30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Who gets to define the rules for AI?
Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez attacks big-lab antitrust exemption proposals as cartel behavior that lets incumbents write AI safety rules.
Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez argues that proposals from large AI labs—particularly Anthropic's roadmap requesting antitrust exemptions for safety coordination—amount to a cartel letting incumbents define rules for everyone else. He draws parallels to the 1975 SEC NRSRO credit-rating designations and the EU's 1985 Motor Vehicle Block Exemption, where safety justifications produced incumbent-protecting market structures. Gomez supports independent review of highly capable AI systems but disputes who writes the standards, who conducts review, and who participates. He also warns AI cyber offense is getting cheaper faster than defenses are improving.
25
30
30
30
30
30
A brief history of AI executives calling for regulation
The Verge chronicles the history of AI executives, from Samuel Butler and Turing-era warnings to Altman and Musk, publicly calling for AI regulation.
The article traces recurring calls for AI regulation, from Samuel Butler's 1863 warnings and Alan Turing's 1951 lecture to Bill Joy's 2000 essay and Microsoft's 2018 facial recognition stance. Modern examples include Elon Musk's 2017 remarks to US governors, the 2023 Future of Life Institute pause letter, and Sam Altman's 2023 Senate testimony. It argues such appeals from industry leaders who profit from AI warrant skepticism.
18
30
30
Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance
A study maps twenty inference-time AI governance mechanisms, finding commercial readiness only against cooperative deployers and no adequate defense versus state-level adversaries.
The paper develops a feasibility taxonomy of twenty inference-time AI governance mechanisms across monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each rated on a four-point readiness scale against a four-vendor evidence base. Fifteen of the twenty mechanisms have commercial technical substrates in production today, though governance-grade assurance and adversarial robustness vary substantially. Stress testing shows readiness holds only against a cooperative deployer and low-to-medium-capability user: no mechanism rates adequate against a high-capability state-level deployer, and fine-tuning removes model-internal enforcement components. A second-rater reliability check on readiness ratings returned a quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.74.
28
30
30
30
What's Scarier Than Agents Taking over Internet? CEO Cartel Trying Take over AI
Opinion essay argues Dario Amodei's proposals for embedded evaluators and frontier AI coordination would require antitrust waivers and entrench a large-lab cartel.
The author critiques Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's proposal for embedded evaluators inside AI labs, democratic coordination on safety standards and pacing, and global coordination with authoritarian governments. He argues such coordination requires loosening antitrust law, burdening startups while shielding incumbents like Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, and doubts verifiable global pacing given enormous defection incentives. The piece links lab motivations to data center subsidy pushback, competition from open-source and low-cost Chinese models, and upcoming IPO financial disclosures.
24
Trump may be forced to reveal secret rules feds use for AI safety testing
Protect Democracy sued four federal agencies to force disclosure of the administration's secret framework for frontier AI safety reviews.
Nonprofit Protect Democracy sued four federal agencies, including the Office of the National Cyber Director, OSTP, Treasury and Commerce, seeking disclosure of the secret voluntary framework used for pre-release safety reviews of frontier AI models. The complaint demands the framework text, participant identities and selection criteria by September 30, alleging OpenAI negotiated a private agreement limiting distribution of its cutting-edge models to government-vetted partners. The suit follows the launch of the GOLD EAGLE clearinghouse and the completion of the review framework on August 3, with California Senator Josh Becker supporting the request while the state considers the SB 813 bill for transparent AI safety standards.
58
The push to designate AI as the next critical infrastructure sector
Americans for Responsible Innovation report urges designating AI models, companies and supporting infrastructure as critical infrastructure with CISA as sector lead.
A report from the nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation calls for the federal government to declare the AI sector — including frontier model designs, model weights, datacenters, AI hardware and semiconductors — the 17th critical infrastructure sector, with CISA as the lead agency for sector cyberthreats. The authors argue AI is concentrated among a handful of foundation models and interdependent with other sectors, so a single attack on the AI stack could cascade widely, citing incidents like Iranian drone attacks on Amazon datacenters. Former DHS officials note the designation would unlock federal resources such as CDM access and threat intelligence, but warn that picking a lead agency could trigger a bureaucratic turf war with Commerce and Treasury.
45
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
The AI policy window is open. We need to act.
OpenAI calls for mandatory national AI safety regulation and backs four California AI safety bills as capabilities accelerate.
OpenAI argues the rapid pace of AI progress, including signs of AI-accelerated research, requires urgent policy action through mandatory, capability-based national regulation. The company endorses four California bills (SB 813, AB 1405, SB 1119, AB 1864) covering independent safety assessments, AI auditor standards, youth protections, and safeguards against AI-enabled biological threats. It also commits to industry-led frontier standards, international coordination, and strengthening internal safeguards such as universal trajectory monitoring and mandatory alignment-evaluation gates for its Astra model. The post references chief scientist Jakub Pachocki's warning about recursive self-improvement and Greg Brockman's "defenders window" concept.
72
UK cyber bill targets AI users, not the vendors building it
UK ministers rejected Lords amendments that would have brought AI vendors into the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill's scope.
Cybersecurity minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra told the Grand Committee that regulating frontier AI developers through the UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill would not prevent misuse by hostile actors, pointing instead to the AI Security Institute and the voluntary AI Cyber Security Code of Practice, which informed the ETSI EN 304 223 standard. Rejected amendments included requirements for AI vendors to demonstrate red lines such as evading human oversight, and last-resort powers to shut down a datacenter or widely deployed AI system during emergencies. The bill instead extends the NIS 2018 regime to managed service providers, datacenter operators and designated critical suppliers, imposing duties on regulated organizations rather than technology providers.
55
How AI could make it harder for governments to use hacking tools
TechCrunch analysis argues AI-driven vulnerability discovery and exploitation may constrain government use of hacking tools and spyware.
The piece reports that AI is proving effective at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities, which could raise the cost and detectability of government hacking operations. It argues this shift may make it harder for governments to rely on hacking tools and commercial spyware. The analysis also suggests the trend could reignite policy debates around mandated backdoors in consumer devices.
30