Leading AI Companies Change Position, Advocate for Decreased Regulations with New U.S. Administration
Tech giants retract their previous endorsement for AI regulation, aiming for wider data access and exemption from copyright limitations in light of growing global competition.
In May 2023, leaders from top artificial intelligence firms, including OpenAI, Google's DeepMind, and Anthropic, urged U.S. legislators to implement federal regulations for the swiftly evolving AI industry.
The push for oversight aimed to address existential threats posed by advanced AI systems, proposing measures such as algorithmic audits, content labeling, and shared risk data.
At that time, the U.S. government collaborated with AI developers to establish voluntary commitments to ensure the safety and fairness of AI technologies.
In October 2023, a presidential executive order formalized these guidelines, mandating federal agencies to assess the potential effects of AI systems on privacy, workers' rights, and civil liberties.
After a change in administration, there was a notable shift in the approach to AI policy.
In the inaugural week of the new presidential term, an executive order was enacted to revoke the prior administration's directives and advocate for policies that foster the growth of American AI capabilities.
The new order called for the development of a national strategy to remove regulatory obstacles within one hundred eighty days.
In the weeks that followed the policy reversal, AI companies submitted documents and proposals to help shape the new framework.
A comprehensive fifteen-page submission from OpenAI urged the federal government to prevent individual states from establishing their own AI regulations.
It also mentioned the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which trained a competitive model with significantly fewer computational resources than American firms typically use, arguing for broader access to federal data for model training.
OpenAI, Google, and Meta have also lobbied for broader permissions to utilize copyrighted materials—including books, films, and artworks—for training AI models.
All three companies are currently facing ongoing legal challenges regarding copyright infringement.
They have sought executive clarification or legislative action to confirm that utilizing publicly available information for model training is considered fair use.
A prominent U.S. venture capital firm submitted a policy document advocating against any new AI-specific regulations, contending that existing consumer safety and civil rights laws are adequate.
The firm supported punitive measures against harmful offenders but opposed requirements that would impose regulatory burdens based on speculative risks.
This policy shift corresponds with heightened concerns among AI developers regarding increasing global competition.
During the previous administration, leading U.S. companies believed that their substantial investments and computational capabilities ensured a lasting advantage, particularly as restrictions were placed on the export of advanced AI chips to nations like China.
Recent occurrences, including the emergence of advanced models from smaller foreign competitors, have contested this assumption.
Some U.S. AI companies have re-evaluated the extent of their technological lead and are now pursuing quicker access to resources and fewer regulatory limitations.
This recalibration has resulted in a notable change in industry lobbying, with major AI companies now prioritizing competitive positioning over earlier appeals for careful and collaborative oversight.
The push for oversight aimed to address existential threats posed by advanced AI systems, proposing measures such as algorithmic audits, content labeling, and shared risk data.
At that time, the U.S. government collaborated with AI developers to establish voluntary commitments to ensure the safety and fairness of AI technologies.
In October 2023, a presidential executive order formalized these guidelines, mandating federal agencies to assess the potential effects of AI systems on privacy, workers' rights, and civil liberties.
After a change in administration, there was a notable shift in the approach to AI policy.
In the inaugural week of the new presidential term, an executive order was enacted to revoke the prior administration's directives and advocate for policies that foster the growth of American AI capabilities.
The new order called for the development of a national strategy to remove regulatory obstacles within one hundred eighty days.
In the weeks that followed the policy reversal, AI companies submitted documents and proposals to help shape the new framework.
A comprehensive fifteen-page submission from OpenAI urged the federal government to prevent individual states from establishing their own AI regulations.
It also mentioned the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which trained a competitive model with significantly fewer computational resources than American firms typically use, arguing for broader access to federal data for model training.
OpenAI, Google, and Meta have also lobbied for broader permissions to utilize copyrighted materials—including books, films, and artworks—for training AI models.
All three companies are currently facing ongoing legal challenges regarding copyright infringement.
They have sought executive clarification or legislative action to confirm that utilizing publicly available information for model training is considered fair use.
A prominent U.S. venture capital firm submitted a policy document advocating against any new AI-specific regulations, contending that existing consumer safety and civil rights laws are adequate.
The firm supported punitive measures against harmful offenders but opposed requirements that would impose regulatory burdens based on speculative risks.
This policy shift corresponds with heightened concerns among AI developers regarding increasing global competition.
During the previous administration, leading U.S. companies believed that their substantial investments and computational capabilities ensured a lasting advantage, particularly as restrictions were placed on the export of advanced AI chips to nations like China.
Recent occurrences, including the emergence of advanced models from smaller foreign competitors, have contested this assumption.
Some U.S. AI companies have re-evaluated the extent of their technological lead and are now pursuing quicker access to resources and fewer regulatory limitations.
This recalibration has resulted in a notable change in industry lobbying, with major AI companies now prioritizing competitive positioning over earlier appeals for careful and collaborative oversight.
