It’s not about Anthropic vs. OpenAI anymore

不再只是 Anthropic 与 OpenAI 之争

The U.S. government is set to take an awful lot of control over which AI models get released. Two weeks after the U.S. government pulled Anthropic’s Fable and Mythos models, OpenAI’s new model seems to be headed for the same limbo. The Information broke the news Thursday that GPT 5.6 would be released only into limited preview, with the government approving the release “customer by customer” until a general release can be approved. 美国政府正准备对人工智能模型的发布实施极其严格的管控。在政府叫停 Anthropic 的 Fable 和 Mythos 模型两周后，OpenAI 的新模型似乎也陷入了同样的困境。《The Information》周四爆料称，GPT 5.6 将仅以有限预览版形式发布，政府将采取“逐个客户”审批的方式，直到其获得全面发布的许可。

If that preview only lasts a “couple of weeks,” as Altman reportedly projected, that might not be a particularly big problem. But Mythos has already been in preview for months, and there’s no indication it will make it to general release any time soon. Even a few weeks spent in review could significantly limit the economic upside of a costly new system, at a time when AI labs are trying desperately to improve their bottom lines. 如果正如奥特曼（Altman）所预计的那样，预览期仅持续“几周”，那可能还不是什么大问题。但 Mythos 已经处于预览状态数月，且目前没有任何迹象表明它能很快全面发布。在人工智能实验室正竭力改善财务状况的当下，即便只是几周的审查，也可能严重限制昂贵新系统的经济收益。

If the pace of model development slows as a result, it’s likely to put a similar chill on the ongoing data center buildout. If this goes bad, the entire industry could be at risk. Critically, OpenAI and Anthropic are now in the same exact position with the same problems facing them and the same disaster waiting if they fail. 如果模型开发速度因此放缓，很可能会给正在进行的数据中心建设带来同样的寒意。如果情况恶化，整个行业都可能面临风险。关键在于，OpenAI 和 Anthropic 现在处于完全相同的境地，面临着同样的问题，一旦失败，也将面临同样的灾难。

Conversations within the tech industry tend to focus on the role of one side or another in bringing this on, either accusing Anthropic of running a regulatory capture scheme or accusing OpenAI of cozying up to Trump to ice out a rival. It’s understandable; many of the most prominent people in the industry have billions of dollars riding on one company or the other. But what’s happening now is bigger than that. 科技行业内部的讨论往往倾向于关注某一方在促成这一局面中的角色，要么指责 Anthropic 在搞监管俘获，要么指责 OpenAI 为了排挤竞争对手而向特朗普示好。这可以理解，因为行业内许多大佬都在这两家公司身上投入了数十亿美元。但现在发生的事情远不止于此。

The cost of implementing a haphazard government approval process for every frontier model is obvious, and there’s no fix that helps one lab without helping the others. The most immediate problem is simply establishing a release process that makes sense. It’s fine for the government to test models before release (this is how it works for lots of consumer products) — but as GMU fellow (and soon-to-be OpenAI employee) Dean Ball detailed in an eloquent post this morning, it’s not clear what kind of safety assurances could be put in place to satisfy regulators. 对每一个前沿模型实施随意且缺乏章法的政府审批流程，其代价显而易见，而且没有任何一种解决方案能只惠及一家实验室而不惠及其他。最紧迫的问题在于建立一套合理的发布流程。政府在发布前对模型进行测试是可以接受的（许多消费品也是如此），但正如乔治梅森大学（GMU）研究员（即将入职 OpenAI）迪恩·鲍尔（Dean Ball）今早在一篇雄辩的文章中所述，目前尚不清楚需要什么样的安全保证才能满足监管机构的要求。

The U.S. government doesn’t have the expertise or capacity for the kind of testing that would be needed here. It’s not even clear what regulators would be trying to protect against, since there’s been no effort to articulate what risks the government is actually concerned about. It’s tempting to see the government process as the whole of the problem itself, but there are real concerns underneath. 美国政府并不具备进行此类测试所需的专业知识或能力。甚至不清楚监管机构试图防范什么，因为政府从未明确说明他们到底在担心哪些风险。人们很容易将政府的审批流程视为问题的全部，但其背后确实存在真正的隐忧。

Even if you don’t believe the Mythos hype, there’s clear evidence of how AI tools are revolutionizing cybersecurity. There are similar processes at work in biorisk and alignment. Restricting model releases can’t be the whole answer in itself — that will only limit what’s available to the public — but there are real concerns to be addressed. The best ideas for addressing them, as laid out by Ball, will mean working together. 即使你不相信关于 Mythos 的炒作，也有明确的证据表明人工智能工具正在彻底改变网络安全。在生物风险和对齐领域也存在类似的过程。限制模型发布本身不能解决所有问题——那只会限制公众可获取的资源——但确实存在需要解决的实际问题。正如鲍尔所言，解决这些问题的最佳方案在于通力合作。

It will mean trusting independent groups to guide the process, even if they don’t completely align with your goals. It will mean lining up behind the least-bad regulatory options available, instead of fighting every regulation tooth and nail. And most of all, it will mean fighting for AI as an industry, instead of seeing safety and regulation as opportunities to gain an advantage. 这意味着要信任独立团体来引导这一进程，即使他们的目标与你并不完全一致。这意味着要支持那些相对较好的监管选项，而不是对每一项监管都进行死磕。最重要的是，这意味着要为人工智能作为一个行业而战，而不是将安全和监管视为获取竞争优势的机会。

For a lot of people working in AI, that will be a tough sell. Unfortunately, AI models have progressed to the point where their capabilities have real political consequences. Dealing with those consequences will require collective action. In the weeks to come, we’ll find out if that’s something the industry is capable of. 对于许多从事人工智能工作的人来说，这很难接受。不幸的是，人工智能模型的发展已经到了其能力产生实际政治后果的地步。应对这些后果需要集体行动。在接下来的几周里，我们将拭目以待，看看这个行业是否具备这种能力。