A brief history of AI executives calling for regulation

Why AI companies can’t be trusted to self-regulate

From aviation to banking, high-risk industries are subject to independent oversight and meaningful penalties. AI companies should be no exception.

AI Guardrails Aren’t Stopping Criminal Hackers

Hackers around the world are all-in on using agentic AI to wage attacks—and manipulating tools like Anthropic’s Claude to help them carry out their crimes.

Where AI Regulation Stands Today

The White House has released a National Artificial Intelligence Legislative Framework and new executive orders aiming to establish a single, nationwide standard for AI regulation...

Study maps how ‘Big AI’ influences AI laws and oversight — Centre for Technomoral Futures

AI companies influence policy and regulation using similar techniques to Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Oil, according to a new study by colleagues at University of Edinburgh, Trinity College Dublin, TU Delft and Carnegie Mellon University.

Microsoft CEO responds to AI-generated Taylor Swift fake nude images

CEO Satya Nadella said "guardrails" need to be placed around AI technology.

Why We Can't Let Enormous Weirdos Regulate AI

Imagine if instead of regulating drones via the standard lengthy, boring, and bureaucratic process - which we did - we instead decided, in the name of fostering all-important American drone innovation, to avoid regulating drones meaningfully at all. Also, imagine that we did not pay well-known aviation safety experts, aeronautical

AI Companies Should Report Pre- and Post-Mitigation Safety Evaluations

The rapid advancement of AI systems has raised widespread concerns about potential harms of frontier AI systems and the need for responsible evaluation and oversight. In this position paper, we argue that frontier AI companies should report both pre- and post-mitigation safety evaluations to enable informed policy decisions. Evaluating models at both stages provides policymakers with essential evidence to regulate deployment, access, and safety standards. We show that relying on either in isolation can create a misleading picture of model safety. Our analysis of AI safety disclosures from leading frontier labs identifies three critical gaps: (1) companies rarely evaluate both pre- and post-mitigation versions, (2) evaluation methods lack standardization, and (3) reported results are often too vague to inform policy. To address these issues, we recommend mandatory disclosure of pre- and post- mitigation capabilities to approved government bodies, standardized evaluation methods, and minimum transparency requirements for public safety reporting. These ensure that policymakers and regulators can craft targeted safety measures, assess deployment risks, and scrutinize companies’ safety claims effectively.

ProPublica’s Approach to AI

The principles and guardrails underlying our practices with artificial intelligence.

Our views on AI policy and political advocacy

Our approach to AI policy and political advocacy, transparency, support for thoughtful regulation and AI safety, and that no outside political group speaks on the company’s behalf.

The Real Existential Risk Is AI CEOs Avoiding Oversight: “Alternative Nobel” Winner Timnit Gebru

We speak to the prominent AI researcher and leading critic of the AI industry, Timnit Gebru, who was recently awarded a 2026 Right Livelihood Award for her work investigating the harms and hype behind the global buildup of artificial intelligence. “Instead of discussing faulty, unreliable systems,” Gebru says tech leaders like SpaceXAI’s Elon Musk, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei are “marketing their systems as all-knowing, superpowerful, superintelligent,” and lobbying for “self-policing and self-regulation” to avoid being held “liable through existing laws.” Gebru expresses skepticism over increasingly widespread claims that AI algorithms pose an existential risk to humanity, warning that such claims are overblown and that “what is actually happening is regulatory capture.”

Debates over AI consciousness are a trap

If AI systems are viewed as too advanced to control, the companies that build them can’t held liable for the harms they cause.

What Can We Learn From the FDA Model for AI Regulation? - AI Now Institute

After holding a rapid deliberation late last year that convened deep experts on the FDA alongside key participants in the AI policy debate, we pulled together several immediate insights into a memo. Though it was clear the path forward isn’t to port over any single regulatory model wholesale, hosting a deep dive into the Food […]

OpenAI president urges AI safeguards as group he funds opposes regulation

As OpenAI executives step up their public calls for federal AI safety rules, a political group the company’s president helped fund is spending ​millions to elect members of Congress who oppose restrictions on the technology.

It’s Back. Congress Gears Up for Year-End Fight Over Moratorium on AI Laws. | TechPolicy.Press

A proposed federal moratorium on enforcement of state AI laws failed last summer, but lawmakers have resurrected the idea, writes Cristiano Lima-Strong.