OPINION When President Donald Trump returned to power, he cast himself as the anti‑Biden on AI. First, he
tore up Biden’s Executive Order 14110, which had
demanded “safe, secure, and trustworthy” AI. He then replaced it with his own “Removing Barriers to American Leadership
in Artificial Intelligence” directive, ordering agencies to
rescind or dilute rules seen as obstacles to innovation.
In short, American AI vendors could do anything they wanted. That
was then. This is now.
While
Trump has yet to issue a new AI Executive Order, we know his crew is
forming an AI working group of tech execs and
government officials to bring oversight to AI. Specifically, they’re
considering requiring all new “high‑risk” AI frontier
models to undergo a formal government review before they can be used.
That’s going to go over well.
What
we do know is that National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett
has said: “We’re studying possibly an executive order to give a
clear roadmap to everybody about how this is gonna go, and how future
AIs that also potentially create vulnerabilities should go through a
process so that they’re released into the wild after they’ve been
proven safe –
just like an FDA drug.”
Considering that people who ignore evidence now regulate healthcare in the United States, that doesn’t fill me with much confidence. Indeed, we
now know the FDA blocked
the publication of studies showing that COVID-19 and shingles
vaccines were safe. Are these the kinds of people we
want calling the shots on AI?
Be
that as it may, the Trump yes-men are framing this shift as a
response to escalating cybersecurity and national‑security
risks rather than as a broader embrace of EU‑style AI
regulation. Yes, they’re looking at Anthropic’s
Mythos and its potential use by hackers.
At
the same time, they emphasize that they want to avoid “onerous”
controls on everyday AI applications. Frontier models that could
supercharge cyberwarfare, bio‑threats, or other strategic
dangers are another matter.
That’s
quite a change from last summer when Trump babbled: “We have to
grow that [AI] baby and let that baby thrive. We can’t
stop it. We can’t stop it with politics. We can’t stop it with
foolish rules and even stupid rules.”
Now he seems to think rules would be a good thing. Darrell West,
a senior fellow at the Center for Technology Innovation at the
Brookings Institution, has suggested that Trump
is returning to Biden’s policy. Just don’t tell him
that; he’ll have a fit.
While
Trump and company are still contemplating exactly how they want to
rule – sorry, regulate – AI, the Department of Commerce’s Center for AI
Standards and Innovation (CAISI) announced new agreements with Google
DeepMind, Microsoft, and xAI. According to these new policy
statements, CAISI
will conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted
research to better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the
state of AI security.
CAISI director Chris Fall said:
“Independent, rigorous measurement science is essential to
understanding frontier AI and its national security implications.”
How
to do this? Who will do this? What will it look like? Good question! Too bad we don’t have any answers yet.
You
may have noticed that Anthropic was not invited to this cozy policy
get-together. Funny, that, since most observers think that Mythos was
the model that broke the “do anything you want” AI camel’s
back in Trump’s White House.
That’s
because the months‑long feud
between the administration and Anthropic is still simmering.
Trump’s team moved to block federal agencies from using the
company’s tools, and Anthropic is now challenging that policy in
court.
Recently,
however, Trump’s tone has softened. Trump
told CNBC that Anthropic was “shaping up.” If he
can’t get peace with Iran, maybe peace with Anthropic will please
him. On the other hand, we also know that the Trumpies
are considering forbidding companies from “interfering” with the
government’s use of AI models. You hear that,
Anthropic? You will toe the line!
Meanwhile, Gregory Falco, a Cornell assistant professor of mechanical and
aerospace engineering, pointed out the obvious: “The federal government does not currently have the in-house technical expertise,
infrastructure, or day-to-day insight needed to directly evaluate
these systems on its own.” Expertise is
something Trump’s cast of characters sorely lacks across any and all
subjects.
“At
the same time,” Falco continued, “a purely voluntary model
of self-governance is not enough.” After all, foxes are notorious guardians of chicken houses.
What
I think is going to happen is that AI vendors who play ball with
Trump will end up “governing” AI alongside some Trump
loyalists. It’s going to be ugly. Some regulation is needed,
but these are not the people who will do a good job of it.
I won’t be surprised if one of Trump’s goals isn’t so much to make AI
safer as it is to ensure that the answers AI gives are the ones he
and his regime want people to see. Today, for example, when I asked a
variety of chatbots who lost the 2020 election, they all agreed Trump
had lost. Funnily enough, when the Senate Judiciary Committee asked numerous Trump nominees for federal judgeships the same question, they universally refused to say he lost.
For
better or worse, most Americans don’t pay attention to legal news.
What they do, however, is ask AI chatbots for answers. Foolish of
them, considering how inaccurate they can be, but there it is. If Trump’s
allowed to call the shots, I’ve little doubt that the approved bots
will follow in the footsteps of his obedient judges and give the
answers he wants and not the truth. ®
