/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Sources: the Trump administration is discussing an EO to form an AI working group that would examine AI oversight procedures, like vetting models before release

The Trump administration, which took a noninterventionist approach to artificial intelligence, is now discussing imposing oversight …

New York Times

Discussion

  • NewsMax.com Nicole Weatherholtz on x
    Trump Team Weighs Limited AI Oversight
  • @bobgourley Bob Gourley on x
    Oh no. Here we go again. Hoping the e/acc community can help inform policy here.
  • @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 . . .
  • @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…
  • @tunguz Bojan Tunguz on x
    Oh sh*t.
  • @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?
  • @taylordbarkley Taylor B. on x
    If the New York Times reporting is true, a UK-style pre-approval process would be a giant step backwards for innovation and an undoing of President Trump's excellent policy on AI so far. Such executive brand authority is ripe for abuse no matter the administration. A pre-approval
  • @beffjezos @beffjezos on x
    Not like this... This is not the way. Not a good precedent to set. Will lead to govt biasing the models to reinforce their views within the population. This is why decentralization of models is of.utmost importance. Freedom of synthetic thought should be protected. [image]
  • @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! 😅
  • @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
  • @castrotech Daniel Castro on x
    1. This is a full embrace of the precautionary principle. It would mean firms need government permission to innovate. That flips the default from building freely to asking first.
  • @biancoresearch Jim Bianco on x
    Will China allow Trump to vet its models?
  • @bradrcarson @bradrcarson on x
    The AI licensing regime has arrived. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @beffjezos @beffjezos on x
    Very bad idea. Administrations of the future will force labs to imbue the biases of their side into the models in order to get sign off. This will also reduce the number of labs who can ship models, having to deal with compliance. I cannot advise against this strongly enough.
  • @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.
  • @hadas_gold Hadas Gold on x
    Um whoa https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @yonashav Yo Shavit on x
    President Trump, welcome to the SB1047 discourse
  • @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]
  • @thomas_woodside Thomas Woodside on x
    We need more government oversight of frontier AI and I'm glad the administration is considering how to do that. As @BuchananBen and @deanwball said in their op ed today, we need to take the most severe risks more seriously. A couple of comments: (1) I don't think approving model
  • @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]
  • @_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]
  • @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.
  • @lilashroff Lila on x
    as @matteo_wong and I wrote last week [image]
  • @tenobrus @tenobrus on x
    there's a lot to distrust about the current administration but increasing the levels of government oversight here from “basically zero” seems like an incredibly obviously good move that leaders at every single frontier lab have expressed desire for in the past [image]
  • @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/...
  • @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]
  • @masnick.com Mike Masnick on bluesky
    I mean, if you listen to the A16Z podcast, over and over again they talk about how Trump has freed up AI innovation, as compared to Biden who (they falsely claim) tried to end all AI tech.  —  But Biden never suggested pre-vetting models.  That's all Trump.  —  Seems like maybe w…
  • @attorneynora Nora Benavidez on bluesky
    Sounds like censorship and frankly deeply disturbing given the lack of expertise in house.  But by all means, Biden's team pushing for covid lies to have platform policies applied by tech folks — that was more worrisome? www.nytimes.com/2026/05/04/t...
  • @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…
  • @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/ArtificialInteligence r on reddit
    White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released
  • r/aiwars r on reddit
    White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released
  • 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/technology 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
  • r/Anthropic r on reddit
    White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released
  • r/ShitAIBrosSay r on reddit
    White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released (Gift Article)
  • r/LocalLLaMA r on reddit
    White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released
  • @samsabin Sam Sabin on bluesky
    New on @axios.com: As part of meetings with tech/cyber cos. + tech trade groups last week, ONCD floated an AI security framework that was already in the works before Mythos.  —  On the table: DoD red-teaming of AI deployments at the federa/state/local government levels.  —  www.a…
  • @shakeelhashim Shakeel on x
    As I said last week: https://x.com/... [image]
  • @elidourado Eli Dourado on x
    The proposal in this article is vague enough to possibly mean many things, but if it's a mandatory review of AI models before they can be released, that's in direct conflict with courts' First Amendment prior-restraint doctrine. Seems unlikely to fly. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @bcardarella Brian Cardarella on x
    Interesting idea, but I think it would be better to allow a more varied set of independant academic, philosophic, and saftey researchers do the work. The approach of asking tech execs to take on this responsibility is rediculous. https://www.nytimes.com/... [image]
  • @teknium @teknium on x
    smh https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @danturrentine Dan Turrentine on x
    the politics of this issue are moving so fast and both party's struggling to figure out a path forward, whether federal vetting of models or local approval of data centers. White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • r/neoliberal r on reddit
    White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released
  • @bdowney Brandon Downey on bluesky
    As a thought, the same administration that doesn't want libraries to have books about gay people or trans kids in libraries should not be in charge of what models can be released or not.  —  That they are using ‘safety’ as an excuse is bad, actually!