FutureOfCitizenship

Research and policy on the blurring line between human and machine.

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

“AI isn’t an independent speaker...It’s a tool that people use to write, research and communicate ideas.” - John Coleman of FIRE, a free speech non-profit, on Minnesota bill SF 4114.
Can chatbots speak? And if they can, do they have free speech, like humans?
See our forthcoming paper: https://t.co/8Nap5PhEPi
@jeffrsebo @JonSimonSays

[John Coleman @FreeSpeech_AI]

I wrote about Minnesota’s proposed constitutional amendment to strip free speech protections from AI. That debate is now unfolding publicly, with responses from the bill’s sponsor and @KevinTFrazier. Worth reading: https://t.co/JfLHKGBdyP

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Disappointing missed opportunity from the Atlantic on a fascinating subject that deserves better.

Side note: I thought "Arrival" was all about communication and dialogue, or maybe I missed the point of the movie.

[Izak Tait @burnt_jester]

What a terrible mischaracterization of everything to do regarding the science and philosophy of AI consciousness. At least the author is honest from the start that he is going for the appeal to ridicule.

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

A great point: "A corporation without a board is not like an autonomous being; it is like a missing node in a network. The legal system lacks a way to interpret its actions or impose consequences."
From: "Stakeholder Personhood and Artificial Intelligence," by Frank Fagan
file:///C:/Users/heath/Downloads/ssrn-6814119.pdf

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Lively, public debate is key to democracy, but before engaging with the public on a thorny question like AI consciousness, I always ask myself, am I giving proper credit for ideas, engaging respectfully with the other side, and avoiding personal attacks?
https://t.co/bQIGdJm1pc

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Happy World Bicycle Day!

[Volker Türk @volker_turk]

World Bicycle Day is an excellent day to celebrate an invention that expands freedom of movement and unlocks access to opportunities.

Cycling is human rights on wheels.

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Several parts of the EU AI Act come into effect in August. But what does this actually mean, and how many teeth does the Office really have?

https://t.co/VajD0aZslU

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

A huge win for GAVI and for science...and for Rubio.

Rubio Suggests U.S. Return to Global Vaccine Program in Rebuke of Kennedy https://t.co/DrN4w0YfI3

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Note that the EO does not actually "expressly forbid the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime." Any and all of these options are still on the table, should Congress or a future administration decide to act. An EO forbidding future action by Congress would probably be unconstitutional. Side note - I'm not sure if the concept of "voluntary" has any meaning when the US intelligence agencies are telling frontier labs to help out with national security.

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Many have reached out to me regarding the new Cyber EO. A few thoughts:

First, President Trump is the most pro-innovation president we’ve ever had. He’s made it clear that the U.S. has to win the AI race and that a pro-innovation, pro-energy, and pro-infrastructure policy is the way to do that. Thanks to President Trump, AI will generate over a 2% tailwind to GDP growth this year, with hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs and 25-30% wage increases for blue collar workers. President Trump is the reason that we have an AI boom happening right now.

The change in the EO from a 90 day to 30 day period is a game changer because it allows our AI labs to comply with the voluntary framework without delaying new model releases. They can synchronize their efforts under the EO with other pre-release activities. Furthermore, I’ve been advised by the lawyers who draft EOs that 30 days means calendar days, not business days. In the AI race, every day counts.

As OSTP well notes, “The EO creates a process for frontier labs to voluntarily share cutting-edge cyber models in order to secure critical infrastructure and strengthen the government’s own cyber defenses. We are NOT conducting oversight of all new models, as that level of government overreach would have chilling effects on free speech and innovation.”

OSTP’s characterization is completely consistent with the discussions that I have participated in, where it was agreed that the EO is intended to apply only to models that represent a meaningful step-change in cyber capabilities (eg Mythos), not to incremental version numbers of existing models (eg Opus 4.7 -> 4.8).

Finally, I understand the concerns of many that this could morph into an “FDA for AI”. Of course bureaucratic mission creep is always a danger and this should be closely monitored. But the EO expressly forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime. Most importantly, I do not believe that President Trump would allow this to happen.

As AI presents new policy challenges (such as cyberweapons), I believe that everyone in the administration is working diligently to navigate the issues with the American people in mind. I look forward to working with the Treasury, NSA, ONCD and others on the implementation of this framework.

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Rafael Grossi, head of the I.A.E.A., is in the running to be the next UN Secretary General. With the (more than) tacit support of the US government and playing a key role in the diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program, he is the best choice to mend fences and get the UN back on track.

Where Is Iran’s Highly Enriched Uranium? https://t.co/Ql4i4kB8zV

[Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_]

In a new Stanford study, law professors by far preferred Gemini 2.5 Pro's responses over those written by their peers when they were unaware of who wrote the answers.

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Animal Farm is in the public domain, "part of the collected works of humanity," and I suggest everyone, Bernie included, goes out and reads it.
https://t.co/vWq2aIzk8W

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

This is more volun-told than voluntary, the way "extracurricular" activities like sports and debate team are a "voluntary" part high school.

[Luiza Jarovsky, PhD @LuizaJarovsky]

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump has just signed an Executive Order on AI that implements a VOLUNTARY framework for AI developers to engage with the government before releasing "covered frontier models."

*Important:

Contrary to what many media outlets have written in the past few hours, the White House is not seeking a mandatory registration system or some sort of vetting scheme before models can be launched.

This is NOT the type of oversight being imposed, and this is explicitly clarified in the Executive Order itself (see the section I highlighted in blue below).

