Discussion

• @andrewcurran_ Andrew Curran on x

  To sum up; Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft and xAI all have new pre-release screening agreements with CAISI. We don't know the details of the new rules yet. I assume they will be announced with the AI executive order and the AI policy memo, both of which we may get today. [i…

• @karlbode.com Karl Bode on bluesky

  all of the stories on this are the same in that way  —  Republicans and Trump are given completely unearned credibility on everything from AI policy making to cybersecurity, as if we haven't witnessed an historically corrupt, authoritarian clown show the last year

• @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]

• @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/...

• @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

• @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]

• @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.

• @hadas_gold Hadas Gold on x

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

• @teknium @teknium on x

  smh https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @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

• @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/...

• @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/...

• @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 . . .

• @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.

• @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! 😅

• @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]

• @_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]

• @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

• @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.

• @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.

• @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…

• @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]

• @lilashroff Lila on x

  as @matteo_wong and I wrote last week [image]

• @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

• @bradrcarson @bradrcarson on x

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

• @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!

• @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…

• @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/neoliberal 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/ArtificialInteligence 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/Anthropic 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/LocalLLaMA 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)

• @karlbode.com Karl Bode on bluesky

  again, I'm fascinated with U.S. journalism that crafts a weird alternate reality for the readership where our regulators still function in the public interest, policy is coherent, corruption doesn't exist, and Trump cares about security (or anything outside his own wealth and pow…

• @ericjgeller.com Eric Geller on bluesky

  NIST's AI security center is partnering with Google, Microsoft, and xAI to evaluate their new AI models before deployment: www.nist.gov/news-events/...  “To date, CAISI has completed more than 40 such evaluations, including on state-of-the-art models that remain unreleased.”

• Christopher Okpala Christopher Okpala on linkedin

  AI is officially entering the RMF world and most people are not paying attention.  —  The National Institute of Standards and Technology …

• @_nathancalvin Nathan Calvin on x

  The total adjusted AI related annual revenue of companies partnering with CAISI is almost certainly already above $100 billion (depending how you count cloud). Proposals in Congress fund CAISI at $10,000,000 per year, or 1/10,000th as much. (Credit to 5.5 for graphic.) [image]

• @_nathancalvin Nathan Calvin on x

  Meta has a partnership with Scale, which itself works with CAISI. Where is @Meta's agreement with CAISI? They are trying to be a real frontier AI developer and should act like it! [image]

• @allinallnotbad Samuel Roland on x

  Going to go out on a limb here and say this seems net positive? Happy to be corrected, licensing is not my area of expertise; but if these are truly voluntary agreements, even if contractual, that seems like a reasonable balance of power. Government gets oversight, but not veto

• @jimstewartson @jimstewartson on x

  lol what could go wrong? this industry is just a psychotic as the regime. it's just a giant frantic money grab before the music stops. they're falling over themselves to be in position for a bailout.

• @nist @nist on x

  NIST's Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) signs expanded collaborations with @GoogleDeepMind, @Microsoft, and @xai for pre-deployment evaluations and other research to support frontier AI national security testing. Learn more: https://www.nist.gov/...

• @the_danielking Daniel King on x

  Hmm. If only we could fund an extremely talented team—within government—to carry on the mission of vetting AI models. 🤔

• @deredleritt3r Prinz on x

  @AndrewCurran_ OpenAI and Anthropic renegotiated their existing partnerships with CAISI also. This seems to be the least intrusive way for the U.S. government to review models before their release, so here's hoping that Trump's actual proposal does not go much farther than CAISI …

• @matvelloso Mat Velloso on x

  This was inevitable. 1-Models becoming more powerful 2-Therefore, they also become more dangerous 3-Logically, governments become increasingly concerned and want more control and regulations about it 4-Therefore, the way models have been launched so far won't work anymore. The

• @bitcoinconner Conner Brown on x

  Interesting that Meta—the only lab that has consistently championed the importance of Open Source— is conspicuously absent.

• @basedjensen @basedjensen on x

  this is going to slow down releases by a lot

• @emollick Ethan Mollick on x

  In addition to the CAISI evaluation, it would be useful if NIST conducted public tests of AI abilities as an independent evaluator - though those obviously should not be pre-release tests & can be done when models are public. Independent testing is important & getting expensive.

• Chris Lehane Chris Lehane on linkedin

  It's great to see more companies joining us today in working with the US Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) on national security testing and evaluations …