The AI regulation smackdown isn’t over

AI 监管之争远未结束

It’s AI CEO against AI CEO, and things are changing by the day. 这是 AI 首席执行官之间的博弈，局势瞬息万变。

At the start of this week, the who’s-who of AI seemed — at least tentatively — on the side of AI regulation. Over the weekend, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had proposed a three-step plan for slowing AI development, including by embedding third-party evaluators in labs, coordinating across the domestic industry, and forging international agreements potentially with government assistance. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, and even SpaceX CEO Elon Musk publicly seemed to agree on aspects of all three things. 本周初，AI 界的重量级人物似乎（至少是暂时地）站在了支持 AI 监管的一边。上周末，Anthropic 首席执行官 Dario Amodei 提出了一项放缓 AI 开发的三步走计划，包括在实验室中引入第三方评估机构、协调国内行业，以及在政府协助下达成国际协议。OpenAI 首席执行官 Sam Altman、Google DeepMind 联合创始人 Demis Hassabis，甚至 SpaceX 首席执行官 Elon Musk，似乎都公开表示赞同这三点中的部分内容。

Anthropic and OpenAI had already been dropping hints that they and other labs were working on some kind of industry framework. Appearing pro-regulation looked like both a good PR move and, potentially, a way for companies to address fallout from progressively more concerning hacking incidents. Anthropic 和 OpenAI 此前已暗示，他们和其他实验室正在制定某种行业框架。表现出支持监管的态度，既是一种良好的公关策略，也可能是公司应对日益严重的黑客攻击事件所带来的负面影响的一种方式。

For now, any government involvement in this process looks like a non-starter. The Trump administration has attacked the idea of a safety crisis in AI, calling it a “hoax.” The AI world itself is also divided. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly came out against limiting companies’ autonomy, and earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Zuckerberg, Musk, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang scuttled proposals for an industry-funded independent regulator for the AI industry — akin to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a private nonprofit regulator in finance. But parts of the industry aren’t giving up on the idea, including OpenAI. 目前来看，政府参与这一进程似乎行不通。特朗普政府抨击了 AI 安全危机的说法，称其为“骗局”。AI 业界本身也存在分歧。Meta 首席执行官马克·扎克伯格迅速表态反对限制公司自主权。本周早些时候，《华尔街日报》报道称，扎克伯格、马斯克和英伟达首席执行官黄仁勋否决了建立一个由行业资助的 AI 独立监管机构的提议——该机构类似于金融领域的非营利性监管机构“金融业监管局”（FINRA）。但行业内部分人士，包括 OpenAI，并未放弃这一想法。

“People want to know AI is being developed safely,” Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s global affairs chief, told The Verge. “That begins with the steps companies like ours take on our own, but government has an important role too. The AI policy window is open, with growing bipartisan support for mandatory national safety standards for frontier AI. Congress should turn that momentum into a framework that strengthens safety, supports American innovation, and keeps the U.S. leading in AI.” “人们希望知道 AI 的开发是安全的，”OpenAI 全球事务主管 Chris Lehane 对《The Verge》表示，“这始于像我们这样的公司所采取的自主措施，但政府也发挥着重要作用。AI 政策窗口已经打开，两党对前沿 AI 强制性国家安全标准的支持日益增长。国会应将这种势头转化为一个既能加强安全、支持美国创新，又能保持美国在 AI 领域领先地位的框架。”

An AI venture capitalist, who requested anonymity due to their current investments, agreed that regulation was necessary. “You see these moments in every technology, whether it was electricity, cars, or airplanes, where, at some point, the industry had to come together to find a way to say, ‘How do we collectively embrace what safety means?’ Cars were unsafe, airplanes were unsafe, and then we had to create safety standards that everybody embraced that actually made technology more widespread. But the early days are always a little wild and unruly, and that’s how technology unfolds.” 一位因当前投资项目而要求匿名的 AI 风险投资人也认为监管是必要的。“在每一项技术的发展过程中，无论是电力、汽车还是飞机，你都会看到这样的时刻：行业必须联合起来，共同探讨‘我们如何集体定义安全？’汽车曾是不安全的，飞机也曾是不安全的，后来我们制定了人人遵守的安全标准，这反而促进了技术的普及。但早期阶段总是有些混乱和无序，这就是技术发展的规律。”

Anthropic declined to comment, but Amodei wrote in his essay that the company has “always … advocat[ed] for well-considered regulation of AI, even when this gets us accused of hype, ‘doomerism’, or regulatory capture.” Anthropic 拒绝置评，但 Amodei 在其文章中写道，该公司“一直……主张对 AI 进行深思熟虑的监管，即使这让我们被指责为炒作、‘末日论’或监管俘获。”

