Decoder with Nilay Patel Sep 19, 2026 46m 21m saved
With Jonathan Kanter, former head of the DOJ Antitrust Division and professor of law at WashU and professor of technology policy at Carnegie Mellon
David Sacks, who was President Trump's AI czar, has been approvingly retweeting Lina Khan, the former Federal Trade Commission chair, on why the AI companies do not need an antitrust exemption.
The AI companies asking Washington for that exemption say they need it to coordinate on safety. Jonathan Kanter said the antitrust laws already allow everything they claim to want, and that a deal to slow down is the one thing the laws would actually catch.
"Let me just be very clear, these companies do not need to coordinate in order to deliver safe and secure products to society."
Jonathan Kanter, former head of the DOJ Antitrust Division, on Decoder, brought the government's cases against Google, Apple and Ticketmaster. He beat Google in court twice, survived a motion to dismiss on Apple, and won the Ticketmaster case in front of a jury. He now teaches law at WashU and technology policy at Carnegie Mellon.
The full interview is covered here so you can skip it. 46 minutes of audio, 25 minutes of reading.
Here are the 16 arguments that matter.
Key Takeaways
No antitrust exemption is needed, because sharing threat data and building safer products was never what the antitrust laws prohibited
What they do prohibit is two companies agreeing they are competing too hard
The cynical reading is that the labs are hemorrhaging cash and want permission to stop spending before they go public
Companies should be liable for what their AI agents do, on the same footing as an employee who breaks into someone else's property
His phrase for taking a product off the market is "robot jail"
China is "largely a convenient boogeyman" — he compares it to AT&T arguing it should not be broken up because of the Cold War
The products liability case against Meta took a decade to work, which he calls the reason government has to step in
Congress is the blockage, and he traces it to gerrymandering and Citizens United rather than to any one party
The states have done a better job than the federal government, against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI rules
The New Deal era is over and what replaces it is undecided, including the agencies that would have written AI rules
The biggest antagonists of the big tech companies are other tech companies, which he says outsiders rarely see
1. No Lines on the Road
The host opened by asking for the state of AI regulation in America, listing the readings on offer: that the companies are forming a cartel, that they are seeking regulatory capture before their IPOs, or that they want to shut out cheaper open-weight Chinese models. Kanter answered with an image he came back to all hour.
He describes a road system with no rules on it
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.
Jonathan Kanter
The technology, he said, is changing how people live, work, socialize and find information, and the response has to come from two directions at once.
He splits the problem into company duties and government duties
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?
Jonathan Kanter
2. Generous vs. Cynical
The host laid out his own reading first. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind and Elon Musk do not necessarily like each other, he said, yet they are saying in concert that development should slow — the phrase Dario Amodei of Anthropic uses is to "pace the frontier." His theory is that they do not trust each other, are stuck in a prisoner's dilemma, and want an outside force to hold them to a deal. Kanter said "kind of," then gave two readings of the same behavior.
Neither reading justifies an exemption
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.
Jonathan Kanter
The generous version, on his account, is that the companies are genuinely frightened of the pace of their own work and want someone to tell them where the road is.
He thinks they believe their own doomsday talk
Probably there's a modicum of truth to that — I believe they believe it could destroy humanity. I'm not sure that doomsday scenario is accurate, but I believe they believe that.
Jonathan Kanter
The cynical version is about money rather than safety.
The cynical reading is cash burn ahead of an IPO
The more cynical version is that they're spending so much money, they're hemorrhaging cash and they can't keep this up, but if they pull back, it's going to affect their valuation as part of the IPO.
Jonathan Kanter
What he says they are really asking for is permission to stop spending
So they would like somebody to give them all permission to stop spending so much money and slow the pace of innovation so that they don't have to compete as hard, so they can figure out their economics before they go public.
Jonathan Kanter
3. No Exemption Needed
Asked whether an agreement among all the top players in a field automatically forms a cartel, Kanter said that risk is real, then separated the coordination that is necessary from the coordination that is not.
Safety does not require coordinating with a rival
Let me just be very clear, these companies do not need to coordinate in order to deliver safe and secure products to society.
Jonathan Kanter
His example is aircraft manufacturing. A door coming off a Boeing plane was not a problem Boeing and Airbus had to solve together, and a car that catches fire is not the other car maker's engineering failure.
