On 4 June 2024, employees at OpenAI and Google DeepMind released an open letter imploring their companies to facilitate what they call a right to warn about advanced AI. In the absence of proper government oversight, they call upon their companies to: (1) not enter or enforce any non-disparagement clauses when it comes to risk-related concerns; (2) develop internal, verifiably anonymous, whistleblower processes; (3) support a culture of open criticism which enables disclosure of risk-related concerns; and (4) not retaliate against employees (past or present) who choose to publicly voice risk-related concerns where other processes have failed. In the uncomfortable light of commercial reality, most of these requests appear unrealistic. A demand for robust internal whistleblowing processes, however, is an actionable and arguably best next step -- particularly given the poor state of protection under the current whistleblowing regime in England and Wales. There should be a right to warn about advanced AI. This demand may well be the starting point.

This week, the European Parliament passed the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) -- sweeping legislation governing the deployment of A.I. models and systems in the European market. The AIA also applies to A.I. companies situated outside of the E.U. that deploy their services in a way that is accessible within the E.U. Some of the provisions will kick in as soon as 6 months from when the Act enters into force. India, meanwhile, pulled back from last week's statement suggesting a turn away from onerous regulatory requirements. Electoral integrity is front of mind around the world this year, and the E.U. Commission has sent information requests to a number of major tech companies (including Google, X and TikTok) for details on generative A.I. and deepfake risks. In the U.S., Biden set out his 2025 budget request, which includes $20 billion across the board for A.I. research agencies. Also in America, a Florida man was barred from practicing law for a year for submitting hallucinated case citations and apparently being entirely unrepentant. Are we surprised? Finally, Mercedes is trialing humanoid robots for mundane tasks in a slow shuffle towards a robotic future.

This week, a BBC Panorama investigation uncovered how troubling deepfake images of Trump surrounded by Black supporters found their way across the internet -- yet another example of why A.I. election disinformation regulation is a necessity in the US. In the courts, Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss part of the New York Times' case against it and OpenAI. The case alleges that ChatGPT imperils the very future of journalism. Microsoft compares The Times to Hollywood-types in the 1980s panicking about the doomsday device that was the VCR. Speaking of OpenAI, the company clapped back at Elon Musk's lawsuit by posting a bunch of Musk's emails on its blog which, frankly, leaves Elon looking kind of like a hypocrite. The company also signed an open letter pledging to build AI that will make for a better future for humanity. If those platitudes don't leave you feeling warm and fuzzy, don't worry. It isn't just you. Finally, India signalled a move towards active A.I. regulation with a much-criticised and extremely confusing advisory which requires companies (but apparently not startups!) to obtain government clearance before releasing new unreliable models (i.e., every single model) onto the Indian internet.

This week, Brazil adopted new A.I. regulation tackling election disinformation. It requires disclosing A.I. generated content as such, restricts chatbot use, and prohibits deepfakes. In an important election year across the globe, this'll be a space to watch closely. Another lawyer (this time in B.C., Canada) fell victim to LLM hallucinations and received a costs penalty for her blunder. Meanwhile, a Caribbean court is turning to A.I. for automatic transcript generation. Finally, Elon's suing OpenAI, ostensibly because they're taking money from Microsoft and that isn't what OpenAI was meant to be. While it's hard not to be skeptical about his intentions, the case certainly opens up interesting questions around AGI.