Seven-part legislative blueprint proposing a federal baseline for AI policy that would preempt state AI laws creating 'undue burdens,' with exceptions for child protection, consumer protection/fraud, zoning and siting, and state procurement. Covers child safety, communities, infrastructure, intellectual property, free speech, innovation, and workforce development.
Vehicles carry asks; asks outlive them
Sorted by what filers wanted done to the rules
“Number one, I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards. Number two, I would create a set of safety standards focused on what you said in your third hypothesis as the dangerous capability evaluations.”
Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript.
“just come back to the question of, of whether we need an independent agency. I mean, I think we don't want to slow down regulation to address real risks right now. Right? So we have existing regulatory authorities in place who have been clear that they have the ability to regulate in their respective domains.”
Speaker: Christina Montgomery, Chief Privacy & Trust Officer, IBM. Third-party verbatim transcript.
“I think that would be disastrous. I to give a more specific answer to your previous question, which I think touches on why it would be so bad, there are three key inputs to these AI systems.”
Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript; transcript's 'I to give' artifact preserved.
“Congress has spent a lot of time over the last year debating whether to do away with regulations for the AI industry – this bill is a welcome show of bipartisan support for creating rules of the road to protect the public.”
“These cases demonstrate that the fair use defense enables courts to consider all the fair use factors and apply them in the context of specific facts. MPA submits that this type of inquiry is the appropriate way to deal with the many types of potential infringements that may arise under the broad umbrella of “training” a generative AI system.”
Position is case-by-case fair-use analysis, opposing categorical treatment of training as fair use; also opposes new AI-specific copyright legislation.
“We believe that, in general, training generative AI constitutes fair use under current U.S. law. Using creative works to train generative AI fits with the long line of cases that has found that non-consumptive, technological uses of creative works in ways that are unrelated to the expressive content of those works are transformative fair uses”
“Retaining the UK’s gold standard copyright protections - and ensuring the law is enforceable and respected in the face of the challenges posed by GAI - will create incentives for GAI developers to enter into licence agreements with rights holders, ensuring a steady flow of quality, human-authored works for GAI training.”
“We are clear in our view that the training of AI models is a non-expressive use of open web content, which boosts economic growth, fosters scientific advancement, and enables the creation of valuable new works.”
“techUK believes that Option 2 – the broad TDM exception – would provide the strongest competitive advantage for the UK's AI sector and create significant opportunities for economic growth and will be the preferred option of many.”
“The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI, and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.”
“And the federal government should embrace policy frameworks that preserve access to data for fair learning, advance a risk-based approach to AI applications based on existing regulations, and preempt a chaotic patchwork of state-level rules on frontier AI development.”
“And the federal government should embrace policy frameworks that preserve access to data for fair learning, advance a risk-based approach to AI applications based on existing regulations, and preempt a chaotic patchwork of state-level rules on frontier AI development.”
Same sentence carries both the fair-learning and preemption asks; recorded once per ask.
“The AI Action Plan should encourage the continued development of free market licensing to support a symbiotic relationship between content creators, publishers, and AI developers.”
“In addition, we urge the administration to clarify that existing copyright law protects the ability of developers to train models. Getting this right is critical to ensuring American competitiveness in AI.”
“Specifically, the nation’s AI policy and AI Action Plan should respect intellectual property, support the development of voluntary licensing in free markets, and promote appropriate transparency and fair competition in the AI and technology sector.”
The filed RFI comments; doc-nma-actionplan-2025 is the accompanying press release.
“We believe a broad text and data mining exception, as described in Option 2, is the most effective way to achieve the Government’s objectives to unlock and leverage the benefits of AI in the UK.”
Submitted via IPO survey 25 Feb 2025; summary published 2 Apr 2025 at the Commons SITC's request.
“This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI.”
Signed by 40 attorneys general, bipartisan.
“The report presents thoughtful and balanced analysis of fair use in the context of AI training, emphasizing that AI training is not categorically fair use and that whether a use qualifies as a fair use is a matter of context and degree.”
“In the report, the Copyright Office takes the sensible and correct approach that AI training is not categorically fair use and that whether a use qualifies as a fair use is a matter of context and degree.”
“More than 1,000 AI-related bills have already been introduced at the state and local level this year. Without a federal moratorium there will be a growing patchwork of state and local laws that will significantly limit AI development and deployment.”
Coalition letter of 250+ business associations to Senate leaders Thune and Schumer.
“We, the undersigned organizations, call on you to strike the AI moratorium from the budget reconciliation text to protect our families. It is irresponsible and short sighted to strip children, creators, and Americans from all backgrounds of their most basic protections and tie the hands of state legislators.”
Co-led 140+ organization letter (with Common Sense Media, Young People's Alliance, ARI and others).
“However, its purpose is clear: create a standing mechanism for the federal government to attack a wide range of state laws even before those laws are fully implemented and, ideally, chill them from being adopted in the first place.”
“The Secretary of State must now definitively rule out any new copyright exception, bringing an end to the uncertainty created by this prolonged process over the past year. This will send a clear message to AI developers that they must enter into licensing agreements with the UK’s media and creative copyright owners”
“This is a disastrous proposal that Big Tech is celebrating. This bill strips states of their authority to respond to real harms consumers are experiencing.”