Nathaniel Whittemore

The recent executive order put the locus of the voluntary testing regime in the NSA, whereas OpenAI is arguing that we need to be investing in civilian institutions, specifically groups like the CAISI, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation.

They also argue, contra the EO, that at least eventually there should be a mandatory evaluation process, not just a voluntary one.

Their last policy priority is, quote, mobilizing a whole of government resilience strategy, writing that frontier AI should be treated as a national priority, requiring coordination across national security, public health, cybersecurity, scientific, diplomatic, and economic agencies, as well as with international partners.

AI policy expert Dean Ball writes, "...this seems reasonable.

Having CASI, a civilian agency, conduct this testing in primarily non-classified ways is the way to ensure it does not become a licensing regime.

The Trump's EO classification of the process raises the risk that testing morphs into a de facto mandatory permitting and licensing system."

Now, in addition to this document, which is being treated in some ways as a response to the recent executive order, even though it feels fairly likely that it was being worked on before that EO was finalized, Congress is also starting to get a little bit more active on what they think AI regulation should look like.

On Thursday, Republican Jay Overnolte and Democrat Lori Trahan unveiled their bipartisan AI bill in the House.

The comprehensive 269-page bill aims to set up a federal regulatory framework that would override the growing number of state AI laws.

The bill would require leading AI labs to create and implement plans to deal with catastrophic risks posed by their models.

Third-party auditors would be required to ensure compliance.

Now, while this seems in line with the AI law recently passed in Illinois, much of the controversy right now around any AI regulation is about a federal bill preempting state authority.

Representative Trahan has received pushback from fellow Democrats for supporting this bill, particularly in the Northeast.

New York has already passed their own laws, and her home state of Massachusetts is quickly moving to do the same, with Brad Carson, the president of Americans for Responsible Innovation and former Arizona Democrat, arguing that cutting state legislators out of the process would be a, quote, generational mistake.

Still, I would say that if you're reading the tea leaves on average, this bill is a little bit less dead on arrival than most, at least in terms of the substance.

The problem is the current timeline.

Politico reporter Meredith Lee Hill writes, Lots of skepticism in House GOP leadership about the Obernolte AI framework, and also getting any AI bill to the floor before midterms.

Speaker Johnson, when asked if he was committed to putting an AI bill on the floor before November, said, well, we're going to do it as soon as we're able to build consensus around a package.

So, I mean, I would consider it a high priority, but I don't know yet on the timing.

In other words, I wouldn't hold my breath.