Amodei asked the industry to pace itself, but nobody defined the word

Tomer Tunguz 解析 Amodei 放缓前沿提议背后的五派立场与算力监管难题

Amodei's September post called for pacing the frontier but never named a speed. Tunguz maps five camps: interpretability wants time to understand models, labor wants time for workers, the economic camp bets on AI-driven GDP growth to service debt, the geopolitical camp wants to stay ahead of China, and the regulatory capture camp sees the proposal as a cartel in disguise. All priced the consequences of a pause; none proposed a number. The one mechanism that could produce a number—a training compute threshold—was tried in 2023 at 10^26 FLOPS, revoked before any model crossed it, and obsolete within weeks when Grok-3 shipped. The post does not say whether Amodei responded to these critiques.

Why it matters: Tunguz's breakdown of Amodei's pacing proposal adds signal — the five-camp frame is clean and the 2023 compute threshold failure is a concrete hook. Downside: it's a commentary roundup, not primary news, and no new numbers. 78 lands at the low end of featured — worth recommend...