Public comments to White House on AI policy touch on copyright, tariffs

Tech Crunch - Apr 24th, 2025

Over 10,000 comments have been submitted to the White House concerning the AI Action Plan, a work-in-progress national AI policy. These submissions, which the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy published in an extensive document, address a wide array of issues from copyright and AI bias to the environmental impacts of data centers. The feedback comes as President Donald Trump refocuses U.S. AI priorities, repealing former President Joe Biden’s AI Executive Order and introducing a new directive that emphasizes development free from ideological bias. Key players in these discussions include tech companies like Google and OpenAI, industry groups, and political figures such as Elon Musk, who have voiced concerns over the potential hindrances to AI innovation.

The implications of these developments are significant, as they reflect the broader tensions in shaping AI policy amidst competing interests. Commenters have highlighted the stakes involved, such as the exploitation of creators' works and the need for robust copyright protections, while others urge for fewer restrictions to foster AI advancement. The AI Action Plan submissions also underscore the contentious landscape regarding tariffs and scientific funding cuts, which critics argue could impede domestic AI progress. The ongoing debate highlights the critical balance the Trump administration must strike between encouraging technological growth and addressing ethical considerations like AI discrimination, a focus notably absent from the current administration's agenda.

Donald Trump Elon Musk Open Ai Google Tariffs National Security Ai Policy Ai Bias Copyright Ai Action Plan Ostp Scientific Funding

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant overview of the ongoing debates surrounding AI policy in the United States. It effectively highlights the differing perspectives of various stakeholders, from industry groups to local governments, on the implications of AI regulation. However, the article's accuracy is somewhat compromised by ambiguous claims and a lack of direct source citations, which could confuse readers. While the article is generally clear and engaging, its potential impact is limited by the absence of detailed insights and personal stories that could drive meaningful discussion. Overall, the article succeeds in addressing a controversial and important topic but could benefit from greater transparency and source quality to enhance its reliability and influence.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that require verification, such as the submission of over 10,000 comments to the White House on the AI Action Plan and the publication of these comments in an 18,480-page PDF. These claims are supported by White House announcements, lending some credibility. However, the article's assertion that President Trump repealed President Biden's AI Executive Order and replaced it with a new directive lacks specific details, such as which reporting requirements were considered onerous. Additionally, the mention of a 'Department of Government Efficiency' is misleading, as no such formal agency exists. This could confuse readers regarding the source of scientific grant cuts. Overall, the article contains a mix of verifiable facts and ambiguous elements that need further clarification to ensure full accuracy.

Balance

The article attempts to present a balanced view by including perspectives from various stakeholders, such as individuals, industry groups, and local governments, on the AI policy debate. It mentions both supporters and critics of copyright regulations and AI training data compensation, highlighting the differing opinions of entities like Andreessen Horowitz and copyright advocates. However, the article could improve its balance by providing more detailed insights into the perspectives of those who support the Trump administration's AI policy changes. By focusing more on the critics of the administration's policies, the article may inadvertently convey a bias against the current policy direction.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting information in a logical sequence that helps readers understand the main points. However, the use of terms like 'rejigger' and references to non-existent entities like the 'Department of Government Efficiency' can confuse readers. The article could benefit from more precise language and a clearer explanation of complex topics, such as the technical challenges of AI bias. Overall, while the article is mostly accessible, certain elements detract from its overall clarity.

Source quality

The article cites a range of sources, including the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and various organizations like the Data Center Coalition and the Information Technology Industry Council. While these sources are credible and relevant to the topic, the article lacks direct quotes or specific references to these sources, which would enhance its reliability. Additionally, the absence of links to the 18,480-page PDF of comments or specific excerpts from named organizations weakens the article's source quality. The inclusion of more authoritative voices and direct citations would bolster the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the ongoing AI policy debate, such as the shift in priorities from the Biden to the Trump administration. However, it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind its claims, such as how the 10,000 comments were collected or analyzed. The article also does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence its reporting. By failing to clarify the basis for certain claims, such as the impact of tariffs on AI infrastructure, the article leaves readers with unanswered questions about the underlying data and assumptions.