QuitGPT Trending: 700k Users Cancel ChatGPT Plus Subscriptions

I just found out that "QuitGPT" is trending. On Reddit: "claiming that up to 700,000 users have pledged to cancel their $20/month ChatGPT Plus subscriptions." Website: https://quitgpt.org/ https://lnkd.in/eka-2Fnt

The White House has made a significant move in the AI space with the release of a new framework. Discover how this could impact federal preemption debates and future legislative actions by following Akin's analysis. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gbTumVs5

On Friday, the Trump Administration released the National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence Legislative Recommendations. Of particular note are the following policy pillars: 3. Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators American creators, publishers, and innovators should be protected from AI generated outputs that infringe their protected content, without undermining lawful innovation and free expression. 5.  Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance The United States must lead the world in AI by removing barriers to innovation, accelerating deployment of AI applications across sectors, and ensuring broad access to the testing environments needed to build world-class AI systems. 6.  Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce American workers must benefit from AI-driven growth, not just the outputs of AI development, through youth development and skills training, the creation of new jobs in an AI-powered economy, and expanded opportunities across sectors. 7. Establishing a Federal Policy Framework, Preempting Cumbersome State AI Laws. The federal government must establish a federal AI policy framework to protect American rights, support innovation, and prevent a fragmented patchwork of state regulations that would hinder our national competitiveness, while respecting federalism and State rights. For more information see the full Report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://lnkd.in/gam5tQwQ More background: Reuters https://lnkd.in/ghGZuafW From Sullivan & Cromwell LLP https://lnkd.in/e7q5TBpw: From Fox News TV https://lnkd.in/dmaqQ6ED WHIC event on April 21, 2026, Washington DC For more discussion and insights from senior federal leaders, consider being part of our WHIC' Golden Age of AI in Life Sciences on April 21. The event is in-person only and with limited seating. https://lnkd.in/eNq4Cv3Z

A new poll shows 69% of American voters think superintelligence should be banned. Just 9% disagree. Despite acknowledging that the development of this technology could lead to human extinction, the largest AI companies are openly racing to build it. At the same time, a huge coalition of experts, Nobel laureates, former officials, and dozens of organizations have just signed the Pro-Human AI Declaration, calling for a ban on superintelligence. Support for a ban on superintelligence is overwhelming and bipartisan. So why hasn't it been banned yet? Two reasons: 1. Most people don't even know AI companies are working to build superintelligence within years. 2. Even those who do aren't sure what they can do about it. The AI industry is spending enormous amounts of money to keep the public in the dark. We need to counteract that. The public has a right to know what's being done without their consent. At ControlAI, we're working to close these gaps, raising awareness and making it easy to act. For example, we've built tools that let you contact your representatives in less than a minute. So far, people have used them to send over 160,000 messages to lawmakers. Many MPs who've backed our UK campaign for binding regulation on the most powerful AIs have done so after first hearing from constituents. Over 100 UK politicians support us. This is something that actually works. Read more about the recent polling, the pro-human declaration, and what we're doing to help keep humans in control in our latest article: https://lnkd.in/e_iBgmpk

White House Unveils National AI Policy Framework To Limit State Power: An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The Trump administration on Friday issued (PDF) a legislative framework for a single national policy on artificial intelligence, aiming to create uniform safety and security guardrails around the nascent technology while preempting states from enacting their own AI rules. The six-pronged outline broadly proposes a slew of regulations on AI products and infrastructure, ranging from implementing new child-safety rules to standardizing the permitting and energy use of AI data centers. It also calls on Congress to address thorny issues surrounding intellectual-property rights and craft rules "preventing AI systems from being used to silence or censor lawful political expression or dissent." The administration said in an official release that it wants to work with Congress "in the coming months" to convert its framework into a bill that President Donald Trump can sign. The White House wants to codify the framework into law "this year" and believes it can generate bipartisan support, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an interview with Fox News on Thursday evening. That won't be easy in a deeply divided Congress where Republicans hold thin and often fractious majorities, and where Trump has already urged GOP lawmakers to prioritize his controversial voter-ID bill above all else ahead of the November midterms. BCLP has an interactive map that tracks the proposed, failed and enacted AI regulatory bills from each state. Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Charles Blain, founder of Local Insights AI, on using AI on government policy. “We’re in a really interesting time where citizens finally have the ability to maybe not meet the government toe to toe, but we have resources where they can match them to a certain extent."