Boeing did not need Airbus to keep its doors on
Think about this: imagine Boeing and Airbus. Boeing fears doors falling off the plane. It wasn't Airbus's fault and they didn't need to slow down innovation with Airbus in order to prevent those doors from flying off the plane.
Jonathan Kanter
He does accept that some joint work on safety and security is legitimate — a clearinghouse where companies share threats and malicious bots, of the kind other industries already run. His point is that none of it needs a change in the law.
Sharing threat data is already lawful
Those are the kinds of collaboration that happen in other industries, and you don't need an antitrust exemption, because the antitrust laws don't prohibit that kind of work.
Jonathan Kanter
What the antitrust laws would catch, he said, is two companies agreeing that they are competing too hard and need to slow down. That is the one thing an exemption would cover, and the one thing he said should not be covered. His proposal for the consequence side runs to taking a product off the market.
He wants a penalty that removes the product, not just the profit
If you don't build a safe and secure product, then perhaps there should be robot jail for your agents and it should be taken off the market.
Jonathan Kanter
4. Liability for Your Agent
The host said he had told his wife, a lawyer, about the interview, and that she called the whole subject a nightmare law school hypothetical. He put the concrete version of it to Kanter: if he directs an AI agent to attack someone and it does, is the company that built the agent at fault? Kanter's answer was that the existing rule about employees carries over.
An agent that breaks into someone's property is the company's problem
Companies employ people and they build technology. When those people and those technologies do things that are problematic, including stealing or breaking into someone else's property on behalf of their employer, there's liability, and that can be products liability, but it could be more than products liability.
Jonathan Kanter
Earlier in the same answer he had drawn the comparison directly: an AI agent that hacks someone else's system is, in his words, no different from an employee sent to do the same thing, whether the agent is digital, binary, artificial or human.
The most recent proof he cites is the Meta case
And the products liability framework actually did work most recently in the case against Meta for Facebook and Instagram and child safety and security and mental health.
Jonathan Kanter
5. The Meta Lesson
The host stopped him there, because the products liability route took ten years to produce a result. Kanter agreed, and said the delay is the argument for government acting.
The decade it took is the problem, not the proof
That's the problem! This is where the government needs to step in. Companies have an obligation today to build safe and secure products, and the pace of innovation isn't an excuse not to go do that.
Jonathan Kanter
The host filled in the rest of the Meta story: the company settled rather than appeal, after losing one case to a jury, and there is a view that it might have won on First Amendment grounds had it fought on. His question was whether this is the moment to write the liability into statute rather than wait for another decade of litigation.
Kanter said the companies asking for rules are working against them at the same time.
They lobby against the regulation they say they want
While these tech companies are out there saying that they want regulation, they're actively lobbying against it and have been for a very long time.
Jonathan Kanter
His answer to the pace-of-innovation defense was blunt, and he framed safety work as innovation rather than a brake on it.
If the product would destroy humanity, he says do not ship it
If you believe your product is going to destroy humanity, then don't build it.
Jonathan Kanter
He calls the current pattern asymmetric innovation
Right now, innovation is asymmetric, because it's done without the proper regard for safety and security, just like we saw in social media.
Jonathan Kanter
The result in social media, on his account, is products that are very good at letting people communicate and very bad on childhood addiction and mental health.
6. Congress Can't, States Can
Asked to compare today with the social media era, Kanter said the ground has moved. Fifteen to twenty years ago the legal backdrop pushed the other way.
Section 230 gave online companies room to innovate without consequences
15–20 years ago, we had Section 230, which actually granted massive amounts of immunity to online companies, which actually made it harder to sue them and gave them more flexibility to innovate without regard for consequences.
Jonathan Kanter
He was careful to say the hands-off posture was not a partisan one, tracing it back through the Obama administration, and described a period in which Silicon Valley was allowed to set up camp in Washington and help write, or not write, the rules. The cost of that, he said, is that the public no longer trusts technology companies at all. He put the current mood in a phrase.
The public reached fool me twice
One of the reasons we're having this conversation a lot earlier in the process now is because people are saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Jonathan Kanter
The good news, he said, is greater public awareness. The problem is a Congress he described as unresponsive, which is why he thinks products liability is doing work that legislation should be doing. He pointed to state governments as the exception.
