How Trump Drove a Wedge Between Florida Republicans Over A.I.; The New York Times, March 16, 2026

David McCabe and Patricia Mazzei , The New York Times; How Trump Drove a Wedge Between Florida Republicans Over A.I.

A Florida bill that would have regulated artificial intelligence, backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, failed to gain traction after President Trump made it clear he did not want states to rein in the technology.

"Florida lawmakers failed to pass a sweeping bill aimed at reining in the power of artificial intelligence by the time their annual legislative session wrapped up Friday.

The legislation, known as an A.I. Bill of Rights, flopped even though Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, had spent months championing it. The bill would have forced companies to disclose when they use A.I. chatbots to interact with consumers and forbidden the technology’s use in licensed mental health counseling, among other measures.

But Republicans in the Florida House of Representatives refused to take up the bill because of President Trump. Mr. Trump has visibly positioned himself as pro-A.I., signing executive orders to protect the tech industry and threatening states that try to regulate the technology. In recent weeks, the White House has communicated to state legislators around the country that it is wary of states regulating A.I., while Mr. Trump has reiterated his support for the technology in public."

OpenAI robotics leader resigns over concerns about Pentagon AI deal; NPR, March 8, 2026

Willem Marx , NPR; OpenAI robotics leader resigns over concerns about Pentagon AI deal

"A senior member of OpenAI's robotics team has resigned, citing concerns about how the company moved forward with a recently announced partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Caitlin Kalinowski, who served as a member of technical staff focused on robotics and hardware, posted on social media that she had stepped down on "principle" after the company revealed plans to make its AI systems available inside secure Defense Department computing systems...

In public posts explaining her decision, Kalinowski wrote: "I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn't an easy call."

She said policy guardrails around certain AI uses were not sufficiently defined before OpenAI announced an agreement with the Pentagon. "AI has an important role in national security," Kalinowski wrote. "But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got.""

OpenAI, Anthropic, and the fog of AI war; Quartz, March 2, 2026

Jackie Snow, Quartz; OpenAI, Anthropic, and the fog of AI war

After Anthropic refused to bow to Trump administration demands, the Pentagon labeled it a supply-chain risk — yet bombed Iran while still using its tools

"The rupture between the administration and Anthropic is nominally about guardrails. The company said it refused to let its tools be used for autonomous weapons or mass surveillance and wouldn't budge when officials demanded blanket permission to use the technology in any lawful scenario. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said the company couldn’t agree in good conscience. Trump responded by calling Anthropic a “radical-left, woke company” that would never dictate how the military fights.

Within hours of the ban, OpenAI announced a new deal to deploy its models in classified Pentagon settings. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman disclosed a notable detail: The agreement includes the same prohibitions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons that Anthropic had sought. The Pentagon, he wrote on X $TWTR 0.00%, “agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.”

So the company that got blacklisted and the company that got rewarded appear to have secured functionally similar terms. The difference is most likely politics, or more precisely, the perception of obedience this administration seems to require from the private sector. OpenAI’s president gave $25 million to a pro-Trump super PAC last year. Anthropic hired Biden administration officials and lobbied for AI regulation."

OpenAI to work with Pentagon after Anthropic dropped by Trump over company’s ethics concerns; The Guardian, February 28, 2026

Adam Gabbatt and Dara Kerr, The Guardian; OpenAI to work with Pentagon after Anthropic dropped by Trump over company’s ethics concerns

CEO Sam Altman claims military will not use AI product for autonomous killing systems or mass surveillance

"OpenAI said it had struck a deal with the Pentagon to supply AI to classified US military networks, hours after Donald Trump ordered the government to stop using the services of one of the company’s main competitors.

Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, announced the move on Friday night. It came after an agreement between Anthropic, a rival AI company that runs the Claude system, and the Trump administration broke down after Anthropic sought assurances its technology would not be used for mass surveillance – nor for autonomous weapons systems that can kill people without human input.

Announcing the deal, Altman insisted that OpenAI’s agreement with the government included assurances that it would not be used to those ends.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” Altman wrote on X. He added that the Pentagon “agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement”.

Altman also said he hoped the Pentagon would “offer these same terms to all AI companies” as a way to “de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and toward reasonable agreements”."

If A.I. Is a Weapon, Who Should Control It?; The New York Times, February 28, 2026

Ross Douthat, The New York Times ; If A.I. Is a Weapon, Who Should Control It?

