秋田预测市场 · Discord 审计

特朗普AI审查行政令是否创建联邦审查流程引发争议

2026-06-04 · Polymarket · 14 条相关讨论

Analista. 2026-06-03 23:32:05

> The Order directs the Federal government to establish a voluntary framework in collaboration with AI developers regarding covered frontier models, which would provide the Federal government with secure early access for trusted partners to strengthen cybersecurity and promote secure innovation. > > The Order expressly states that nothing shall be construed to authorize creation of any mandatory governmental licensing, pre-clearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release or distribution of AI models.

> The Order directs the Federal government to establish a voluntary framework in collaboration with AI developers regarding covered frontier models, which would provide the Federal government with secure early access for trusted partners to strengthen cybersecurity and promote secure innovation. > > The Order expressly states that nothing shall be construed to authorize creation of any mandatory governmental licensing, pre-clearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release or distribution of AI models.

Begotten 2026-06-03 23:38:20

someone in the comments mentioned that it constitutes a federal review/designation process

someone in the comments mentioned that it constitutes a federal review/designation process

Analista. 2026-06-03 23:40:23

> This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald Trump signs any federal legislation into law or performs any executive action that creates, authorizes, or directs a federal government review process for the public release of new artificial intelligence models > Rules

> This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald Trump signs any federal legislation into law or performs any executive action that creates, authorizes, or directs a federal government review process for the public release of new artificial intelligence models > Rules

suraxy 2026-06-03 23:40:48

i think this is a review process

i think this is a review process

Begotten 2026-06-03 23:41:30

assessment of advanced cyber capabilities, determination of which models qualify as “covered frontier models,” and engagement with the government on models under development before release

assessment of advanced cyber capabilities, determination of which models qualify as “covered frontier models,” and engagement with the government on models under development before release

Analista. 2026-06-03 23:45:27

> This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald Trump signs any federal legislation into law or performs any executive action that creates, authorizes, or directs a federal government review process for the public release of new artificial intelligence models A benchmark? no. A voluntary framework for early access? no.

> This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald Trump signs any federal legislation into law or performs any executive action that creates, authorizes, or directs a federal government review process for the public release of new artificial intelligence models A benchmark? no. A voluntary framework for early access? no.

Analista. 2026-06-04 02:34:59

In one sentence: Rules require a review process for the model to be released to the public. EO set up a voluntary early access framework, so they can release regardless of any "review"

In one sentence: Rules require a review process for the model to be released to the public. EO set up a voluntary early access framework, so they can release regardless of any "review"

Arman H 2026-06-04 16:00:32

and i dont think this will win in uma either

and i dont think this will win in uma either

ahmi416.Cricket Quant 2026-06-04 16:03:08

nothing in the rules actually requires the process to be mandatory. quite the opposite, the rules explicitly distinguish between reviewing and approving. The rules appear to be trying to capture whether an EO creates a federal review framework around new AI models. The EO did exactly that.

nothing in the rules actually requires the process to be mandatory. quite the opposite, the rules explicitly distinguish between reviewing and approving. The rules appear to be trying to capture whether an EO creates a federal review framework around new AI models. The EO did exactly that.

Camal 2026-06-04 16:03:40

Look I personally see this as a coin flip, I get both sides, and while I lean on Yes, thats just my opinion The EO directs agencies for a framework, and it hits the reso in my eyes But I get the No side as the WH basically saying *"we created a framework but exactly not what this rule follows"*

Look I personally see this as a coin flip, I get both sides, and while I lean on Yes, thats just my opinion The EO directs agencies for a framework, and it hits the reso in my eyes But I get the No side as the WH basically saying *"we created a framework but exactly not what this rule follows"*

Magic Eight Ball 2026-06-04 16:05:29

review, in grown-up speak, if it's related to state and laws, means something can't happen untill state review it by design you can't release new models without prior review this being voluntarily means it's not "review"

review, in grown-up speak, if it's related to state and laws, means something can't happen untill state review it by design you can't release new models without prior review this being voluntarily means it's not "review"

residual 2026-06-04 16:08:34

i agree with this, non-binding here just means having an EO which we have but the core issue is there is no review being done FOR public release they are just reviewing for benchmarking it seems, rather than giving a greenlight that it is now good to release to public there is no pipeline in the EO which talks about approving anything

i agree with this, non-binding here just means having an EO which we have but the core issue is there is no review being done FOR public release they are just reviewing for benchmarking it seems, rather than giving a greenlight that it is now good to release to public there is no pipeline in the EO which talks about approving anything

Bromley 2026-06-04 16:20:47

*A qualifying action must create a federal process for reviewing~~ or approving~~ the public release of new artificial intelligence models.* *A qualifying review process may apply to* *a) artificial intelligence models generally,* *b) only to models meeting specified criteria (e.g.capability, safety, cybersecurity, national-security, or other risk-based criteria), or* *c) to models selected for review at the discretion of the federal government.* Where does it say models that elect to join this process? All 3 criteria require US gvt discretion, not that of the company developing.

*A qualifying action must create a federal process for reviewing~~ or approving~~ the public release of new artificial intelligence models.* *A qualifying review process may apply to* *a) artificial intelligence models generally,* *b) only to models meeting specified criteria (e.g.capability, safety, cybersecurity, national-security, or other risk-based criteria), or* *c) to models selected for review at the discretion of the federal government.* Where does it say models that elect to join this process? All 3 criteria require US gvt discretion, not that of the company developing.

Begotten 2026-06-04 19:11:50

first clause: review process for the public release - not been met. second clause: A qualifying review process may apply to artificial intelligence models generally, only to models meeting specified criteria (e.g.capability, safety, cybersecurity, national-security, or other risk-based criteria), or to models selected for review at the discretion of the federal government. - not been met. the rest is self-explanatory

first clause: review process for the public release - not been met. second clause: A qualifying review process may apply to artificial intelligence models generally, only to models meeting specified criteria (e.g.capability, safety, cybersecurity, national-security, or other risk-based criteria), or to models selected for review at the discretion of the federal government. - not been met. the rest is self-explanatory