguably worse situation.
And realistically, if they weren’t in the lead, people would be saying “loser wants leaders to slow down lol” and if they’re in the lead people will say, “lol market leader wants competition to stop, I wonder why?”. There is really no position they can be in and make the claim without catching flak for it. A year or two ago Anthropic made a similar blog when they weren’t in such a dominant position and comments were exactly like that.
All that said, obviously they’re nearly a trillion dollar company and we shouldn’t take anything they say at face value, but I really do think the message here isn’t terrible (like the article says). We really should be slowing down and looking at the effects of AI. It has too much potential to fuck everything up to not think about it a bit, especially if recursive self-improvement is on the horizon.