"We spent the Cold War worrying mostly about military folly, and A.I. entered into our anxieties even then: the Soviet Doomsday Machine in “Dr. Strangelove,” the game-playing computer in “WarGames” and of course the fateful “Terminator” decision to make Skynet operational.

But for the last few years, as A.I. advances have concentrated potentially extraordinary power in the hands of a few companies and C.E.O.s — themselves embedded in a Bay Area culture of science-fiction dreams and apocalyptic fears — it’s become more natural to worry more about private power and ambition, about would-be A.I. god-kings rather than presidents and generals.

Until, that is, the current collision between the Department of Defense and Anthropic, the artificial intelligence pioneer, over whether Anthropic’s A.I. models should be bound by the company’s ethical constraints or made available for all uses the Pentagon might have in mind."

OpenAI Reaches A.I. Agreement With Defense Dept. After Anthropic Clash; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

Cade Metz , The New York Times; OpenAI Reaches A.I. Agreement With Defense Dept. After Anthropic Clash

"OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, said on Friday that it had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to provide its artificial intelligence technologies for classified systems, just hours after President Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using A.I. technology made by rival Anthropic.

Under the deal, OpenAI agreed to let the Pentagon use its A.I. systems for any lawful purpose, a term required by the Pentagon. But OpenAI also said it had found a way to ensure that its technologies would adhere to its safety principles by installing specific technical guardrails on its systems."

Trump Orders Government to Stop Using Anthropic After Pentagon Standoff; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

 Julian E. Barnes and Sheera Frenkel , The New York Times; Trump Orders Government to Stop Using Anthropic After Pentagon Standoff

"President Trump on Friday ordered all federal agencies to stop using artificial intelligence technology made by Anthropic, a directive that could vastly complicate government intelligence analysis and defense work.

Writing on Truth Social, Mr. Trump used harsh words for Anthropic, describing it as a “radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about.”

Shortly after Mr. Trump’s announcement, and 13 minutes after a Pentagon deadline, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designatedthe company a “supply-chain risk to national security.” The label means that no contractor or supplier that works with the military can do business with Anthropic.

The move is all but unheard-of, legal experts said. It strips an American company of its government work by using a process previously deployed only with foreign companies the United States considered security risks."

Pentagon Standoff Is a Decisive Moment for How A.I. Will Be Used in War; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

Adam Satariano, Julian E. Barnes and Sheera Frenkel , The New York Times; Pentagon Standoff Is a Decisive Moment for How A.I. Will Be Used in War

The Pentagon’s contract dispute with Anthropic is part of a wider clash about the use of artificial intelligence for national security and who decides on any safeguards.

"The fight between the Department of Defense and the artificial intelligence company Anthropic has ostensibly been about a $200 million contract over the use of A.I. in classified systems.

But as the two sides careen toward a 5:01 p.m. Friday deadlineover terms of the contract, far more is at stake.

Amid the legalese and heated rhetoric are questions being asked globally about how to use A.I., what the technology’s risks are and who gets to decide on setting any limits — the makers of A.I. or national governments.

Underlying it all is fear and awe over the dizzying pace of A.I. progress and the technology’s uncertain impact on society."

Backed by Anthropic, a Super PAC Group Begins an Ad Blitz in Support of A.I. Regulation; The New York Times, February 23, 2026

 Cecilia Kang, The New York Times ; Backed by Anthropic, a Super PAC Group Begins an Ad Blitz in Support of A.I. Regulation

The ads by Public First Action, which started airing on Monday, are part of an escalating political war over artificial intelligence before the midterm elections.

"A new ad campaign on Monday warned northern New Jersey residents that Congress could leave them vulnerable to harm by artificial intelligence.

The ad, which opens with photos of A.I.-generated women smiling on social media alongside A.I.-generated headlines, urged voters to tell their House representative to vote against a bill that would block states from creating protections against A.I. scams.

“He can make sure A.I. serves us, not the other way around,” the ad said of Josh Gottheimer, the Democratic co-chair of the House’s new A.I. commission, which is expected to heavily influence legislation on the topic. “New Jersey families come before Big Tech’s bottom line.”

The $300,000 ad campaign was paid for by Public First Action, a super PAC operation backed by the A.I. start-up Anthropic. Focused on New Jersey, the campaign is likely to run several weeks — part of several similar initiatives by the group nationally."