Other companies have remained quiet. Safe Superintelligence Inc., SpaceX, and Google didn’t respond to a request for comment. Thinking Machines Lab declined to comment. And Meta pointed to an X post by Zuckerberg, in which he distanced himself from the calls for a slowdown and regulation, writing, “Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens.” 其他公司则保持沉默。Safe Superintelligence Inc.、SpaceX 和 Google 未回应置评请求。Thinking Machines Lab 拒绝置评。Meta 则指向了扎克伯格的一条 X 帖子，他在文中与放缓开发和监管的呼声保持距离，写道：“每个实验室都有责任和动力以安全训练模型所需的速度前进，并有能力采取自身行动来确保这一点。”

Zuckerberg’s line of thinking appears in vogue with Trump right now. The president made headlines last week for calling recent fears about AI risks a “hoax.” He called Huang while the latter was onstage at a conference and told a crowd over speakerphone that “The robots will not be taking over.” That same day, he also posted on social media that “the only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” He added that the Trump administration has already “stopped AI ‘people’ from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,’” using its existing “tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies!” He denounced a “SICK conspiracy” going on against both AI and data centers and that whoever wins AI wins overall. “Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!” he wrote. 扎克伯格的思路似乎正合特朗普当下的胃口。这位总统上周因称近期对 AI 风险的担忧为“骗局”而登上头条。他在黄仁勋出席会议时打去电话，并通过免提告诉现场观众：“机器人不会接管世界。”当天，他还在社交媒体上发文称，“AI 唯一需要的控制或‘护栏’就是一位强大且聪明（高智商！）的总统，而美国恰恰拥有这样的人！”他补充说，特朗普政府已经利用其对这些公司现有的“巨大的刑事和监管权力”，“阻止了 AI ‘从业者’做坏事或潜在的坏事！”他谴责了针对 AI 和数据中心的“病态阴谋”，并声称谁赢得了 AI，谁就赢得了全局。“阴谋论者、叛国者、卖国贼和泄密者，小心了！”他写道。

For Nick Reese, an adjunct professor at New York University and the Department of Homeland Security’s former director of emerging tech policy, Trump’s current anti-regulation statements about AI are confusing because he worked with the first Trump administration to develop Executive Order 13960 — which Trump signed and has not been repealed. The order was centered on creating a set of principles for federal AI use that would protect “privacy, civil rights, [and] civil liberties.” 对于纽约大学兼职教授、前国土安全部新兴技术政策主任 Nick Reese 来说，特朗普目前关于 AI 的反监管言论令人困惑，因为他曾与特朗普第一届政府合作制定了第 13960 号行政令——该命令由特朗普签署且至今未被废除。该命令的核心是为联邦政府使用 AI 制定一套原则，以保护“隐私、公民权利和公民自由”。

“Six years ago, the Trump Administration signed executive action on AI safety, so there is a real change in the president’s position on the topic,” Reese said. “AI safety requires more than the intellectual abilities of one elected official.” “六年前，特朗普政府签署了关于 AI 安全的行政行动，所以总统在这一议题上的立场确实发生了变化，”Reese 说，“AI 安全需要的不仅仅是一位民选官员的智力。”

As AI-industry blogger Zvi Mowshowitz put it, Trump isn’t necessarily fully anti-regulation — after all, he’s the one who slapped some restrictions on frontier labs, like pre-release testing by the government. But he’s driven more by, in Mowshowitz’s words, “vibes” than consistent policy. “Trump’s not yet buying this ‘existential risk’ thing, that’s ‘negative forces,’” Mowshowitz wrote. So government guardrails aren’t exactly ruled out, but they may bear little resemblance to what OpenAI or Anthropic want — let alone the plans of less-powerful, independent AI safety advocates. 正如 AI 行业博主 Zvi Mowshowitz 所言，特朗普并不一定完全反对监管——毕竟，正是他给前沿实验室施加了一些限制，例如政府进行的发布前测试。但用 Mowshowitz 的话来说，他的行为更多是受“氛围”驱动，而非连贯的政策。“特朗普还不买‘生存风险’这一套，他认为那是‘负面势力’，”Mowshowitz 写道。因此，政府护栏并非完全被排除在外，但它们可能与 OpenAI 或 Anthropic 想要的相去甚远——更不用说那些影响力较小的独立 AI 安全倡导者的计划了。