The states have outperformed the federal government
But the other piece is the states — the states have actually done a better job than the federal government.
Jonathan Kanter
He recalled that six months to a year ago, members of Congress proposed a 10-year moratorium on state AI rules while offering no federal rules of their own, and said he hopes that moment has passed.
His read of the polling
The polling data is clear that the American public does not trust these companies, does not like these products, and is afraid of the consequences to come, even if those consequences are hazy in the long term.
Jonathan Kanter
When the host said the consequences do not look hazy in the short term, Kanter agreed and turned it into a criticism of how the industry talks about itself.
His summary of the industry's own pitch
They have effectively said, "We're going to destroy all your jobs and potentially destroy humanity, but we're going to IPO for a massive valuation and we're going to set up camp in your local communities with data centers, which by the way, don't employ people and drive up the cost of power. But, it's okay. China."
Jonathan Kanter
7. Sacks Retweets Khan
The host raised the political alignment he finds hardest to explain: David Sacks, Trump's AI czar, approvingly retweeting Lina Khan, Kanter's former counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission, saying the existing antitrust laws are enough and no exemption is needed. Kanter called it a realignment of a realignment.
He traced it to Trump's first term, when the two ends of the political horseshoe began to meet on the power of big technology companies. He and Khan came into office with a mandate and public support, the backlash followed, the second Trump administration was friendlier to the companies than the first, and now he sees that breaking again. Then he described what one day in September looked like.
A day that he says looks like nothing before it
But if I was to describe to you a day in which David Sacks is approvingly retweeting Lina Khan, while Bloomberg columnist Joe Weisenthal is saying "All these people are just saying Lina Khan was right about the power of cartels" — and hours later, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon are sharing a stage in DC calling for a dead stop of AI development — that doesn't look like anything that we've seen before.
Jonathan Kanter
He added that the scrambling is not new to him. At his oversight hearings he had support from Senators Mike Lee, Chuck Grassley and Josh Hawley, while Matt Gaetz asked whether he was tired of winning. Some of the Democrats who criticized him, he said, were close to the big technology companies.
8. Little Tech vs. Big Tech
The part outsiders miss, on his account, is who actually brings the complaints.
The loudest opponents of big tech are other tech companies
The fight between little tech and big tech — this is the part that I think a lot of folks don't see from the outside, but the biggest antagonists of the big tech companies are the other tech companies.
Jonathan Kanter
He told the story of a speech he gave to the Chamber of Commerce while in office, where he brought a box of fake mustaches and glasses and thanked the audience, because its members kept coming in to help the division build its cases and did not want to be seen doing it.
His rule about who dislikes a monopolist
But the truth of the matter is most people hate the monopolist unless you're the monopolist, and companies want the opportunity to compete on the merits and win or lose on the merits of their own innovations and their own business acumen.
Jonathan Kanter
He said the data center issue is not left or right but all of the above, and that this makes the present moment healthier than the social media era, when criticizing those companies was treated as a fringe position. The public does not want development stopped, on his reading, and he named Bernie Sanders as wanting a complete stoppage that he called unrealistic. One further distinction separates the two eras.
The social media founders never said they might kill everyone
I do think one notable difference between now and what happened with social media companies is that the people who ran Twitter and Facebook and YouTube did not run around saying they might kill everyone.
Jonathan Kanter
Those companies, he said, marched under the banner of the righteous and promised to bring democracy to the Middle East. The AI companies promise to cure diseases and deliver what he called luxury communism, while also saying that unrestrained competition might produce very bad outcomes.
9. China as Boogeyman
Asked whether the China threat is real, a convenience, or something competition law can address, Kanter chose the second.
His verdict on the China argument
It's largely a convenient boogeyman.
Jonathan Kanter
His precedent is the breakup of AT&T. The company argued to the Reagan administration that winning the Cold War required one strong national telecommunications network, and the administration rejected it. He then argued that China is not running the policy the AI companies say America has to match.
China restricts what America is being told to allow
Also, just let's be very clear, China is not doing what we're doing. China limits the way in which kids can interact with technology. China censors what people see in its borders.
Jonathan Kanter
He added that China centrally manages many of its corporations through state-owned and state-influenced enterprises.
His version of how the competition is actually won
The way we win, whatever that means, against China is to make sure that we are delivering great innovations and products that benefit society, that we are protecting people from harmful uses of those products, and then we're allowing a free market to function within those constraints.