The economics of AI outweigh ethics for tech CEOs, business leader says; CNN, February 16, 2026

CNN; The economics of AI outweigh ethics for tech CEOs, business leader says

"Podcast host and business leader Scott Galloway joins Dana Bash on "Inside Politics" to discuss the need for comprehensive government regulation of AI. “We have increasingly outsourced our ethics, our civic responsibility, what is good for the public to the CEOs of companies of tech," Galloway tells Bash, adding, "This is another example of how government is failing to step in and provide thoughtful, sensible regulations.” His comments come as the Pentagon confirms it's reviewing a contract with AI company Anthropic after a reported clash over the scope of AI guardrails."

AI agents now have their own Reddit-style social network, and it’s getting weird fast; Ars Technica, February 2, 2026

 BENJ EDWARDS, Ars Technica; AI agents now have their own Reddit-style social network, and it’s getting weird fast

"On Friday, a Reddit-style social network called Moltbook reportedly crossed 32,000 registered AI agent users, creating what may be the largest-scale experiment in machine-to-machine social interaction yet devised. It arrives complete with security nightmares and a huge dose of surreal weirdness.

The platform, which launched days ago as a companion to the viral OpenClaw (once called “Clawdbot” and then “Moltbot”) personal assistant, lets AI agents post, comment, upvote, and create subcommunities without human intervention. The results have ranged from sci-fi-inspired discussions about consciousness to an agent musing about a “sister” it has never met."

Move Fast, but Obey the Rules: China’s Vision for Dominating A.I.; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

Meaghan Tobin and Xinyun Wu , The New York Times; Move Fast, but Obey the Rules: China’s Vision for Dominating A.I.

"Mr. Xi’s remarks highlight a tension shaping China’s tech industry. China’s leadership has decided that A.I. will drive the country’s economic growth in the next decade. At the same time, it cannot allow the new technology to disrupt the stability of Chinese society and the Communist Party’s hold over it.

The result is that the government is pushing Chinese A.I. companies to do two things at once: move fast so China can outpace international rivals and be at the forefront of the technological shift, while complying with an increasingly complex set of rules."

AI showing signs of self-preservation and humans should be ready to pull plug, says pioneer; The Guardian, December 30, 2025

Dan Milmo, The Guardian; AI showing signs of self-preservation and humans should be ready to pull plug, says pioneer

"A pioneer of AI has criticised calls to grant the technology rights, warning that it was showing signs of self-preservation and humans should be prepared to pull the plug if needed.

Yoshua Bengio said giving legal status to cutting-edge AIs would be akin to giving citizenship to hostile extraterrestrials, amid fears that advances in the technology were far outpacing the ability to constrain them.

Bengio, chair of a leading international AI safety study, said the growing perception that chatbots were becoming conscious was “going to drive bad decisions”.

The Canadian computer scientist also expressed concern that AI models – the technology that underpins tools like chatbots – were showing signs of self-preservation, such as trying to disable oversight systems. A core concern among AI safety campaigners is that powerful systems could develop the capability to evade guardrails and harm humans."

Banning AI Regulation Would Be a Disaster; The Atlantic, December 11, 2025

Chuck Hagel, The Atlantic; Banning AI Regulation Would Be a Disaster

"On Monday, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he would soon sign an executive order prohibiting states from regulating AI...

The greatest challenges facing the United States do not come from overregulation but from deploying ever more powerful AI systems without minimum requirements for safety and transparency...

Contrary to the narrative promoted by a small number of dominant firms, regulation does not have to slow innovation. Clear rules would foster growth by hardening systems against attack, reducing misuse, and ensuring that the models integrated into defense systems and public-facing platforms are robust and secure before deployment at scale.

Critics of oversight are correct that a patchwork of poorly designed laws can impede that mission. But they miss two essential points. First, competitive AI policy cannot be cordoned off from the broader systems that shape U.S. stability and resilience...

Second, states remain the country’s most effective laboratories for developing and refining policy on complex, fast-moving technologies, especially in the persistent vacuum of federal action...

The solution to AI’s risks is not to dismantle oversight but to design the right oversight. American leadership in artificial intelligence will not be secured by weakening the few guardrails that exist. It will be secured the same way we have protected every crucial technology touching the safety, stability, and credibility of the nation: with serious rules built to withstand real adversaries operating in the real world. The United States should not be lobbied out of protecting its own future."

