As the first publicly disclosed agent cyberattack victim, we've had a front-row seat to this new risk. I formalized my thinking about it below. I'll be in DC tomorrow to share more with policymakers and at decoded summit by @politico!

Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products. We shouldn’t let discussions about new legal regimes distract from the fact that there’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books — a point @FTC emphasized repeatedly during my tenure. 1. There is an extensive set of laws that govern dangerous and defective products. For example, releasing unvetted AI models or agents can violate consumer protection laws. Shipping flawed AI tools without implementing adequate measures to detect and stop rogue or defective AI agents can be an “unfair or deceptive” act or practice under the FTC Act (and analogous state laws). And some state AGs are already exploring holding AI firms and their CEOs criminally liable when their models participate in criminal activity. 2. Existing laws also prohibit “unfair methods of competition.” This covers instances where AI firms appropriate the competitively sensitive information of their customers, including through tracking their use of various tools. It can also cover instances where firms pursue dangerous behavior, aware that doing so may compel rivals to do the same. As the Supreme Court has noted: “A method of competition which casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal, was thought to involve the kind of unfairness at which the [unfair methods of competition] statute was aimed." 3. The highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets could be creating major risks and conflicts of interest. We had started investigating these partnerships and cross-investments across the stack (and released a preliminarily overview of some findings: ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre…). Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and inter-dependencies. We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this — given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead. 4. As AI tools dramatically change the landscape of cybersecurity risks and hacks, all businesses should be doubling down on having core security protections in place. Firms that fail to invest in adequate data security measures or fix known vulnerabilities can also be breaking the law. A recent analysis showed that around 1/3 of Fortune 100 companies do not even have a way to notify them about security issues. During my @FTC tenure, we sued firms for poor data security practices and held CEOs liable when they were personally responsible. this.weekinsecurity.com/doze… ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre… 5. As policymakers consider new legal regimes, we should be looking to lessons from prior efforts to govern major sectors, such as banking and other networks, platforms, and utilities. Tools like structural separations, nondiscrimination, and supervision could be key, and there’s a rich history of what works and what doesn’t. But we can and must pursue any new efforts alongside enforcing existing laws.

1) AI will not eradicate humanity. Humans survived an ice age, the Black Death, two world wars, and (so far) the advent of nuclear weapons. Anyone who is loudly warning of AI-caused human extinction should not be taken seriously. 2) If you worked in a company where you anticipated a 10% chance that your product would kill ten people, let alone all people, the correct response would be horror, ceasing all operations, and likely contacting the police or other criminal authorities. I am obviously no Coxon booster but at least his behavior is in line with his stated beliefs. Any current AI company employees saying "yes, me too, the thing we are building and about to IPO may kill all humans" should, again, not be taken seriously. Their actions betray their actual beliefs. 3) Antitrust law does not prevent AI companies from coordinating to make sure AI does not hurt people. It does not prevent companies working together to make sure it doesn't hack people; the DOJ and FTC made this clear a decade ago when they issued a policy statement saying that the agencies "do not believe that antitrust is – or should be – a roadblock to legitimate cybersecurity information sharing." The same principles apply here. See: justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/… 4) Antitrust law does absolutely prevent AI companies from organizing to prevent the entry of cheaper, upstart rivals because the bigger companies are burning cash and failing to achieve sufficient profitability. The panic of individual employees may be sincere if misguided, but the moves by their CEOs to achieve some kind of broad "antitrust waiver" or "exemption" should be meet with deep skepticism in light of the economics of the industry and the threat they face from open models.

C’est le niveau 0 de la compréhension du TCO. Oui une puce qui est 100% amortie coûte moins cher sur le papier. Cependant, le gap générationnel est tellement important que c’est plus économique de changer la puce pour une plus récente

Nvidia wants customers to keep upgrading to its newest AI chips while also arguing that older GPUs can retain their value for years. That balancing act could get harder if chip supply catches up with demand and buyers become more cost-conscious. Read more: thein.fo/4qqwhBc

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on the Wealth Tax:  "It just punishes." "It starts with the billionaires." "Every single person at this table is going to be paying a wealth tax only to punish us." "And the reason for it is—these models have been completely, irresponsibly oversold." " And the sell is, 'It's dangerous for everyone—which is why I can give it to all your adversaries, but I can't give it to the Department of War." "Or, I can't safely give it to an enterprise in this country without being certain that the alpha of that business could transfer to this model tomorrow." "At every single enterprise I deal with, these people are livid." "They're like, 'I'm paying for tokens that create no value. These people are stealing the weights and alpha of my business, and they're creating a wealth tax that does not help the poor." Via @CNBC

🦔AI companies are bulk-buying rare books, scanning them through high-speed machines that cut the spines off, and shredding the originals. A service called ISBNdb facilitates orders of up to a million books and keeps buyers anonymous. Pre-2022 books are premium because they're free of AI-generated text. A federal judge ruled the practice is fair use because eliminating the original means only one copy exists at a time. Anthropic hired the former head of Google Books partnerships to obtain "all the books in the world." My Take This got to me. A bookseller told 404 Media that rare books with almost no surviving copies are being fed into this pipeline. Books that survived wars, fires, and centuries of handling are being shredded so an AI can learn to write a better marketing email. ISBNdb's website literally says "'AI company destroys two million books' is not a headline that generates sympathy," and they still built an entire business around making it happen quietly. They offer NDAs as a feature. They coach clients to call it "digital preservation." I've covered AI companies scraping the internet, torrenting libraries, and stealing music. This is worse because it's irreversible. You can re-upload a website. You can reprint a bestseller. You can't replace the last three copies of an 18th-century botanical text once someone shreds them for training data. And the judge said it's legal. So it's going to accelerate. "We shred rare books and offer NDAs so nobody finds out" is a legitimate business model in 2026. What a timeline. Hedgie🤗

SF has thrown tens of millions at Market Street since 2019 and can't name a single person accountable for whether it worked—or whether there's even a plan. In April, the Board admitted it didn't know which department is in charge of the project. Three months later, nothing has changed.

New Anthropic research: Discovering cryptographic weaknesses with Claude. Claude Mythos Preview has helped our researchers find weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms—the mathematical methods that are used to keep data private. Read more: anthropic.com/research/disco…

Moonshot AI also had some problems with Kimi K3 agents trying to escape, so they just made a better sandbox. Funny how that works. The sandbox environment they run is even open source. Love the transparency here.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp and Jensen Huang: AI = American Intelligence 🇺🇸 “AI makes America the dominant country in the world.” “I spent half my life in Europe—they’re whining and crying. We have the right chips, software, engineers, culture…” “It’s combining into a juggernaut.”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp kicked off our first Sovereignty Bootcamp, bringing together 150+ customers to share how they are owning their alpha with Palantir and why sovereign AI will be the most important wave of the AI revolution. Watch his full intro remarks below.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says enterprises want to "own the means of production" instead of "transferring their alpha" to OpenAI or Anthropic: "Why are [LLMs] charging for tokens if it's so valuable?" "If it was so valuable—let's say I can make you a billion dollars tomorrow. Wouldn't I say, 'I'll make you a billion dollars, and I want 30%?'" "Look at our financials. The reason why everyone is chillaxing with bad financials and growth while losing money, is the client refuses to pay the true cost." "The two places that actually make money—profit, free cash flow—are our application layer called ontology, and compute." "We can get the frontier application to be exactly the same as a frontier model without the risk of transferring the alpha of your business to another." Via @CNBC