No, that’s not accurate. An agreement among competitors to not engage in research that would let them outcompete each other is clearly an antitrust issue requiring a government waiver.

No, absolutely not "clearly". That word has no business being in any sentence about federal antitrust law in 2026. There is nothing clear or consistent about how is being applied and interpreted right now. If you're applying a coder's mindset to 'settled' law, you're in for a bad time.

If that’s true, doesn’t that make it even more clear that the frontier labs require government involvement and cannot rely on what David Sacks thinks the government would or would not allow?

I mean, they said it was clearly an anti trust issue. It is.

It is also true that nothing in law is currently clear, or consistent.

Both are true. But you stated it's one or the other.

Idk how sincere they are being, but taking them at their word then asking government to set rules is entirely reasonable and, in fact, the entire reason government exists. The feds can, should and arguably must set actual safety limits. Biden actually took a stab at it and Trump instantly rescinded. They should not need an open invitation from CEOs. Just do it. Like immediately.

And kids don't need parents to eat their vegetables and do their homework.

…if all kids are in agreement that they should do just that.

They actually don't

LMFTFY: If all the LLM pure plays who are stuck between impossible valuations and the inability to IPO are in agreement that they should colludes to conserve capital, they might not flame out before they figure out how to fix their numbers, and they might not be seen as admitting that more training data plus more GPUs will never lead to AGI.