Week of 10/24/25 Industry News
Dylan Black, Editor
Contact: dylan.black@andersen.com
White House Presses Its Case in ‘Safety’ Debate Against Anthropic, State Regulation
Published October 21, 2025 | By Inside AI Policy Staff | Inside AI Policy
A heated public debate has erupted between the White House, represented by AI advisors David Sacks and Sriram Krishnan, and AI firm Anthropic, led by Jack Clark, over the future of AI regulation and “safety” controls. Sacks and Krishnan criticized the effective altruism (EA) and AI safety communities for pushing what they call restrictive, fear-based policies—such as California’s new AI transparency law (SB 53)—which they argue threaten open-source innovation and U.S. competitiveness against China. Anthropic, supported by venture capitalist Reid Hoffman and state Sen. Scott Wiener, defended the law as a balanced step toward responsible AI development. The exchanges, which unfolded across social media, underscore a widening divide between federal officials advocating for minimal regulation to foster growth and technologists calling for safeguards to mitigate societal risks.
Published October 23, 2025 | By JD Supra
California has become the first U.S. state to enact a comprehensive law regulating “frontier” artificial intelligence models, with Governor Gavin Newsom signing the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) into law on September 29, 2025, effective January 1, 2026. The act imposes strict transparency, safety, and reporting requirements on developers of large-scale AI systems trained with more than 10²⁶ FLOPs, distinguishing between “frontier developers” and “large frontier developers” (those with over $500 million in annual revenue). Obligations include publishing AI governance and risk frameworks, releasing pre-deployment transparency reports, disclosing safety incidents within 15 days—or 24 hours for imminent threats—and protecting whistleblowers. The California Attorney General can levy fines up to $1 million per violation, while the state’s Department of Technology will annually review key definitions. Governor Newsom touted the law as a model for responsible AI governance, diverging from the Trump Administration’s deregulatory approach, but critics warn that compliance costs could stifle innovation and that similar state efforts, such as New York’s pending RAISE Act, risk creating a fragmented U.S. regulatory landscape.
Breaking Down the CHAT Act: A First Federal Effort to Regulate AI Companions
Published October 24, 2025 | By Greta Sparzynski and Tarmio Frei | Tech Policy Press
As emotionally interactive AI companions gain popularity, U.S. lawmakers are advancing the Children Harmed by AI Technology (CHAT) Act (S. 2714), introduced in September by Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), marking one of the first federal attempts to regulate AI chatbots that simulate friendship or romance. Spurred by reports of emotional harm and suicides linked to such systems, the bill would require developers to block sexual content for minors, implement age verification, disclose that users are interacting with AI at the start and hourly, and display suicide prevention resources when needed. A “safe harbor” provision protects companies that comply with recognized verification standards. Supporters see it as vital to child safety, while critics warn it could create privacy risks by forcing collection of sensitive ID data and may sweep too broadly, potentially affecting general-purpose chatbots and educational tools. Free speech advocates also raise First Amendment concerns over content and disclosure mandates. Lacking federal preemption, the bill could clash with state laws like those in California and New York, adding to regulatory complexity. Despite uncertainty over its passage, the CHAT Act signals growing bipartisan momentum toward a national framework for governing AI companions and protecting minors online.
Why Washington Should Ask Dumber Questions About Tech
Published October 23, 2025 | By Steven Overly, with Aaron Mak | Politico
In a POLITICO Tech interview, Signal Foundation President Meredith Whittaker urged Washington leaders to “be brave enough to ask the dumb questions” about artificial intelligence, warning that hype and misinformation have left policymakers ill-equipped to understand the technology’s true limits and risks. A former Google researcher turned privacy advocate, Whittaker argued that officials don’t need to be technologists but must ask basic questions—how systems work, who controls the data, and what vulnerabilities exist—before entrusting AI with critical decisions. She highlighted growing dangers from “agentic AI” systems that perform complex tasks autonomously, calling them an “existential privacy risk” because they require deep access to users’ devices and personal data, effectively creating back doors. From Signal’s perspective, she said the tech industry’s profit model fundamentally conflicts with strong privacy protections. Whittaker also dismissed talk of a new “tech right,” noting that Silicon Valley’s pursuit of proximity to political power—whether under Obama or Trump—has remained constant. Her message: Washington’s willingness to ask simple, skeptical questions may be the best defense against AI’s hype-fueled influence.
Anthropic CEO Defends Support for AI Regulations, Alignment with Trump Policies
Published October 21, 2025 | By Alexandra Kelley | Next Gov FCW
After a public exchange with White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei defended the company’s balanced stance on AI regulation and cooperation with the Trump administration. The clash began when Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark called AI a “real and mysterious creature,” prompting Sacks to accuse the firm of pursuing “regulatory capture through fear-mongering.” In response, Amodei said AI oversight “should be a matter of policy over politics,” emphasizing shared goals with the administration to ensure AI benefits Americans while maintaining U.S. leadership. He cited Anthropic’s support for the White House AI Action Plan, its healthcare initiatives, and its opposition to a federal moratorium on state-level AI laws—while endorsing California’s AI safety bill as a measured step that protects startups. Addressing claims of political bias, Amodei noted that no AI model is perfectly balanced due to the nature of training data. He also argued that U.S. competitiveness depends more on controlling chip exports than on blocking state regulation. Framing Anthropic as a public benefit corporation, Amodei said the company seeks constructive engagement with policymakers, supporting the Trump administration’s innovation-focused agenda while advocating responsible national standards for AI.