A few days removed from the release of the AI Action Plan, it’s now possible to take a slightly more nuanced perspective of what many observers have heralded as “not bad.”Americans for Responsible Innovation President Brad Carson, for example, regarded the plan as “cautiously promising.” Michael Horowitz of the Council on Foreign Relations characterized it as aligned with “an ongoing bipartisan approach to the U.S.
leadership in AI.” The Atlantic Council labeled it a “deliberative and thorough plan.” Of course, some took a less favorable view—the New York Times promptly ran a summary under the headline, “Trump Plans to Give A.I. Developers a Free Hand.” Still, a scroll through X, Bluesky, and LinkedIn in the hours following the publication of the long-awaited document returned a fairly uniform, positive assessment.
This general embrace speaks both to the state of the artificial intelligence regulatory space as well as to the contents of the plan itself. On the former, just a few weeks ago, the fierce battle around the AI moratorium proposed and later voted out of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” suggested that partisanship had finally and firmly entrenched itself in AI governance. The fact that this plan managed to earn support from both sides of that prior debate has several possible explanations.
It could be the case that seemingly strong positions in AI policy debates are not as deeply entrenched as they seem, making stakeholders more receptive to new evidence or shifting circumstances. It may also be true that the expansive plan adequately addressed the key concerns of the many diverse camps in the broader AI debate.While a full summary of the plan and related executive orders merits a series of posts, I’ll cover some of the plan’s most important provisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment