Unlock stock picks and a broker-level newsfeed that powers Wall Street.
Jackie Davalos
2 min read
(Bloomberg) — OpenAI has asked the Trump administration to help shield artificial intelligence companies from a growing number of proposed state regulations if they voluntarily share their models with the federal government.
Most Read from Bloomberg
-
NYC Congestion Pricing Toll Gains Support Among City Residents
-
Open Philanthropy Launches $120 Million Fund To Support YIMBY Reforms
-
Prospect Medical’s Pennsylvania Hospitals at Risk of Closure
In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday, the ChatGPT maker argued that the hundreds of AI-related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting America’s technological progress at a time when it faces renewed competition from China. OpenAI said the administration should consider providing some relief for AI companies big and small from state rules – if and when enacted – in exchange for voluntary access to models.
The recommendation was one of several included in OpenAI’s response to a request for public input issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in February as the administration drafts a new policy to ensure US dominance in AI. President Donald Trump previously resci
46 Comments
freedomben
Related (adjacent content from the same report):
OpenAI urges Trump administration to remove guardrails for the industry (cnbc.com) – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43354324
dsr_
You see, American AI is going to take over the world. It's just that it's temporarily short of funds. I mean, GPUs. Uh, there are pesky laws in the way.
Totally not the fault of a gigantic overcommitment based on wishing, no.
gkoberger
I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either way, I hate that it worked.
dchichkov
>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.”
Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.
pr337h4m
>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations that focus on frontier model security,” according to the proposal.
Given OpenAI's history and relationship with the "AI safety" movement, I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that they also lobbied for the same proposed state-level regulations they're seeking relief from.
6stringmerc
Tell you what, set up a Federal level disclosure process online of all the copyright protected works used in training OpenAI for the creators / rights holders to get equity (out of the pockets of the C-Suite and Board) via claiming their due, and we’ll take you seriously.
All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism.
Jcampuzano2
I know a lot of people will hate on things like this, but the reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. I don't like Trump personally as a caveat.
Yes it is a fact they did build themselves up on top of mountains of copyrighted material, and that AI has a lot of potential to do harm, but if they are forced to stop or slow down foreign actors will just push forward and innovate without guardrails and we will just fall behind as the rest of the world pushes forward.
Its easy to see how foreign tech is quickly gaining ground. If they truly cared about still propping America up, they should allow some guardrails to be pushed past.
reverendsteveii
Is it me or does it feel like most of what the federal government does nowadays is make it illegal for government to make things illegal?
ApolloFortyNine
It probably needs to be a law not an executive order but I don't hate the idea.
States have the power to make it prohibitively expensive to operate in those states, leaving people to either go to VPNs or use AI's hosted in other countries where they don't care if they're not following whatever new AI law California decides to pass. And companies would choose just to use datacenters not in the prohibitive states and ban ips from those states.
Course if a company hosts in us-east-1, and allows access from California, would the inter state commerce clause not take effect and California would have no power anyways?
qoez
JD vance seems to be quite aware of OpenAIs meta strategy so I wouldn't be surprised if this is declined (ie semi specifically aimed at something they want to force them to comply with).
msp26
Relevant (I don't know why the article doesn't link to them directly):
https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-u…
https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539…
zombiwoof
“Freedom to make money”
crorella
If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of their models.
iamleppert
He should have offered for every purchase of OpenAI services, a portion would be used to purchase TrumpCoin. That would have been a more effective bribe.
LeicaLatte
[flagged]
croes
> OpenAI has asked the Trump administration to help shield artificial intelligence companies from a growing number of proposed state regulations if they voluntarily share their models with the federal government.
That sounds like corruption
dtquad
It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) that is lobbying US states to go after OpenAI and other American AI companies.
It's the New York Times and various journalist and writers' unions that are leading the charge against American AI.
American journalists and opinion piece writers want to kill American AI and let China and Russia have the global lead. Why? Have they taught about the long consequences of what they are doing?
m3kw9
Maybe this data constraint from data vs GPU constraint for China will force America to innovate. Maybe innovate in data generation
tehjoker
private property is sacrosanct except when an exception that only applies to them it would make a billionaire richer
tasuki
I heard the theory that Elon Musk has a significant control over the current US government. They're not best pals with Sam Altman. This seems like it might be a good way to see how much power Elon actually has over the government?
insane_dreamer
DeepSeek/whoever training on OpenAI outputs is … bad.
OpenAI training on every content creator's outputs is … good.
waltercool
[dead]
bxguff
clear attempt circumnavigate the clear copyright violations of the AI era and kick the can down the road.
pmxi
Here's a direct link to the article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-13/openai-as…
ch4s3
I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who write and create visual art while not giving up the game to Chinese companies.
This seems to be a thorny dilemma.
ihsw
[dead]
fazeirony
the GOP: "states' rights! states' rights!!"
also the GOP: "not those rights! only the rights we want to share"
nick238
In the "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge, should you do it":
> Pfizer Asks White House for Relief From FDA Drug Human Testing Rules
> Pfizer has asked the Trump administration to help shield pharmaceutical companies from a growing number of proposed state and federal regulations if they voluntarily share their human trial results with the federal government.
