A government-mandated pause on artificial intelligence development would likely shield dominant companies from competition and hinder innovation, according to the Cato Institute. The think tank argues that voluntary safeguards and shared standards are more effective than halting industry-wide progress.
Calls for a pause in AI development raise concerns about market concentration and the potential for dominant firms to stifle innovation and competition, impacting the future landscape of AI technology and its accessibility.
The libertarian Cato Institute is warning that a government-mandated pause in artificial intelligence development could shield dominant companies from competition and delay beneficial technology, as lawmakers and AI executives push for restraints. In a blog post on Monday, Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy scholar at the think tank, argued that companies can address specific dangers through voluntary safeguards and shared standards without halting development across the industry. Huddleston acknowledged AI’s risks but warned that rules shaped around leading developers could help them consolidate power and limit competition, making it harder for smaller companies to compete. She also argued that pausing U.S. development could weaken cybersecurity defenses while foreign rivals continue advancing. Her commentary follows a proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar to pause advanced AI development until federal safety standards are established and permanently ban artificial superintelligence, while OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has backed slower development and urged companies to strengthen safeguards without waiting for federal rules he supports. Block’s chairman and co-founder, Jack Dorsey, voiced similar concerns about competition, stating that rules built around leading companies' resources could make them the only ones able to participate, creating a barrier to entry. Dorsey said he favors open releases that researchers can inspect and test, with evaluations and known limitations published. He supports independent testing and publicly accountable enforcement, including withholding models when evidence shows their release would materially increase catastrophic risks that narrower measures cannot adequately address. An Atlantic Council analysis suggests that competitive pressure demands enforceable AI safety standards, while U.S.–China distrust complicates international agreements and cooperation raises antitrust concerns.