The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that.

The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO.

> The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO.

No it won't.

This is a call for a "safety cartel"[1] in which the dominant firms become more entrenched against competition by colluding to limit the progress would-be competitors can make in the market.

[1] https://x.com/alexwg/status/2098793433275985932

> The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that.

No, the essay does not talk about "stopping development". That's a very clever sleight of hand made in the essay to get readers to draw this false conclusion.

It just talks about building AI at a "balanced rate". Untangling the corporate speak, this amounts to essentially "go full steam ahead, but have more eval oversight before release".