Jonathan Kanter
10. No Monopoly at Home
The host asked for a framework connecting domestic competition law to foreign policy, given the fear that cheap-to-run open-weight Chinese models could flood the American market. Kanter's framework starts with aggressive competition inside the United States, foreign entrants included.
Monopolies at home are not a tool of foreign policy
The idea that we need monopolies at home in order to compete abroad is antithetical to our way of life.
Jonathan Kanter
He took the argument back to the founding, describing the Boston Tea Party as a revolt against a British monopoly over the necessities of life, and said economic freedom is part of what American freedom means.
He did allow that dumping is a real question, and one this administration is raising. His illustration was a case from the 1980s that he had been reading with his law students, in which Japanese companies were alleged to have fixed television prices at home to fund below-cost selling in the United States and drive out domestic manufacturers. The Supreme Court, at the height of the Chicago school, found no antitrust violation.
He calls the court's reasoning in that case cockamamie
The Supreme Court actually used some cockamamie version of economics to suggest that wasn't an antitrust violation, and set the stage for what happened next.
Jonathan Kanter
Fair trade questions do not license domestic monopolies
But the way to deal with that question is not to allow monopolization of our markets domestically in order to compete abroad. That's just an excuse.
Jonathan Kanter
11. National Champions
The host put the skeptical listener's case to him: it is already a monopoly, Nvidia has financed the whole circle, and no products liability theory will ever be tested because OpenAI will not sue Hugging Face when Nvidia has bought Hugging Face and is the largest investor in OpenAI. Kanter said somebody should be looking at exactly that, and that it is what his division had started to do.
He says the administration is choosing dominance on purpose
This administration has taken the position that we're going to allow a small number of companies to reach a level of dominance, or oligopoly, or monopoly, so that we can beat China, whatever beating China means.
Jonathan Kanter
National security and infiltration by foreign systems are real problems, he said, and should be handled as security and foreign policy questions rather than by tolerating monopolies whose duty runs to shareholders. He then noted how far the government has gone the other way: direct federal investments in American companies, and talk of a sovereign wealth fund based in crypto.
More coordination between government and industry than he expected
There's more coordination between the government and private industry in a Republican administration than you would ever expect in history.
Jonathan Kanter
When the host said the approach amounts to national champions, Kanter agreed and said the administration is simply not saying it out loud.
His contrast between two national models
China is a country of national champions. The United States is not a country of national champions. The United States is a country where anyone could grow up to be a champion.
Jonathan Kanter
He said the policy will be harder to undo the longer it sets, and was careful to place himself on the pro-market side of the argument.
He calls himself a card-carrying capitalist
Again, this is not anti-business or anti-market, just to be very clear — I'm a capitalist, I'm a card-carrying capitalist, I'm proud to say I am.
Jonathan Kanter
His objection is concentration, not size
We are more vulnerable when we have central points of failure, and we are less free when we have a small number of companies that are telling us how to live our lives.
Jonathan Kanter
12. The New Deal Era Ends
With the midterm elections weeks away, the host asked whether the positions of the median Republican and the median Democrat on this issue are compatible, at war, or a scramble. Kanter said a scramble, and rejected the idea that his own views are 1990s conservatism.
The conservatives of the 1990s, he said, wanted the competition policy that built the country between the 1940s and the 1970s thrown away so industry could consolidate. It did consolidate, and he blames that for part of what he called the K-shaped economy, in which opportunity is not widely available.
Party labels will not mean the same thing in 15 years
We are living through the transformation of our politics and our ideals, and Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and progressives and all these other different flavors will not mean in 15 years what they meant 15 years ago.
Jonathan Kanter
He described two endings running at once. The Reagan era of neoliberal policy, roughly the 1980s to the 2010s, is being rejected by both left and right. The larger one is older.
He says the New Deal era is finished
The other thing that's happening, that is even more fascinating, is we have been living in the New Deal era for nearly 100 years. That era is over, and what comes next is a jump ball, but it's over in terms of the role of government, the role of policy, the role of our international relations.
Jonathan Kanter
That matters for AI because of what it removes. Fifty years ago, he said, the response would have been a department for AI safety writing rules and staffing an inspection function, and the Supreme Court has thrown that model out.
