Discussion

• @hadas_gold Hadas Gold on x

  Um whoa https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @annmarie Annmarie Hordern on x

  NYT: The admin is discussing an executive order to create an A.I. working group that would bring together tech executives and government officials to examine potential oversight procedures, according to U.S. officials.... Among the potential plans is a formal government review

• @ericjgeller.com Eric Geller on bluesky

  On Trump's first day back in office, he eliminated a Biden-era mandate for AI firms to share their security test results with the govt, calling it unduly burdensome.  —  Now, after Mythos, the WH is considering much more onerous AI regulation.  —  Remarkable about-face.  —  www.n…

• r/technology r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

• r/ArtificialInteligence r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

• r/LocalLLaMA r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

• NewsMax.com Nicole Weatherholtz on x

  Trump Team Weighs Limited AI Oversight

• @trevposts Trevor Levin on x

  I hope @pmarca is able to safely flee the country now in case the White House does something he said “would impose tyranny far beyond anything even imagined by the Communists and Fascists of the 20th Century” [image]

• @tunguz Bojan Tunguz on x

  Oh sh*t.

• @biancoresearch Jim Bianco on x

  Will China allow Trump to vet its models?

• @yonashav Yo Shavit on x

  President Trump, welcome to the SB1047 discourse

• @deanwball Dean W. Ball on x

  Today's Hyperdimensional anticipates the admin taking a much stronger role in AI regulation and proposes a light-touch way forward. Overreaction—*regulation much more onerous and intrusive than what Ben Buchanan and I suggested in NYT today*—is a very real possibility. [image]

• @garymarcus Gary Marcus on x

  This would be a very good idea, especially if implemented well. Best thing the Trump administration has considered doing around AI.

• @dnvolz Dustin Volz on x

  Fears of AI-enabled cyberattacks are driving a rethink within the Trump administration of how to handle the release of new models and whether some rules or regulations may in fact be necessary. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @adamthierer Adam Thierer on x

  Waiting to see more details, but any sort of preemptive, pre-release “vetting” of AI models by the White House could be tantamount to a de facto licensing regime, which should certainly not be done via executive orders. The Trump administration's first order of business on AI [im…

• @lilashroff Lila on x

  as @matteo_wong and I wrote last week [image]

• @bradrcarson @bradrcarson on x

  The AI licensing regime has arrived. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @karlbode.com Karl Bode on bluesky

  I'm utterly fascinated by the modern art of journalistic simulacrum  —  at no point do this piece's four authors consider wandering anywhere close to the idea of corruption, or that Trump says a lot of things that are utterly meaningless, or that our regulators no longer function…

• r/politics r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

• r/singularity r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

• r/OpenAI r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

• @chrisrmcguire Chris McGuire on x

  This is a sorely needed regulatory pivot, with substantial geopolitical implications. If the US government vets AI models pre-release, and presumably requires companies to include certain safeguards, it also needs a global plan to preserve their security post-release. It is

• @luke_metro @luke_metro on x

  eventually, we all become Brandon [image]

• @kevinbankston Kevin Bankston on x

  Plenty on the tech right condemned Biden's requirements for pre-model-release safety disclosures to that administration (rightly so IMO). Will they also condemn the even more constitutionally dubious idea of pre-release model review by this administration?

• @hamandcheese Samuel Hammond on x

  My light-touch proposal is to use DPA Title VII to compel dual-use AI model developers to disclose their largest training runs (say, >=10^26 FLOPs) and the results of any internal testing. No onerous obligations and would automatically exempt little tech. Worth considering! 😅

• @nicoperrino Nico Perrino on x

  “Vetting” is just another word for “licensing.” When governments licensed expressive technologies in the past, they used their power to establish orthodoxies. It took civil libertarians centuries to fight off prior restraints on speech. That work continues . . .

• @_nathancalvin Nathan Calvin on x

  “White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They are Released” is currently the top story on the NYT website. Another striking indication that we have reached “the midgame” or “AI policy without training wheels” [image]

• @shakeelhashim Shakeel on x

  This NYT piece gets something quite importantly wrong, btw — the UK has no rules on predeployment evals or safety standards, and everything I've heard is that we're a long way off from having them. [image]

• @masnick.com Mike Masnick on bluesky

  Also... kinda seems worth noting that half the reason so many Silicon Valley VCs lined up behind Trump was because a pretty toothless AI policy plan from Biden that basically told companies “be more thoughtful.”  If the Biden admin had talked about pre-vetting models, it would ha…

• r/Anthropic r on reddit

  White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released