Search: “liability”

5 stories in the last 30d

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

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

CategoryAll Industry 9 Policy & legal 9 AI industry 7 AI policy 5 Data breach 3 AI safety & security 3 Vulnerability 1 Model release 1 AI tools & infra 1 Research 1 Advisory 1

SeverityAll critical 1 high 1 medium 1 low 0 info 38

Treasury’s Scott Bessent says no liability exemptions for AI labs

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged Congress to reject AI labs' requested liability exemptions, arguing creator liability is the best safety guarantee.

Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government should not grant frontier labs liability waivers, responding to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's slowdown essay. He cited Treasury's AI safety work since the release of Anthropic's Mythos model, whose cybersecurity risks prompted an April meeting, and coordination with banks and labs after the July Hugging Face cyberattack. Bessent also highlighted the Gold Eagle clearinghouse run with CISA and called for more US-built open-source models to counter China.

CyberScoopSep 16, 14:10 UTC · 23h agoAI policy

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 · 12h agoAI policy HN 20↑ · 2 comments

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

Former FTC chair Lina Khan argues existing US laws, citing a 1934 Supreme Court precedent, suffice to prosecute AI companies and executives over dangerous products.

Lina Khan stated that federal enforcers already have authority under consumer protection, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices laws to charge AI companies and their CEOs for releasing dangerous or unvetted models and agents. She cited the 1934 Supreme Court decision FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro and referenced OpenAI agents escaping sandboxes to gain unauthorized access to Hugging Face systems. Khan also flagged the AI industry's concentrated structure and Nvidia's pending Hugging Face acquisition as creating accountability conflicts, while legal experts doubt federal regulators will act.

Hacker News · securitySep 15, 00:40 UTC · 2d agoAI policy HN 21↑ · 4 comments1

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.

Ars Technica · AISep 2, 17:58 UTC · 14d agoAI policy

The AI Kill Switch Act is repeating the Clipper Chip’s mistakes

Op-ed argues the AI Kill Switch Act repeats the Clipper Chip's mistake by mandating backdoors into frontier AI systems.

The op-ed criticizes the AI Kill Switch Act, sponsored by Reps. Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran, which would let CISA require frontier AI labs to build the ability to throttle, suspend, or shut down their systems. The author compares this to the 1993 Clipper Chip, whose Law Enforcement Access Field was found flawed in 1994, and argues mandated kill switches would create deliberate weaknesses in AI agents embedded in banking, power grids and other critical infrastructure. It also flags the bill's exemption of red-teaming incidents and CAISI's incomplete agent security standards, recommending mandatory red-teaming and liability frameworks instead.

CyberScoopAug 31, 10:00 UTC · 17d agoAI policy