— reposted by Sharmake Farah — saved image
Nick @nickcammarata · 20h a lot of the anti-slowdown people also think ai just won't go that fast so a high speed limit is probably better, above their forecast. if they're right it never matters 💬 16 🔁 17 ❤ 263 📊 41K Nick @nickcammarata · 20h how to do it no idea, and also how to measure the speed limit no idea, but i feel like this framing avoids some of the issues with pause, which also has roughly the same questions 💬 1 🔁 1 ❤ 54 📊 3.4K Sharmake Farah reposted Nick @nickcammarata a lot of the anti crowd wants better chatbots and doctors and stuff, a lot of the pro crowd expects like way crazier worlds in the short term and wants them to come in the just slightly less short term when we've figured out how to control these things better. plenty of overlap 4:35 PM · Aug 2, 2026 · 3,514 Views 💬 1 🔁 1 ❤ 45 Nick @nickcammarata · 20h yeah i think pacing is great [quoted reply] Seventh @seventhmeal · 20h Replying to @nickcammarata "pacing" was a good choice
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Twitter thread by Nick Cammarata proposing a 'speed limit' framing for AI development as an alternative to 'pause', arguing it sidesteps some pause debates and noting overlap between anti- and pro-acceleration camps in what they actually want; ends agreeing 'pacing' is a good term, per a reply from Seventh.