Imagine waking up and realizing the guardrails on the AI highway didn’t just move—they were sold for scrap metal to fund a massive data center in the middle of the desert. 🌵 Lately, I’ve been reflecting on the ripple effects of that infamous AI Action Plan that shook the industry last year. You know the one: the "innovation at all costs" strategy that basically told the FTC to take a very long, very quiet nap while the tech giants were given the keys to the kingdom. 🏰 The pitch was simple: win the race against China, eliminate "ideological bias," and cut the red tape until the scissors went blunt. But as someone who lives and breathes data integrity at CCH® Tagetik, I can’t help but find the "lawless future" narrative a bit… twitchy. Here’s the thing about "removing red tape" in the AI world: One person’s "bureaucratic hurdle" is another person’s "reason the algorithm didn't just accidentally bankrupt the company." 📉 The Trump administration’s push for an "American AI Technology Stack" and the massive $500 billion "Stargate" infrastructure project certainly feel like something straight out of a sci-fi novel. It’s very Cyberpunk 2077, but without the cool neon jackets. They want AI that can discover new drugs and decipher ancient texts, yet there’s this bizarre disconnect where the same plan struggles to address AI-generated deepfakes or the fact that LLMs sometimes just make up legal cases out of thin air. 🧙♂️ I’ve seen how this plays out in the corporate world. When you remove oversight, you don’t just get speed; you get "hallucination-driven development." 🤪 At Wolters Kluwer, we know that governance isn't the enemy of innovation—it’s the foundation of it. [1] You can't lead a global market if no one trusts your output. If the government decides that "objective truth" is whatever the least-regulated model says it is, we’re heading for a reality where data is just a matter of opinion. The Lever Time crew warned us about a "lawless future" for AI, and while "lawless" sounds edgy in a Western movie, it’s a nightmare for a CFO trying to close the books. 📖 So, are we actually winning the AI race, or are we just removing the brakes while heading toward a hairpin turn? I’m all for American dominance in tech, but I’d prefer if we didn’t sacrifice the "Intelligence" part of AI just to get more "Artificial" into the system. Let’s keep the innovation high, but maybe keep a few of those "foolish rules" that prevent the robots from accidentally deleting the middle class. Just a thought. 🤖☕️ #AI #TechGovernance #Innovation #ArtificialIntelligence #DataIntegrity #FutureOfWork #CCHTagetik #WoltersKluwer #DigitalTransformation #AIPolicy #CyberpunkReality #TechLeadership #EthicalAI References: [1] Guinea Advances Toward Ethical and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence Governance: https://lnkd.in/dbTsG6jW

I've been getting asked a lot about AI-generated misinformation in the context of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran. The default take: it's definitely worse than before. I'm not so sure – pr at least, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The post is a bit more nuanced, but the TL/DR: https://lnkd.in/gdgQ3nWf 🧵 Do we have good quantitative measures showing there’s more AI-generated false content now than in previous conflicts? Not really. And I’m not sure it would matter — more drops in an already full ocean does not equal more impact. That said, there are good theoretical reasons to expect more of it — models have improved on the multimodal front and are more accessible. And anecdotally it feels that way. BBC Verify and the FT have documented striking examples: AI- satellite images, AI-enhanced explosions, etc See here: https://lnkd.in/gfniaXmN Or here: https://lnkd.in/gKQ_kXDb? But we’re also seeing all the usual: game footage, images out of context, crude photoshop-style manipulations. These aren't new. As Sacha Altay, Hugo Mercier and I argued in 2023, fact-checkers have long struggled less with deepfakes than with simple "cheapfakes." That still seems to be the case, see paper here: https://lnkd.in/dVME_NA6 You don’t actually need sophistication for misinformation to work. In our paper we argued consumption is driven by demand, not supply — shaped by partisanship and low institutional trust, not by the technical polish of the content. Someone who wants to believe US forces suffered a devastating strike doesn’t need a flawless AI satellite image. A blurry screenshot will do. AI may be raising the ceiling on what's possible, but it's not clear it's moving the needle on what actually spreads and sticks. What does seem to have shifted: people are getting more sceptical online, and when in doubt, some are gravitating toward sources they trust. A recent NBER working paper found exactly this with Süddeutsche Zeitung readers — concern about AI fakes actually drove more visits and better subscriber retention. https://lnkd.in/gSHx8mmB The relative value of trustworthy sources goes up when the information environment gets noisier. That’s why the work of organisations like the BBC, FT and fact-checkers matters so much. Without them, the picture would be grimmer. But I'd push back on the narrative that we're entering some qualitatively new era of epistemic chaos. The tools are different. The underlying human dynamics, largely, are not.

EXCLUSIVE: At a live debate Tuesday moderated by physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said unexpected, emergent behaviors in large AI models make full preemptive safety nearly impossible. Other experts—including former CTO of the Federal Trade Commission Latanya Sweeney and AI researcher Nate Soares—pushed back, warning that relying on fixes after the fact leaves real harms unaddressed. "We can stop [the emergence of new features or behaviors], and therefore stop all progress, by law, by banning larger models, but as long as you have this new emergent power, you have deep reasoning, deep capabilities, and they will make mistakes," Schmidt said onstage. "You have to be tolerant." Story for ADWEEK: https://lnkd.in/eUxjf9Sg

Check out this blog from my Ogletree colleagues on the new U.S. AI policy framework. For businesses navigating multiple jurisdictions, the potential shift toward federal preemption could be a significant development.