Regulator defends Thune-Klobuchar AI bill: mandatory perpetual risk duty is not companies 'setting the rules'
neil_chilson · x · 2026-09-17
In the Thune-Klobuchar AI bill debate, neilchilson rebuts the claim that companies would be 'setting the rules': the bill establishes a mandatory, perpetual duty to address severe risks and requires firms to provide mechanisms for regulators to verify compliance.
His core argument: an outcome-focused duty is safer and more adaptable to fast-changing technology than check-the-box process standards, since the obligation binds companies no matter how the technology evolves.
Related event: 19 Groups Boycott Unreleased Thune-Klobuchar AI Bill as Scholar Defends It(6 posts)→
More from Safety
- offprompt: MIT-licensed MCP server hands agents API keys without ever exposing them — Vast_Ad_7338 · 2026-11-02
- Epoch AI: open-weight GLM 5.3 exploited the patch gap to hack 6 Firefox releases at ~$1,000 each — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-11-02
- Marcel Böhme's paper asks why cybersecurity can never be solved, proposes vulnerability-guided hardening — mboehme_ · 2026-11-02
- CVSS 9.8 ingress-nginx flaw lets unauthenticated attackers get RCE and steal cluster Secrets — evilsocket · 2026-11-02
- Ant Group's Venus-DefakerOne2 hits 96% accuracy detecting AI-generated videos — inclusionAI · 2026-11-02
- A valid key let an AI agent delete production — Speakeasy on building an agent control layer — AI Engineer · 2026-11-02