What replaces the agency is the president's daily preference
Now we have an executive branch that basically decides on its whims what it wants to do on a daily basis.
Jonathan Kanter
He summarized Trump's position as needing a great president rather than a regulator. The host's reply was that the job being described is regulation, so the sensible move is to hire people to do it. Kanter pointed to a New York Times piece by a friend of his, Dave Lawrence, making the same point: the court told agencies not to answer major questions, then allowed the executive branch to answer them with no process and little structure, which he said is what produces regulatory capture.
13. The Cases He Won
The host framed the final stretch around Kanter's own record — the enforcement revival that some called hipster antitrust and academics called neo-Brandeisian, built on theories that did not turn on consumer prices. Kanter's first response was a joke about his hairline. His second was a list.
His account of what the division actually won
Successfully. We won our cases. Our cases on the law won. We beat Google in court twice. We survived our motion to dismiss on Apple. We put together a Ticketmaster case that, even when the Trump administration tried to settle it, actually won in front of a jury in court.
Jonathan Kanter
He added that the division brought cases on algorithmic pricing in healthcare, and said it fought for the public because the public wanted someone to fight for it. When the host pointed out that the settlements in the Google cases did not deliver what he had argued for, Kanter drew a line between winning and remedy.
He presided over the victories, not the remedies
Not the settlements, the remedies — which I did not preside over. I presided over the victories. We handed the baton over to the next administration. The remedies were admittedly disappointing.
Jonathan Kanter
His claim about the state he left the field in
But it doesn't change the fact that we changed the game. We changed the approach, and the state of antitrust law and the state of competition policy was a heck of a lot better when we left it than when we started.
Jonathan Kanter
14. The Next Inflection Point
Asked about the view in tech policy circles that the whole effort failed because it produced no structural change, Kanter said it is not a failure and that the job is unfinished. The difficulty, he said, is the one he had described earlier: markets are harder to open after they harden.
What he says enforcement should be protecting
I've always been fond of saying that what you really want to do is you want to protect the next inflection point.
Jonathan Kanter
Disruption is where competition has the most to offer and where incumbents fight hardest, he said, and the fact that people on the left and right are already worried about oligopoly is itself a change from six or seven years ago.
The host observed that the conversation has flipped: the last time Kanter was on the show they discussed the case against Apple and the App Store, and now the AI companies are the challengers who might disrupt Apple's interface, with Jony Ive building hardware at OpenAI and Apple suing. Kanter's answer was a warning about that role.
Today's challenger is tomorrow's monopolist
The challengers of yesterday are often the monopolists of today. I'm not against the challengers, let me be very clear — this is why I'm against the antitrust exemption. I want them to keep pushing hard. I want them to keep competing.
Jonathan Kanter
He said he would also like to see domestic open-source or open-weight models thriving as competitors, and defined the goal as protecting the small players rather than handicapping the large ones.
15. Gold Bars and Apple
The host said he finds it strange that the Trump administration has not settled the Apple case, which is still running, and asked whether Apple simply cannot buy its way out. Kanter said he finds it surprising too.
His one-line explanation of the surprise
It is surprising. The guy showed up with gold bars to the White House. If that doesn't do it, what will?
Jonathan Kanter
Pressed on whether the case survives because it is strong or because it is useful leverage, he said he has no idea, and then gave his view of its merits.
His assessment of the case he brought
I have no idea. It's a strong case. It's a good case.
Jonathan Kanter
Told he is no longer a politician and can say what he thinks, he laughed and repeated the gold bars line. His serious answer was about the companies on the other side.
The countervailing force is everyone the monopolist annoys
I mentioned before that for every monopolist, you have dozens of other companies, if not hundreds, that are upset with the monopolist.
Jonathan Kanter
Those companies, he said, are frustrated with the tactics the government's complaint accuses Apple of using to control and exploit its market, and he guesses that pressure is part of why the case has not gone away.
16. His List of Prescriptions
Asked how he would organize his own list of prescriptions if he were setting policy, Kanter started with consequences rather than with rules.
He would start by making the consequences clear
I would start with clarity around consequences for bad things. If you build dangerous products, if your door flies off your plane while it's in the air, if your AI breaks into someone else's company, you should be held responsible.
Jonathan Kanter
The second step is for Congress to write down what the country is protecting, which he said is the part that gives everyone advance notice of what is allowed.
