First take on the White House Executive Order on AI
We recorded 11 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 9 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (11)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“There’s a lot to like in the Executive Order. It’s fantastic that the US government is taking the many risks of AI seriously.”
What we tested: There is a lot to like in the White House AI Executive Order, and it is fantastic that the US government is taking the many risks of AI seriously.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“How effective this actually becomes depends a lot on the exact wording, and how things are enforced, and how much of it is binding as opposed to merely voluntary.”
What we tested: The Executive Order's effectiveness depends heavily on exact wording, enforcement, and how much is binding rather than voluntary.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“What we really need is a peer-review process by independent scientists; it still seems like the companies are free to do largely as we please. That’s not enough.”
What we tested: What is really needed is a peer-review process by independent scientists, because it still seems the order leaves companies free to do largely as they please, and that is not enough.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The Executive Order, as good as it is, may fall short.”
What we tested: The AI Executive Order may fall short despite its merits.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Companies will poke for loopholes and surely find them.”
What we tested: AI companies will look for and find loopholes in the Executive Order.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“With respect to the example above, they will probably try to argue that their specific products don’t meet the risk threshold.”
What we tested: AI companies will probably argue their products don't meet the order's serious-risk threshold.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“On the whole, there is lot of good stuff around guidance, but I hope that we ultimately see more that is binding, with teeth.”
What we tested: US AI policy should ultimately include more binding rules with enforcement teeth beyond guidance.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The US Executive Order is an important first step in that direction”
What we tested: The US Executive Order is an important first step toward concrete implementation of AI policy.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“We don’t need another position paper; we need concrete implementation.”
What we tested: AI governance needs concrete implementation rather than more position papers.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The rishexecutive order is broad, focusing on both current and long-term risks, with some—though probably not enough—teeth.”
What we tested: The Executive Order is broad, covering current and long-term risks, with some but probably not enough enforcement teeth.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Not all AI uses foundational models at all (e.g., until recently probably few driverless car systems relied in a significant way on foundational models, and some probably still don’t), and it’s easy to add some other gadgets in and say your model is not a foundational model. Framing things as only pertaining to foundational models is plainly too narrow.”
What we tested: Framing the order's requirements as applying only to foundation models is plainly too narrow, because not all AI uses foundation models and it is easy to add other components and say a model is not a foundation model.
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Under the order, as Marcus reads it, companies can release clearly risky AI products as long as they tell the government the risks.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: The UK AI Summit seems to have greatly narrowed its focus, mainly to long-term risk, with not enough focus on the here and now, and it is not clear how much with teeth will come out of it or what authority it really has.
- The two reviews read the claim differently