fp.

Yeah, the order itself seems like a fairly reasonable response to Mythos level capabilities. It does solve one problem of the frontier labs, which is safely coordinating releases without hitting antitrust regulations. It also makes a bigger moat for incumbents.

dang•1h ago

Thanks - we put that link in the toptext. I also moved the submitted URL (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/technology/trump-executiv...) to the toptext and changed the main link to https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/02/trump-signs-downsiz... since it seems to have more information.

andsoitis•2h ago

So this is going back to the spirit of what the Biden admin and the frontier labs wanted just recently?

https://www.bis.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administratio...

More regulated rather than unregulated (or very lightly regulated).

Most people would probably say that’s a good thing, if I read the tea leaves correctly.

throwaway894345•1h ago

> Most people would probably say that’s a good thing, if I read the tea leaves correctly.

I'm very pessimistic that this is about AI safety. I think it's probably more about giving the Trump administration leverage over AI companies. It will be able to coerce them into e.g. propagandizing or surveilling or similar or else they will risk the same kind of "regulatory oversight" that caused television networks to fire comedians who made jokes the regime didn't like.

skeledrew•57m ago

So going forward expect US models to respond only in ways considered appropriate by the administration. If people thought models were producing slop before... lol.

ranger_danger•50m ago

No... executive orders are not laws, they can only command the federal government, not individuals or corporations. Meaning this is mostly pointless unless you're using models hosted by the government.

xena•49m ago

Who is going to stop the federal government from enforcing them as if they were laws?

ranger_danger•43m ago

The judicidial branch, so the courts. The government would have to sue the corporation to try to get them to do something, at which point (hopefully) the judge would strike it down.

ofjcihen•43m ago

Models hosted or used by the government.

You left out the part containing the “barrels of money” incentive.

bee_rider•39m ago

Executive orders aren’t laws (an important fact that should be repeated often and loudly). However, there’s probably room for the executive branch of the government to influence model hosts, as a major funder and consumer.

pj_mukh•55m ago

"The final text asks some AI companies to submit their powerful new models to a voluntary government review 30 days before releasing the products to the public, a pause that would give federal agencies some time to gauge what threats the products may pose to sensitive financial, national security and other computer systems."

How specifically does that review work? I want to give federal agency Opus 4.8 now, while 4.7 has been out for a while (leaving Mythos aside for now). They have 30 days to figure out whether it poses a threat.

How do you do that? Is there an eval for this and if there is why can't they just make it public? What is the agencies objective (but proprietary?) analysis here?

onlyrealcuzzo•49m ago

It's just so Elon Musk gets to personally delay releases so Grok can maybe ever gain any meaningful traction...

ranger_danger•47m ago

It's in the text of the order, it directs NIST to:

> develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order

TylerE•47m ago

> Is there an eval for this and if there is why can't they just make it public?

For the same reason the CIA doesn't publish the Windows exploits it finds?

pesus•45m ago

I seriously doubt even the government actually knows or has a real plan, let alone one actually related to security. If it's anything like their track record, they'll just be asking the AI about a topic related to their enemies (i.e. anyone opposed to them in any way) to see if it says anything remotely positive about them, or anything remotely critical of the regime or out of line with the regime's "alternative facts".

euleriancon•47m ago

There doesn't really seem to be anything of substance in the actual executive order.

Section 1 doesn't say anything

Section 2 seems to boil down to: "improve cyber security and maybe use AI if we can find funding for it"

Section 3 proposes building a benchmark for evaluating cyber security performance of models that developers can choose to benchmark against. This seems like a good idea, I know Jack Clark has been a huge advocate for government's getting in with benchmarking.

Section 4 says to prioritize prosecuting cyber crimes. Not sure why they wouldn't already be prosecuted.

Section 5 doesn't say anything

parliament32•45m ago

Step 1: Require companies to submit product for "review"

Step 2: Complain about how the OSS/Chinese/whatever models are doing releases without approval

Step 3: Prohibit, because "safety" and "financial risks"(?)

So this is the door-shutting Altman et al have been pushing for eh?

supriyo-biswas•35m ago

It is surprising to me American companies completely absent from the open model space, even though we have historically seen companies doing open source.

davidkwast•26m ago

As what we say here in Brazil:

"The world doesn't go round. It flips over!"

yoyohello13•20m ago

American companies are interested in cashing in, not making a good product.

treis•6m ago

Llama?

satvikpendem•22m ago

> Compounding the problem, labs in China often release dual-use capable models as open-weight. Once a model is open-weight, safeguards that do exist can be removed, making the model available to any state or non-state actor to use for malicious purposes, including the cyber and CBRN misuse those safeguards were built to prevent.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/2028-ai-leadership

2001zhaozhao•38m ago

> The final text asks some AI companies to submit their powerful new models to a voluntary government review 30 days before releasing the products to the public, a pause that would give federal agencies some time to gauge what threats the products may pose to sensitive financial, national security and other computer systems.

> An earlier draft of the order had called for a voluntary review as much as 90 days in advance, a provision that some AI industry officials had called too onerous, POLITICO reported last month.

A 90 days delay on the release of new models would have been insane. I guess I'm glad it's been revised at least on this specific point.

waynecochran•14m ago

Somewhere in all this it is crazy that the choice could be between a US company creating an AI that could doom civilization or letting China create the AI that dooms civilization. Do we want to be the first to "summon the demon" in our own fashion or let China manifest it first. Not saying this is the choice, but it would be a crazy dillema, albeit easy choice imo, if it was.

cdrnsf•12m ago

Is this legally enforceable or is it nonsense via the White House site instead of Truth Social?

internet_points•7m ago

So that the NSA can use them to find the zero-days first?