The four things he says Congress should name as values
We value mental health. We value competition. We value authenticity of information. We value intellectual property and copyright of content owners.
Jonathan Kanter
Those values, he said, have to be built into the lines on the road, the stop signs and the traffic lights, so that the rules are known at the outset. His closing line on whether that will happen was two words: we'll see.
Bonus Insights
He does not accept the hipster label
Told that his approach had been called hipster antitrust, Kanter answered with his appearance.
Just look at my hairline. I'm far from a hipster.
Jonathan Kanter
The host's grocery store comparison, and what Kanter did with it
The host contrasted the idea of a city government owning a couple of grocery stores in New York with the federal government taking stakes in national technology infrastructure, and asked what the latter sounds like. Kanter's reply was that the administration calls everyone else communists while doing it, and that the grocery stores are, by comparison, a huge threat to the American way of life.
He ended on 1,000 flowers
I'm for the 1,000 flowers blooming inside the borders of the United States.
Jonathan Kanter
The safety work is the innovation
Told that liability slows progress, Kanter said building a product that does not break into other people's systems is itself an engineering problem.
Guess what? That's innovation. These are innovation problems, not just regulatory problems.
Jonathan Kanter
The argument he leaves behind is that the AI companies want an exemption from a law that already permits the safety work they describe. The coordination such an exemption would actually protect is an agreement to compete less hard, and that is the one thing he thinks the public should not give them.
Products, Companies & Tools Mentioned
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind (The frontier labs the host says are calling in concert for a slowdown, using Dario Amodei's phrase "pace the frontier," despite not necessarily liking each other)
ChatGPT and Claude (The host's example of the liability question: whether OpenAI and Anthropic are already responsible for what their products do)
Meta, Facebook and Instagram (The products liability case on child safety and mental health that Kanter says proves the framework works, and that the host says took a decade and ended in a settlement)
DOJ Antitrust Division (The division Kanter ran; he says it beat Google twice, survived a motion to dismiss on Apple and won the Ticketmaster case before a jury)
Google, Apple and Ticketmaster (The three cases he brought; the Apple case is still live and he calls it strong)
Federal Trade Commission (Where Lina Khan, his counterpart, is now being approvingly retweeted by Trump's AI czar for saying no exemption is needed)
Boeing and Airbus (His analogy for why safety needs no coordination: a door falling off a plane was never the rival's problem to solve)
Nvidia and Hugging Face (The host's circular-financing example, on the claim Nvidia bought Hugging Face while being the biggest investor in OpenAI)
AT&T (Argued to the Reagan administration that the Cold War required it stay whole; Kanter uses the rejection of that argument as the precedent for the China case today)
X, Facebook and YouTube (The social media companies he says promised democracy rather than warning they might kill everyone; he referred to X as Twitter)
US Chamber of Commerce (Where he handed out fake mustaches and glasses, thanking members who help antitrust enforcers without wanting to be seen doing it)
WashU Law and Carnegie Mellon University (Where he now teaches law and technology policy)
Books & Resources Mentioned
Section 230 (The immunity he says made online companies harder to sue and let them innovate without regard for consequences)
Citizens United v. FEC (One of the two things, with gerrymandering, he blames for a Congress he calls unresponsive)
This Is a Lot More Worrying Than the Supreme Court's Ruling on Executive Power – David Lawrence (The New York Times piece by a friend he cites on the court barring agencies from answering major questions while letting the executive branch answer them with no process)
Is Big Tech's AI slowdown a safety pact or a cartel? (The Verge reporting the show links as background to the exemption debate)
Inside the suddenly explosive world of AI safety (The Verge on the safety researchers whose departures started the argument)
Execs and politicians on slowing down AI development (The Verge's list of who has called for a slowdown and in what terms)
Microsoft AI CEO: AI threats are real, Anthropic makes it worse (The preceding episode of the same show, linked in the notes)
Lina Khan: We don't need new laws to prosecute AI CEOs (Gizmodo on the Khan position that Sacks retweeted and that Kanter echoes here)
Listen to the full episode
🔴 YouTube | 🟣 Apple Podcasts | 🔗 Episode page
Watch the full episode:
More Jonathan Kanter interviews and podcast appearances
If this was worth your time, send it to someone who has to have a view on this.
Get the latest market chatter as it happens: