The AI pacing debate & the number nobody can measure
Amodei wants a paced frontier. Huang calls it a false choice. Meanwhile a Chinese lab quietly published a frontier-scale agent.
This week the people building AI argued publicly about how fast they should be allowed to go. Dario Amodei called for a paced frontier — evaluators inside labs, coordination among democracies, then global agreement. Jensen Huang called it a false choice. Mark Zuckerberg refused the committee but paced his own agent. Trump called AI concerns a hoax and said the only guardrail needed is a high-IQ president. Every case rests on one number nobody can measure: how far ahead of China the West is. Trump says a year. Huang says nanoseconds. And while they argued, Shanghai AI Lab put a 744B-parameter frontier agent on a file-sharing site under an MIT license — without a press release.
The most useful reporting came from the floor, not the stage. 50,000 people at Dreamforce said the frontier isn't their bottleneck — they can't keep up with the models they already own. This episode unpacks what the pacing debate actually means for your roadmap: the release gate everyone in the argument already agrees on, who should hold it, what independent evaluation really requires when the vendor is paying, and why a third name on your model shortlist matters more this quarter than last.