Regulation
Rules are catching up with the technology, clumsily. Analysis of what the new AI laws actually require.
-
A government switched off a frontier model, then switched it back on
For about two weeks in June, the most capable AI model on the market was, in a real legal sense, off-limits. If you were not a US national, you were not allowed to touch it. This is the Claude Fable 5 story, and it is less about one model than about a line that just got crossed.
-
The EU AI Act is messy, late, and probably necessary
I am instinctively allergic to tech regulation written by people who have never shipped anything. A lot of the EU AI Act fits that description. It is late, convoluted, and parts of it will age badly. And yet, reading through what actually takes effect in 2026, I keep landing somewhere uncomfortable: most of it is the kind of thing the industry should have done on its own and did not.
-
Who owns the words your AI trained on? The courts are about to decide.
The most important AI story of the next year will not be a model release. It will be a court ruling. The lawsuits over what these models were trained on, the New York Times against OpenAI, Getty against Stability, are entering decisive phases, and the question they answer will quietly reshape the entire industry. I have a side, and I want to explain it honestly.