
Tech giants have shifted their stance on AI regulation, now pushing for wider access to data and seeking exemptions from copyright limitations in light of heightened global competition.
In May 2023, leaders from prominent artificial intelligence firms, including OpenAI, Google's DeepMind, and Anthropic, urged U.S. legislators to establish federal regulations for the swiftly evolving AI landscape.
Their appeals for oversight were centered on reducing the existential threats posed by advanced AI technologies, suggesting measures such as algorithm audits, content labeling, and collaborative sharing of risk data.
At that time, the U.S. administration worked alongside AI developers to establish voluntary commitments aimed at ensuring the safety and equity of AI innovations.
In October 2023, a presidential executive order cemented these principles, mandating federal agencies to assess the potential effects of AI systems on privacy, workers' rights, and civil liberties.
After a transition in administration, the stance on AI policy changed dramatically.
In the first week of the new presidency, an executive order was enacted to revoke the preceding administration's directives and encourage policies that foster the development of American AI capabilities.
The new directive called for the creation of a national strategy to remove regulatory obstacles within a span of one hundred and eighty days.
In the weeks following the policy shift, AI firms submitted documents and requests to assist in crafting the new framework.
One submission from OpenAI, comprising fifteen pages, urged the federal government to bar individual U.S. states from enacting their own AI regulations.
It also pointed to the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which developed a competitive model using a fraction of the computational resources typically needed by American rivals, to argue for broader access to federal data for model development.
OpenAI, Google, and Meta have further lobbied for expanded permissions to use copyrighted materials—such as books, films, and artworks—in training AI models.
All three organizations are currently facing ongoing legal disputes related to copyright infringement.
They have sought executive clarification or legislative measures affirming that the use of publicly available information for model training falls under fair use.
A significant U.S. venture capital firm also provided a policy document advocating against any new AI-specific regulations, contending that existing consumer safety and civil rights laws are adequate.
The firm supported punitive actions against harmful entities but opposed requirements that would impose regulatory obligations based on hypothetical risks.
This policy shift coincided with increasing concerns among AI developers regarding escalating global competition.
During the previous administration, leading U.S. companies operated under the belief that their substantial investments and computational capabilities offered a sustainable edge, particularly as restrictions were placed on exporting advanced AI chips to nations like China.
Recent events, including the emergence of sophisticated models from smaller foreign competitors, have called this belief into question.
Some U.S. AI companies have re-evaluated the extent of their technological advantage and are now pursuing quicker access to resources and reduced regulatory hindrances.
This recalibration has prompted a distinct shift in industry lobbying, with major AI firms now focusing on competitive advantages rather than the earlier calls for careful and cooperative oversight.
Their appeals for oversight were centered on reducing the existential threats posed by advanced AI technologies, suggesting measures such as algorithm audits, content labeling, and collaborative sharing of risk data.
At that time, the U.S. administration worked alongside AI developers to establish voluntary commitments aimed at ensuring the safety and equity of AI innovations.
In October 2023, a presidential executive order cemented these principles, mandating federal agencies to assess the potential effects of AI systems on privacy, workers' rights, and civil liberties.
After a transition in administration, the stance on AI policy changed dramatically.
In the first week of the new presidency, an executive order was enacted to revoke the preceding administration's directives and encourage policies that foster the development of American AI capabilities.
The new directive called for the creation of a national strategy to remove regulatory obstacles within a span of one hundred and eighty days.
In the weeks following the policy shift, AI firms submitted documents and requests to assist in crafting the new framework.
One submission from OpenAI, comprising fifteen pages, urged the federal government to bar individual U.S. states from enacting their own AI regulations.
It also pointed to the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which developed a competitive model using a fraction of the computational resources typically needed by American rivals, to argue for broader access to federal data for model development.
OpenAI, Google, and Meta have further lobbied for expanded permissions to use copyrighted materials—such as books, films, and artworks—in training AI models.
All three organizations are currently facing ongoing legal disputes related to copyright infringement.
They have sought executive clarification or legislative measures affirming that the use of publicly available information for model training falls under fair use.
A significant U.S. venture capital firm also provided a policy document advocating against any new AI-specific regulations, contending that existing consumer safety and civil rights laws are adequate.
The firm supported punitive actions against harmful entities but opposed requirements that would impose regulatory obligations based on hypothetical risks.
This policy shift coincided with increasing concerns among AI developers regarding escalating global competition.
During the previous administration, leading U.S. companies operated under the belief that their substantial investments and computational capabilities offered a sustainable edge, particularly as restrictions were placed on exporting advanced AI chips to nations like China.
Recent events, including the emergence of sophisticated models from smaller foreign competitors, have called this belief into question.
Some U.S. AI companies have re-evaluated the extent of their technological advantage and are now pursuing quicker access to resources and reduced regulatory hindrances.
This recalibration has prompted a distinct shift in industry lobbying, with major AI firms now focusing on competitive advantages rather than the earlier calls for careful and cooperative oversight.