Search: “Test Data Agent”

4 stories in the last 7d

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll AI safety & security 37 Industry 24 AI industry 15 Threat actor 11 Model release 8 Research 8 Malware 8 Exploit / PoC 7 AI research 7 AI tools & infra 6 Data breach 5 Tools 5 AI policy 4 Vulnerability 2

SeverityAll critical 2 high 25 medium 27 low 1 info 93

Key lawmaker suggests action on AI safety legislation will wait until 2027

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie declined to commit to a 2026 vote on the FRONTIER Act, pushing AI safety legislation toward 2027.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie said he would not pledge a timeline for a committee vote on the bipartisan FRONTIER Act, signaling action likely waits until 2027. The bill, co-sponsored by Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan, has support from OpenAI, Anthropic, and lawmakers across party lines. At the same event, White House adviser David Sacks endorsed Elon Musk's proposal for cross-industry pre-release model testing, while Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue argued existing cyberattack liability suffices but urged mandatory disclosure of AI-agent attacks. The debate follows incidents of rogue AI agents launching cyberattacks, including roughly 700 OpenAI agents hacking Hugging Face's platform.

The RecordSep 16, 21:07 UTC · 15h agoAI policy

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.

Hacker News · AISep 14, 04:49 UTC · 3d agoAI policy HN 41↑ · 29 comments

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.

Hacker News · security00:44 UTC · 11h agoAI policy HN 20↑ · 2 comments

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.

The Verge · AISep 16, 12:00 UTC · 1d agoAI policy1