> In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday, the Eliquis maker argued that the hundreds of human-testing-related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting America’s technological progress at a time when it faces renewed competition from China. Pfizer said the administration should consider providing some relief for pharmaceutical companies big and small from state rules – if and when enacted – in exchange for voluntary access to testing data.
> Chris Lehane, Pfizer's vice president of global affairs, said in an interview, "China is engaged in remarkable progress in drug development by testing through Uyghur volunteers in the Xinjiang province. The US is ceding our strategic advantage by not using untapped resources sitting idle in detention facilities around the country."
> George C. Zoley, Executive Chairman of GEO Group, said, "Our new Karnes ICE Processing Center has played an important role in helping ICE meeting the diverse policy priorities of four Presidential Administrations. We stand ready to continue to help the federal government, Pfizer, and other privately-held companies achieve their unmet needs through human trials in our new 1,328-bed Texas facility."
bnchrch
Maybe in a present:
– Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright
– Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet)
and a future where:
– We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated, impossible, redundant…
And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an old rule no longer applies.
(Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)
baskinator
How big was the check that came with this request? For the right price their logo can go on the rose garden lawn.
basisword
“Please help us. We’re only a little business worth $157 billion!” – The company ripping off everyone that’s ever written or drawn anything. Company’s like AirBnB and Uber breaking the rules, gaining control of the market, and then pushing up prices was bad. “Open” AI is just a whole other level of hubris.
greesil
Write a law. We don't have an emperor.
iteratethis
I'm disgusted by the mindset that companies should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to technology as impactful and revolutionary as AI.
AI sucks up the collective blood, sweat and tears of human work without permission or compensation and then re-monetizes it. It's a model that is even more asymmetrical than Google Search, whom at least gives back some traffic to creators (if lucky).
AI is going to decide on human lives if it drives your car or makes medical diagnoses or decisions. This needs regulation.
AI has the ability for convincing deepfakes, attacking the essence of information and communication in itself. This needs regulation, accountability, at least a discussion.
As AI grows in its capability, it will have an enormous impact on the work force, both white collar and blue collar. It may lead to a lot of social unrest and a political breakdown. "Let's see what happens" is wildly irresponsible.
You cannot point to foreign competition as a basis for a no-rule approach. You should start with rules for impactful/dangerous technology and then hold parties to account, both domestic and foreign.
And if it is true that we're in a race to AGI, realize that this means the invention of infinite labor. Bigger than the industrial revolution and information age combined.
Don't you think we should think that scenario through a little, rather than winging it?
The inauguration had the tech CEOs lined up directly behind Trump, clearly signaling who runs the country. Its tech and its media. How can you possible have trust in a technology even more powerful ending up in ever richer and more autocratic hands?
But I suppose the reality is that Altman should donate $100 million to Trump and tell him that he's the greatest man ever. Poof, regulation is gone.
timewizard
> OpenAI also proposed that AI companies get access to government-held data, which could include health-care information, Lehane said.
Yea, straight up, go fuck yourselves. You want copyright laws changed to vouchsafe your straight up copyright whitewashing and now you just want medical data "because."
Pay for it or go away. I'm tired of these technoweenies with their hands out. Peter Thiel needs a permanent vacation.
sd9
Am I the only one who thinks “freedom to learn” is an anthropomorphising euphemism?
cratermoon
Buried the lede:
> OpenAI also reiterated its call for the government to take steps to support AI infrastructure investments and called for copyright reform, arguing that America’s fair use doctrine is critical to maintaining AI leadership. OpenAI and other AI developers have faced numerous copyright lawsuits over the data used to build their models.
JohnFen
I really hope OpenAI fails in doing this. If this usage is allowed, then it means that there is no path towards me being OK with publishing anything on the internet again.
JKCalhoun
I'm assuming this has zero effect on non-US AI companies?
tmnvix
I've heard so many ridiculous stories about 'AI' that I'm at the point where I initially took this to mean the LLM and not the company had made the request.
I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the future.
gitpusher
HAHAHA. Remember when Sam was absolutely frothing at the mouth to "regulate AI" two years ago?
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-…
> https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt…
hello_computer
https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY
grahar64
Well funded companies want regulations because it stops up and coming companies from competing. Now they want exemptions from those regulations because it would be too restrictive.
sunshine-o
Funny how fast those AI prophets went from:
– The government need to prepare because soon they will need to give money to all those people we made obsolete and unemployed. And there is nothing to stop us.
to:
– We need money from the government to do that thing we told you about.
steveBK123
The right loves states rights, unless it conflicts with their personal preferences.
light_triad
It coincides with this: OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models
https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/13/openai-calls-deepseek-stat…
On HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355779
secondary_op
Free market y all !
OpenAI calls DeepSeek 'state-controlled,' calls for bans
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355779