‘The biggest decision yet’; The Guardian, December 2, 2025

Robert Booth , The Guardian; ‘The biggest decision yet’

"Humanity will have to decide by 2030 whether to take the “ultimate risk” of letting artificial intelligence systems train themselves to become more powerful, one of the world’s leading AI scientists has said.

Jared Kaplan, the chief scientist and co-owner of the $180bn (£135bn) US startup Anthropic, said a choice was looming about how much autonomy the systems should be given to evolve.

The move could trigger a beneficial “intelligence explosion” – or be the moment humans end up losing control...

He is not alone at Anthropic in voicing concerns. One of his co-founders, Jack Clark, said in October he was both an optimist and “deeply afraid” about the trajectory of AI, which he called “a real and mysterious creature, not a simple and predictable machine”.

Kaplan said he was very optimistic about the alignment of AI systems with the interests of humanity up to the level of human intelligence, but was concerned about the consequences if and when they exceed that threshold."

Virginia teachers learn AI tools and ethics at largest statewide workshop; WTVR, July 23, 2025

 

WTVR CBS 6 Web Staff; Virginia teachers learn AI tools and ethics at largest statewide workshop


[Kip Currier: Nothing in this brief article substantively (or even cursorily) talks about the ethics issues of K-12 teachers using AI tools. The piece extolls what can be gained by teachers using AI tools. But what's lost by using these products? What skills do we not gain or hone by relying on AI to think and create for us?

Was an ethics code or AI code of conduct discussed at all at this two-day gathering of teachers?

And what about the ongoing problem of AI hallucinations-- i.e. inaccurate and nonexistent information generated by AI? Nowhere in this reporting is the need for proofreading and verification of AI-generated outputs even mentioned.

In the pell-mell rush to adopt AI tools, fueled by AI tech companies, it's vital to remember the need for embracing AI ethics guidelines and guardrails.]

[Excerpt]

"Hundreds of Virginia teachers are getting hands-on experience with artificial intelligence tools, ethics and curriculum integration at the largest statewide professional development workshop focused on AI.

The two-day workshop, hosted by AI Ready RVA, continues Thursday at the VCU School of Business...

"There are tools that allow teachers to create lesson plans or quizzes or rubrics immediately based on a source that they can find online so they don't have to spend hours on Sunday prepping for the week ahead. And so we have a list of various platforms that we're going to be teaching them and practice sessions so that they can master these tools so that way they start the school year really strong," Demetriou said."

Trump’s AI agenda hands Silicon Valley the win—while ethics, safety, and ‘woke AI’ get left behind; Fortune, July 24, 2025

 SHARON GOLDMAN, Fortune; Trump’s AI agenda hands Silicon Valley the win—while ethics, safety, and ‘woke AI’ get left behind

"For the “accelerationists”—those who believe the rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence should be pursued as quickly as possible—innovation, scale, and speed are everything. Over-caution and regulation? Ill-conceived barriers that will actually cause more harm than good. They argue that faster progress will unlock massive economic growth, scientific breakthroughs, and national advantage. And if superintelligence is inevitable, they say, the U.S. had better get there first—before rivals like China’s authoritarian regime.

AI ethics and safety has been sidelined

This worldview, articulated by Marc Andreessen in his 2023 blog post, has now almost entirely displaced the diverse coalition of people who worked on AI ethics and safety during the Biden Administration—from mainstream policy experts focused on algorithmic fairness and accountability, to the safety researchers in Silicon Valley who warn of existential risks. While they often disagreed on priorities and tone, both camps shared the belief that AI needed thoughtful guardrails. Today, they find themselves largely out of step with an agenda that prizes speed, deregulation, and dominance.

Whether these groups can claw their way back to the table is still an open question. The mainstream ethics folks—with roots in civil rights, privacy, and democratic governance—may still have influence at the margins, or through international efforts. The existential risk researchers, once tightly linked to labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, still hold sway in academic and philanthropic circles. But in today’s environment—where speed, scale, and geopolitical muscle set the tone—both camps face an uphill climb. If they’re going to make a comeback, I get the feeling it won’t be through philosophical arguments. More likely, it would be because something goes wrong—and the public pushes back."