Does AI need an antitrust exemption so it doesn’t kill everyone????
Does AI need an antitrust exemption so it doesn’t kill everyone????
人工智能是否需要反垄断豁免，以免它毁灭全人类？？？？
Former DOJ antitrust boss Jonathan Kanter on AI slowdowns, competition, and cartels. 前美国司法部反垄断负责人乔纳森·坎特（Jonathan Kanter）谈人工智能的发展放缓、竞争与卡特尔。
Today on Decoder, we’ve got the first of a two-part series on the future of business, and I’m talking with Jonathan Kanter, the former antitrust chief for the US Department of Justice in the Biden administration. These days, he’s both a professor of law at WashU and professor of technology policy at Carnegie Mellon. 在今天的《Decoder》节目中，我们推出了关于商业未来的两集系列访谈的第一部分。我采访了拜登政府时期美国司法部的前反垄断负责人乔纳森·坎特。如今，他既是圣路易斯华盛顿大学的法学教授，也是卡内基梅隆大学的技术政策教授。
The biggest story in tech right now is the spiraling debate about AI safety and regulation. Researchers at the big AI labs including Anthropic and Google DeepMind have quit in noisy ways, saying the models pose real threats and safety isn’t being taken seriously across the industry. Other researchers have said the chance of AI killing us all is greater than 10 percent, and the CEOs of all these companies have issued various calls to slow down development and develop regulation, including asking for antitrust exemptions so they can all coordinate on safety issues. 目前科技界最大的新闻是关于人工智能安全和监管的争论不断升级。包括 Anthropic 和 Google DeepMind 在内的大型人工智能实验室的研究人员纷纷高调离职，称这些模型构成了真正的威胁，且整个行业并未认真对待安全问题。其他研究人员则表示，人工智能毁灭人类的可能性超过 10%。这些公司的首席执行官们也纷纷呼吁放缓开发速度并制定监管措施，甚至要求获得反垄断豁免，以便他们能够在安全问题上进行协调。
That is a lot of ideas, and I am especially curious about the antitrust piece, which has led to accusations that these companies are seeking regulatory capture, attempting to form a cartel, and even somehow finding a way out from investor pressure ahead of their IPOs. 这些观点纷繁复杂，我特别好奇其中的反垄断部分。这引发了外界的指责，称这些公司正在寻求“监管俘获”，试图组建卡特尔，甚至是在 IPO 前夕寻找摆脱投资者压力的方法。
So to make sense of it all, I called Jonathan Kanter. Jonathan brought huge antitrust cases against Google, Apple, and Ticketmaster during his time as antitrust chief, and along with Lina Khan, led what amounted to a full reboot of American antitrust policy. As you’ll hear him say, he won those cases against Google and Ticketmaster, and that case against Apple is still live in the Trump DOJ, surprising many. 为了理清这一切，我联系了乔纳森·坎特。在担任反垄断负责人期间，乔纳森针对谷歌、苹果和 Ticketmaster 发起了重大的反垄断诉讼，并与莉娜·汗（Lina Khan）一起领导了美国反垄断政策的全面重启。正如你将在节目中听到的，他赢得了针对谷歌和 Ticketmaster 的诉讼，而针对苹果的诉讼在特朗普政府的司法部中仍在进行，这令许多人感到惊讶。
That reboot has also led to some surprising alliances in the AI debate — avowed libertarian and former Trump AI czar David Sacks has been approvingly retweeting Lina Khan saying there’s no need for an antitrust exemption. 这种政策重启也在人工智能辩论中促成了一些令人惊讶的联盟——公开的自由意志主义者、前特朗普政府人工智能主管大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）一直在转发莉娜·汗的言论，表示赞同她关于“无需反垄断豁免”的观点。
This is all a lot, and you’ll hear Jonathan and me really get into the weeds of how all this regulation might work, and how it might interact with antitrust law, competition policy, and our relationship with China. Okay: Jonathan Kanter, former DOJ antitrust chief, on AI safety and regulation. Here we go. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. 这一切信息量很大。你将听到我和乔纳森深入探讨这些监管措施将如何运作，以及它们如何与反垄断法、竞争政策以及我们与中国的关系相互作用。好了，前司法部反垄断负责人乔纳森·坎特谈人工智能安全与监管。我们开始吧。本次采访为篇幅和清晰度经过了轻微编辑。
Jonathan Kanter, you’re the former head of the DOJ Antitrust Division in the Biden administration and a current professor of law at WashU and professor of technology policy at Carnegie Mellon. Welcome back to Decoder. 乔纳森·坎特，你是拜登政府时期司法部反垄断部门的前负责人，目前是圣路易斯华盛顿大学的法学教授和卡内基梅隆大学的技术政策教授。欢迎回到《Decoder》。
Always a pleasure to be back. 很高兴能回来。
This is great. You’re a private citizen now. You don’t have to give me the politician answers. 太棒了。你现在是普通公民了，不必再给我那些政客式的回答了。
I can say whatever I want. I feel so free. 我可以畅所欲言，感觉真自由。
I’m very excited about this. 我对此感到非常兴奋。
I plan to as well. 我也打算这么做。
