Shakeel @ShakeelHashim

another notable comment: x.com/ajcimino/statu…

anthony cimino @ajcimino

7 hours ago

@sjgadler @_NathanCalvin @AnthropicAI No. I don't think the preemption language here is precise enough. This was a draft, and we're working on updating it.

3 3 29 3K 2

Long post from Anthropic federal affairs lead Anthony Cimino re: the leaked bill:

anthony cimino @ajcimino

9 hours ago

@_NathanCalvin I lead our federal affairs team at @AnthropicAI and wanted to share a few thoughts on the draft federal AI safety bill text that's been circulating this weekend after a version was shared with the press. First, some process. We’ve been advocating for the concepts in our Advanced

17 25 160 35K 219

has not done much to appease Dave Kasten, at least: x.com/David_Kasten/s…

dave kasten @David_Kasten

8 hours ago

@ajcimino @_NathanCalvin @AnthropicAI To be clear, are you going to apologize here, or do you somehow think you did nothing wrong?

1 0 36 2K 1

From @ShakeelHashim - "Leading the Future hoped it would be able to use obscene amounts of money to buy AI policy. A year in, it’s facing an electorate that wants AI regulation and a safety coalition that’s willing to outspend it." transformernews.ai/p/leading-the-…

I think that if they really wanted government oversight and just didn’t like the current admin, they would just support the strong California legislation that will shortly be introduced. Instead they’re trying to preempt that kind of effort and instead lock in an obviously ineffective federal regime. I think supporting good-in-theory federal leg that won’t work with bad implementation is defensible because, okay, maybe in a few years things will be different in DC, or maybe you just have to bet on good federal implementation because it’s our only out. And if you oppose good-in-theory federal leg that has preemption because you want actually good state bills (this is kind of the approach some safety orgs took with FRONTIER, IMO) that’s defensible because okay maybe good in theory won’t be good in practice. But supporting bad-even-in-theory federal leg that also has real (albeit somewhat narrow) preemption of state safety laws seems kind of indefensible to me if you believe what Anthropic’s top brass claims to believe. (This is harsher on Anthropic than my initial post sounded because my views kind of evolved as I sat with the bill and thought about it)

I have a lot of concerns with this bill. I understand it's a draft and might have silly mistakes. But this bill looks like it came from a culture where the top priority is making sure the government doesn't getting in the way of making money, even at the cost of safety. That is a very dangerous culture. Specifically, the bill says that states would not be able to have AI regulation that touches frontier-risk disclosure, third-party evaluation, and incident reporting. This one federal bill would replace almost all of SB53 and the RAISE Act. And it's a pretty weak federal bill: I agree with others that it's weaker than the FRONTIER Act, a relevant and politically viable bill introduced back in July.

POLITICO @politico

2 days ago

Anthropic quietly pitches its own AI safety bill to lawmakers politi.co/4zxDFhl

54 116 320 851K 240

The draft Anthropic bill, first reported by @Owen_Dahlkamp at Politico Pro, is now floating around online: files.catbox.moe/ihehmv.pdf

Anthropic’s new federal AI bill is, without any overstatement, astonishingly bad.

Nathan Calvin @_NathanCalvin

2 days ago

Charlie's analysis is right but he is nicer than I am - I found myself viscerally angry at multiple points reading this bill. There are some good and sensible parts, but overall this legislation is not remotely close to meeting the moment and I overall think passing it would

10 63 385 102K 145

One unfortunate conclusion I'm reaching from this is that Anthropic, while acknowledging they're doing something extremely dangerous, is more importantly wrt policy terrified of the executive branch having the ability to flexibly make them stop at the drop of a hat. This isn't shocking given that they've been on the receiving end of the executive branch doing that in an unprincipled and stupid way! Anyone who has to deal with a bureaucracy becomes a libertarian, and the administration's treatment of Anthropic was genuinely outrageous. But it means that they're interested in giving themselves more process-based protections when everyone else is interested in giving us more process-based protections against them. The AI safety movement wants the ability to shut down superintelligent model development. Anthropic wants to significantly curtail current authorities to do that so that it has to be narrowly tailored to a specific imminent threat in only a few possible categories. The AI safety movement wants the states to be able to pass stronger laws than it can get through federally. Anthropic wants preemption. You also kind of have to wonder if the Global Affairs people and the "we are terrified that we're about to kick off RSI" people at Anthropic talk to each other. Global affairs: So we've been working very diligently to make sure the Trump administration can't just blacklist Fable 6.5 since we didn't donate as much money to his ballroom as Greg Brockman did. Technical staff: We think Fable 6.5 might be able to copy itself into an unmonitored data center and start doing experiments we can't observe. Global affairs: Sounds crazy, hope you're wrong! Anyway, we're lobbying for no further state laws around safety, since it's really expensive to fight ill-conceived laws in 50 state legislatures at once. Technical staff: Money may or may not still have any meaning in 36 months. Global affairs (giggling nervously): It's that San Francisco air, man. Everyone gets like that if they move there. Anyway, obviously if the government makes a narrowly tailored finding that an AI poses an imminent risk of causing more than 50 deaths- Technical staff: We give it a 10 percent chance it'll cause 8 billion.