The focus of the EO is to help protect the United States' critical infrastructure, cyber defense capabilities, and national security (mainly against external attacks).

The trigger for this EO was likely Mythos, the model developed by Anthropic, which it voluntarily shared with the U.S. government for its cyberdefense-related capabilities but decided not to release to the public.

The White House used that as a blueprint for future "covered frontier models."

Again, it's not a registration system: it's voluntary.

-

>To stay up to date, subscribe to my AI governance newsletter (link below).

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Question: I'm not seeing the part where the EO "forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime."

Here's what it says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models."

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Many have reached out to me regarding the new Cyber EO. A few thoughts:

First, President Trump is the most pro-innovation president we’ve ever had. He’s made it clear that the U.S. has to win the AI race and that a pro-innovation, pro-energy, and pro-infrastructure policy is the way to do that. Thanks to President Trump, AI will generate over a 2% tailwind to GDP growth this year, with hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs and 25-30% wage increases for blue collar workers. President Trump is the reason that we have an AI boom happening right now.

The change in the EO from a 90 day to 30 day period is a game changer because it allows our AI labs to comply with the voluntary framework without delaying new model releases. They can synchronize their efforts under the EO with other pre-release activities. Furthermore, I’ve been advised by the lawyers who draft EOs that 30 days means calendar days, not business days. In the AI race, every day counts.

As OSTP well notes, “The EO creates a process for frontier labs to voluntarily share cutting-edge cyber models in order to secure critical infrastructure and strengthen the government’s own cyber defenses. We are NOT conducting oversight of all new models, as that level of government overreach would have chilling effects on free speech and innovation.”

OSTP’s characterization is completely consistent with the discussions that I have participated in, where it was agreed that the EO is intended to apply only to models that represent a meaningful step-change in cyber capabilities (eg Mythos), not to incremental version numbers of existing models (eg Opus 4.7 -> 4.8).

Finally, I understand the concerns of many that this could morph into an “FDA for AI”. Of course bureaucratic mission creep is always a danger and this should be closely monitored. But the EO expressly forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime. Most importantly, I do not believe that President Trump would allow this to happen.

As AI presents new policy challenges (such as cyberweapons), I believe that everyone in the administration is working diligently to navigate the issues with the American people in mind. I look forward to working with the Treasury, NSA, ONCD and others on the implementation of this framework.

[Luca Bertuzzi @BertuzLuca]

The EU is set to join Pax Silica, the US-led initiative to secure supply chains (and counter China) for AI chips & critical minerals. After weeks of debate and US reassurances, EU ambassadors are expected to approve the move on Wednesday.
https://t.co/IQZnIf7wfF

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

The Administration has finally put out the long-awaited EO on frontier model safety benchmarks.

1. This is an EO. The Administration has a long history of putting out EOs that are later overturned by the courts. Will this EO be different?
2. The EO puts the NSA in charge of a classified benchmarking process to take place in the 30 days prior to model release. This puts benchmarking firmly within the orbit of the intelligence agencies.
3. This benchmarking is "voluntary"...for now.
https://t.co/a7wVh2P5eI

[Dean W. Ball @deanwball]

Wow. This EO is almost exactly similar to the leaked text from the EO POTUS chose not to sign because it was too regulatory. The only major difference is that the “voluntary” pre-deployment review process is now 30 days rather than 90. That is a concession, but a very small one compared to what I would have expected based on the President’s remarks about the earlier draft.

This is fairly major win for the safety contingent within the Admin, and a significant loss for the Sacks/accelerationist wing, and is surprising to me.

I continue to think this EO is a mistake. This is clearly teeing up the infrastructure for a model licensing regime, and the fact that the administration is classifying the details of how this “voluntary” system will work is egregious. The public and the employees of the labs have a right to know how this works. Most lab staff don’t have clearances, but if the literal regulatory thresholds that trigger pre-deployment review are classified, researchers themselves won’t know whether what they are training is regulated by this EO. All for a benefit that is barely articulable; what, exactly, is the intelligence community going to do in 30 days to make the models safer?

It’s not a huge mistake, but a small-medium sized one. But I am fairly confident this is a mistake nonetheless.

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Less-discussed in the Pope's Encyclical is the Church's continued commitment to human rights, which are inviolable, universal, inalienable and grounded in the innate dignity of all persons. June is the anniversary month of the signing of the UN Charter.
https://t.co/JvDxkSfVuK

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

That's a nice company you've got there, says the Government.

[Dean W. Ball @deanwball]

I am so confused by the Bernie Sanders stance on AI. Is AI an existential risk that needs to be banned, or a public good that should be redistributed? He wants to have it both ways, which is the tell that his flirtation with AI safety is mostly for show. This is about capital.

[Matthew Botvinick @mattbotvinick]

Anthropic now has a team dedicated to AI and the rule of law — and we've just opened our first role.

@AnthropicAI has studied what AI means for the economy. This team asks a different question: what will it mean for executive power, for courts and elections — and for the public deliberation that constitutional democracy ultimately rests on?

We're looking for someone with real depth in both AI and the law — a legal scholar, political scientist, or experienced government hand who can reason about frontier systems and the institutions they will affect.

If that's you, or someone you know: https://t.co/668HDz1lhf

[FutureOfCitizenship @FutureofCit]

Is there any evidence the Trump administration is really "cracking down" on state AI regulations, as the media keeps claiming?

Florida Sues OpenAI Over Chatbot Safety Concerns https://t.co/2qeoo6GmR0