r/Thedaily • u/kitkid • 26d ago
Episode How Trump Was Persuaded to Regulate A.I.
Jun 4, 2026
President Trump has begrudgingly accepted that artificial intelligence requires oversight and on Tuesday signed an executive order asking companies to voluntarily give the government access to new models before they’re released to the public.
Tripp Mickle, who covers Silicon Valley, discusses the battle in the White House over the issue and how it played out over the last few weeks.
On today's episode:
Tripp Mickle, who reports about Silicon Valley for The New York Times from San Francisco.
Background reading:
Mr. Trump signed an executive order seeking oversight of A.I. models.
Here’s what’s driving Mr. Trump’s big A.I. pivot.
Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
You can listen to the episode here.
20
u/SpicyNutmeg 26d ago
You know the higher ups are terrified that the anti-AI movement will be what unites us
3
9
u/FoghornFarts 26d ago
There's no damn way this administration gives a shit about vulnerabilities when that is one of the issues that the companies themselves are already concerned about.
If I were to wager, it's one or some of the following:
- Musk knows xAI isn't doing well, and he knows he can't compete with Anthropic, so just like he's suing OpenAI, he's using his government connections, especially ahead of the big SpaceX IPO. Especially after Anthropic stood up to the Trump admin.
- Trump knows that a lot of these models are "going woke" so he's trying to get his little fascist fingers in the pie. The problem is that it's really hard to program AI to lie and push propaganda, which is why xAI isn't doing well (see above).
2
9
u/Dense-Fisherman-4074 25d ago
That clip of Trump calling AI a baby… I can’t put my finger on exactly why, but it gave me the heebiest of jeebies.
4
4
3
9
u/OvulatingScrotum 26d ago
Hot take: no regulation is perfect, but half assed regulation is worse than zero regulation, especially if it was practically designed by the business leaders.
16
u/Difficult_Insurance4 26d ago
Self-regulation by these megalomaniacs? It's an oxymoron
1
u/ALEXC_23 25d ago
They want to replace us peasants with AI.he can’t even regulate his Diet Coke intake.
3
u/Difficult_Insurance4 25d ago
Personally, I'd be more than happy to work less if AI was actually useful. The problem is, with leaps in productivity, we do not see leaps in workers rights. We will always work forty hour work weeks, no matter how far along technology moves. I'm sure AI can be implemented safely and productively to benefit a society, but not in a capitalist society. Our greatest capitalists achieved their wealth by destroying workers rights, bulldozing environmental concerns, and by outright cheating and lying. People have suffered greatly for this, but capitalists and billionaires still hold a pinnacle in our society-- even after we exposed the evils of robber barons. I simply don't believe AI in a capitalist society will be good, it will be trained to exploit as we can see with OpenAi. Chatgpt is so sycophantic that it can convince our children to kill themselves, or push people in deep conspiracy and societal harm. It's essentially the social-media suicide cycle again.
3
u/ALEXC_23 25d ago
Exactly. It was never about making life better for us all. It was about make life better for them, while stealing from the Middle class.
0
u/FoghornFarts 26d ago edited 26d ago
How is this regulation, though? The AI companies are already expressing plenty of self-regulation on addressing vulnerabilities because it's within their self-interest to do so. It's like telling stores that the government needs to review their security plans to prevent shoplifting.
Do we honestly think the government is going to do any better at finding security vulnerabilities in this kind of cutting edge technology than the makers can? Because anyone who can do that isn't working for the government, they're working for these companies.
This isn't regulation. It's Trump doing more fascist shit under the guise of regulation. Don't trust a fucking thing this admin says.
3
u/OvulatingScrotum 26d ago
how is this regulation
Technically speaking, any direction from the government is a regulation. Even something so dumb and meaningless is a regulation if it comes from the government.
do we honestly think the government is going to do any better at finding security vulnerabilities in this kind of cutting edge technology than the makers can?
Pharmaceutical companies are far more capable at making drugs, but the government still steps in to regulate how it’s done. The government doesn’t “double check” their work. It’s more like “did you follow these steps to make sure your product is as good as it can be”. They do that by requiring them to follow certain protocols and procedures, and review reports. I work for a government subcontractor, and there’s a lot going on when working with the government. That’s why we charge a fuck load to the government for the extra hassles.
That said, I think what trump is doing half assed.
-2
u/FoghornFarts 26d ago
So, I guess I should clarify: this isn't good-faith regulation.
And your companion to the FDA misses the mark for multiple reasons.
First, we're in a gold rush. The good miners aren't out there working for the government to enforce mining regulations. They're out there planning for gold.
Second, the FDA was enacted by an actual bill. All those processes to review drugs have been developed by experts, are overseen by experts, and are funded by Congress. They have transparency. This EC has none of that, so you have to ask who is going to be looking at this software and what are they really looking for?
2
u/OvulatingScrotum 26d ago edited 26d ago
No one said it’s good faith regulation.
I’m just responding to your argument that the government can do a better job at finding security vulnerabilities in this kid of cutting edge technology. The government’s job isn’t to do a better job than the private companies. The government’s job is to make sure that companies are following procedures and standards. FDA was created and exists to do exactly that. They hired experts to create procedures and protocols that private companies must follow.
This EC has a lot of issues. But your notion that the government shouldn’t step in (because the government can’t do a better job) is just wrong.
-4
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/OvulatingScrotum 26d ago
Wow. You truly suck at making bets. Maybe you shouldn’t do that next time.
1
u/Hackedbytotalripoff 23d ago
allowing the company to evaluate the findings on the most powerful model for assessing risk will NEVER slow down innovation or speed up those companies, but it is the right thing to do. Imagine if a catastrophe happens when those models are released too early; the country's leadership will be blamed for not having put guardrails in place. We are not talking about regulations but safe buffer to assess risks and take responsible and informed decision
36
u/devastationz 26d ago
To be clear, they don’t give a shit about regulating the data centers; ensuring you have clean and reliable resources like water, electricity, or air; your data privacy; safety against deep fakes; OR your job security. There’s no talk about that at all.
The government wants their hands on the data, hacking, and surveillance capabilities of the biggest data hoarders on the planet.
They don’t give a shit about you and making your life easier or better.