I have a million questions about the state of AI regulation in America right now. There is a swirl of ideas about how we should or should not regulate these companies. There’s the Trump administration whose posture seems to be “no,” which is fascinating. You rarely see the federal government just decline to participate in the way that the Trump administration appears to be declining to participate. And then there’s an incredible backbone of antitrust concern floating throughout all of this. Are these companies trying to form a cartel? Are they aware that maybe their IPOs aren’t going to go the way they want to, so they’re seeking regulatory capture in some way that is good or bad? Are they trying to foreclose cheaper competition from open-weight Chinese models? Give me your sense of just the state of things right now, and then I want to dive into the specifics with you. 关于美国目前人工智能监管的现状，我有一百万个问题。关于我们应该或不应该如何监管这些公司，各种观点层出不穷。特朗普政府的态度似乎是“不”，这很有趣。你很少看到联邦政府像特朗普政府目前表现出的那样拒绝参与。此外，所有这些讨论中都贯穿着强烈的反垄断担忧。这些公司是在试图组建卡特尔吗？他们是否意识到自己的 IPO 可能不会如愿，因此在寻求某种形式的监管俘获？他们是在试图阻止来自中国开源模型的廉价竞争吗？请谈谈你对当前局势的看法，然后我想和你深入探讨具体细节。
The state of the world right now is like we’ve invented cars and trucks, but we have no lines on the road, no traffic lights and no stop signs and no speed limits. We’ve invented this incredibly powerful technology that’s transforming how we live our lives, how we conduct business, how we socialize, how we seek and generate and consume information. We need some basic rules of the road. I think about it on two fronts. What are the things that companies should be doing? And what are things the government should be doing? There are responsibilities on both ends. I’m happy to dive into both. 目前的世界就像是我们发明了汽车和卡车，但道路上没有标线、没有红绿灯、没有停车标志，也没有限速。我们发明了这种极其强大的技术，它正在改变我们的生活方式、商业运作方式、社交方式，以及我们寻找、生成和消费信息的方式。我们需要一些基本的交通规则。我从两个方面来思考这个问题：公司应该做什么？政府应该做什么？双方都有各自的责任。我很乐意深入探讨这两个方面。
Let’s just start with the very notion that asking for regulation necessarily forms a cartel. All the big frontier AI companies — OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, even Elon Musk — do not necessarily like each other. These are people that do not necessarily like each other. They are saying in concert that they should slow down. The phrase that Dario Amodei from Anthropic is using is to “pace the frontier.” My read of this is that they simply do not trust each other, that they are in a prisoner’s dilemma and they need an outside force, most likely the government, to enforce some kind of policy framework on them that they have to agree with. Is that a fair read of just the basics here? 我们先从“要求监管必然形成卡特尔”这一观点谈起。所有大型前沿人工智能公司——OpenAI、Anthropic、Google DeepMind，甚至埃隆·马斯克——并不一定互相喜欢。这些人之间未必和睦。但他们一致表示应该放慢速度。Anthropic 的达里奥·阿莫代（Dario Amodei）使用的词汇是“调整前沿步伐”（pace the frontier）。我的理解是，他们只是互不信任，陷入了囚徒困境，需要一股外部力量（很可能是政府）来强制执行某种他们必须遵守的政策框架。这种对基本情况的解读公平吗？
Kind of. Let me give you my interpretation from the most generous to the most cynical, neither of which, TL;DR, should result in any sort of antitrust exemption. 算是吧。让我从最宽容到最愤世嫉俗的角度给出我的解读，但长话短说，无论哪种解读，都不应该导致任何形式的反垄断豁免。
The most generous interpretation is that they’re afraid of the pace of innovation and the lack of regulation means they don’t see any lines on the road. They don’t know where to drive and they’re worried about driving off the road or hitting somebody else. They’re begging for the government to step in and do something. Probably there’s a modicum of truth to that. I believe they believe it could destroy humanity. I’m not sure that that doomsday scenario is accurate, but I believe they believe that. That’s the more generous version. 最宽容的解读是，他们害怕创新的速度，而缺乏监管意味着他们看不到路上的标线。他们不知道该往哪里开，担心会冲出路面或撞到别人。他们恳求政府介入并采取行动。这可能有一点道理。我相信他们确实认为这可能会毁灭人类。我不确定那种末日场景是否准确，但我相信他们是这么认为的。这是比较宽容的版本。
The more cynical version is that they’re spending so much money, they’re hemorrhaging cash… 更愤世嫉俗的版本是，他们投入了巨额资金，正在大量烧钱……