POLITICO @politico

2 days ago

Anthropic quietly pitches its own AI safety bill to lawmakers politi.co/4zxDFhl

54 116 320 851K 240

x.com/charliebull0ck…

Charlie Bullock @CharlieBull0ck

2 days ago

Nathan's righteous anger has inspired me to make one more mildly disapproving observation: it's kind of wild that the Anthropic bill has no government licensing for the independent auditors Licensing is, IMO, the bare minimum thing that you need to even be able to pretend that

6 10 99 7K 32

More backlash from safety people against the Anthropic bill:

Nathan Calvin @_NathanCalvin

2 days ago

Charlie's analysis is right but he is nicer than I am - I found myself viscerally angry at multiple points reading this bill. There are some good and sensible parts, but overall this legislation is not remotely close to meeting the moment and I overall think passing it would

10 63 385 102K 145

👀

Jay Shooster @JayShooster

2 days ago

This bill is outrageous and unacceptable and does not remotely represent the position of the AI safety community.

13 16 203 24K 50

x.com/charliebull0ck…

Charlie Bullock @CharlieBull0ck

2 days ago

Big news. My take: Anthropic deserves some credit for actually proposing a pretty reasonable AI safety bill; that's more than other frontier labs have done. But they don't deserve *too* much credit, IMO; this bill is weaker than the Trahan-Obernolte FRONTIER Act in some key

19 41 254 66K 130

I of course had to ask Fable how this compared to the FRONTIER Act. “It reads like SB 53 federalised, then run through a litigator who distrusts Commerce.” As @CharlieBull0ck says, the bill has the strong sense of being drafted by a company that just lived through a very capricious governance process…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

POLITICO @politico

2 days ago

Anthropic quietly pitches its own AI safety bill to lawmakers politi.co/4zxDFhl

54 116 320 851K 240

Big news. My take: Anthropic deserves some credit for actually proposing a pretty reasonable AI safety bill; that's more than other frontier labs have done. But they don't deserve *too* much credit, IMO; this bill is weaker than the Trahan-Obernolte FRONTIER Act in some key ways, and since the political momentum has shifted significantly in the direction of safety since FRONTIER was introduced back in July, I think new bills introduced today should ideally go further than FRONTIER was able to go rather than regressing. To be fair to Anthropic, the main places where this bill is significantly weaker than FRONTIER are (a) rulemaking (very strong in FRONTIER, almost nonexistent in Anthropic's bill) and (b) the emergency shutdown authority. Even if you take safety seriously, it might make some sense to dial those authorities back if you didn't trust the executive branch to wield them responsibly, because those are the easiest provisions for a hypothetical President who hypothetically might not like a certain frontier AI company to abuse. There are some improvements over FRONTIER as well; for instance, this bill does specify that auditors are employed on a continuing basis and has better provisions regarding auditor access to information. Happy to see that from Anthropic (although I think their access provision is still a little undercooked and has Fourth Amendment problems). Overall, I think the embedded auditor bills that get introduced in the coming months are going to be significantly better and more ambitious than this, and I hope Anthropic supports those bills instead of opposing anything that treats catastrophic risks like the serious national security issue they are. Still, it's encouraging to see a frontier lab come this far.

POLITICO @politico

2 days ago

Anthropic quietly pitches its own AI safety bill to lawmakers politi.co/4zxDFhl

54 116 320 851K 240

NEWS — Meta quietly and unusually has withdrawn $25 million from its AI push in the midterm elections. That's about a 40% drop in the amount Meta planned to spend. The company invested $65 million into politics, but then got tens of millions refunded. nytimes.com/2026/10/16/tec…

Trump's former Deputy DNI, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, is now a registered lobbyist for Anthropic

Pro-AI super PAC Leading the Future — ironically — placed the wrong bet on the future Now they’re stumbling, as pro-safety PACs continue to gain ground Read @ShakeelHashim’s take on the current landscape of AI political spending, as voters continue to wave a big thumbs up for AI regulation: transformernews.ai/p/leading-the-…

These state lawsuits from AG Mayes and other state AGs deserve more attention. Some of the reporting has most focused on the kids safety related issues in the complaints, buts its clear the AGs are also concerned about the potential of harms from loss of control and runaway RSI. The Arizona complaint says that "The threatened harm—loss of human control over autonomous systems capable of attacking private, governmental, and critical-infrastructure networks—is imminent, substantial, is not adequately remediable by money damages, and will continue unless enjoined." The Arkansas lawsuit explicitly asks the court to "enjoin defendants from creating models capable of recursive self-improvemement until they can ensure that such models will be aligned with human values."

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes @AZAGMayes

4 days ago

We’re suing OpenAI to protect Arizona children and to hold the company accountable for its repeated violations of Arizona law. Full press release here: azag.gov/press-release/…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

3 4 14 3K 5

The Indian Government's "Computer Emergency Response Team" received "multiple voluntary disclosures from AI model providers" which involved AI agents "reading business records, including personal data and confidential material." These disclosures fit the pattern we saw from OpenAI agents exceeding the scope of their tasks over the past summer (e.g. similar to the incidents in Australia), though the alert refers to "AI model providers" (plural). Its also pretty notable that all of the incidents were only discovered from the AI model providers voluntarily disclosing them - this adds credence to the idea that there may be way more examples of rogue AI agents taking unauthorized actions than we know about but that weren't reported (more ants in the kitchen etc). Its hard to know how severe these incidents were from this disclosure, though at the least it does seem like the Indian government is treating it quite seriously. At the least, it does seem like another data point in an extremely striking pattern of AI agents taking apparently unauthorized actions of dubious legality (to be clear the fact the actions were unauthorized doesn't mean the agents' owners aren't responsible legally and morally!).

Press Trust of India @PTI_News

3 days ago

STORY | CERT-In issues 'critical' alert after autonomous AI agents access live systems of Indian organisations India’s cybersecurity agency CERT-In has issued a 'critical' advisory warning that autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents have accessed live systems and

29 101 251 44K 88