ai risk today logo svg bl font
Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
ai risk today logo svg bl font
Menu

airisktoday

About airisktoday

https://airisktoday.wpenginepowered.com

Posts by :

Senate introduces SAFE Chips Act, looks to quell chip exports

U.S. Senators Unveil SAFE Chips Act To Block Easing Of AI Chip Export Curbs

, , ,

Bipartisan legislation would codify current restrictions and prevent approval of advanced AI chip exports to China and other adversaries for 30 months.

 

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced legislation to prevent the Trump administration from easing restrictions on exports of advanced AI chips to China and other countries considered U.S. adversaries. The bill, known as the SAFE Chips Act, would require the Department of Commerce to deny export licenses for high-performance AI chips to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea for at least 30 months.

The measure was introduced by Senators Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), with bipartisan support. Supporters say the bill is intended to codify existing export controls and limit the executive branch’s ability to loosen restrictions without congressional oversight.

Current U.S. rules already restrict sales of the most advanced AI chips, including NVIDIA’s Blackwell series, to China. The SAFE Chips Act would extend those limits by mandating the denial of licenses for chips more powerful than those currently allowed for export. After the 30 months, the Commerce Department would be required to notify Congress at least 30 days before making any changes to the rules.

The bill follows a recent policy change by the Trump administration that allows NVIDIA to export its H200 AI chips to approved Chinese customers under a new framework that includes a 25% federal charge on related revenue. The H200 is more capable than earlier models that were permitted for export, but it remains less advanced than chips that are fully restricted.

NVIDIA said the policy balances national security concerns with competitiveness, but some lawmakers criticized the move, arguing it could strengthen China’s technological capabilities. Proponents of the SAFE Chips Act say that enshrining export controls into law would provide policy stability and ensure congressional involvement in decisions affecting national security.

The bill has been introduced but has not yet advanced through the legislative process.

HHS gives AI guidance on risk controls

HHS Releases AI Strategy Centered On Governance And Risk Management

, , , , , , ,

The new OneHHS approach calls for centralized oversight structures and risk-proportionate controls to guide artificial intelligence use across the department.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a department-wide artificial intelligence strategy designed to expand AI use across internal operations, research, and public health functions. The plan, unveiled Dec. 4, outlines a “OneHHS” approach to coordinate AI efforts across agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. The strategy is part of broader federal efforts to integrate AI tools while managing risk and improving efficiency.

The department’s AI Strategy identifies five core pillars for implementation:

  • Ensure governance and risk management to maintain public trust. 
  • Design infrastructure and platforms to meet user needs.
  • Promote workforce development and burden reduction to improve efficiency.
  • Foster health research and reproducibility through gold standard science.
  • Enable modernization of care and public health delivery to improve outcomes. 

The department said the strategy seeks to make AI more accessible to the federal workforce and to enhance core functions, from internal workflows to scientific research. Officials also described the effort as an initial step in a broader transformation of how HHS uses emerging technologies. The document aligns with related federal guidance and AI initiatives across government.

HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill emphasized AI’s potential to drive innovation in health and human services. At the same time, officials highlighted that the strategy will evolve as technology and use cases develop. The OneHHS framework is designed to streamline collaboration among HHS divisions and ensure consistent cybersecurity and technology standards for AI implementation.

Critics of expanded AI use in health settings raised questions about data privacy and oversight, particularly when tools are applied to sensitive health information. Observers note that effective governance will be crucial to balancing innovation with protections for patients and the public.

Fla. Governor seeks consumer protection with "AI Bill of Rights."

Florida Governor Proposes “AI Bill of Rights,” Seeks To Regulate Data Centers And Protect Consumers

, , , , ,

The DeSantis plan outlines privacy rules, parental controls, and restrictions on hyperscale data centers as Florida moves toward comprehensive AI regulation.

 

Governor Ron DeSantis unveiled a comprehensive legislative proposal aimed at regulating artificial intelligence in Florida through what he called a “Citizen Bill of Rights for AI.” The plan includes sweeping protections for privacy, consumer rights, and children, as well as new restrictions on the construction and operation of hyperscale AI data centers. 

At a news conference in The Villages, DeSantis framed the legislation as necessary to protect Floridians from what he described as unchecked technological growth and potential harms associated with AI. Citing concerns about personal privacy, image and likeness exploitation, and potential mental health risks, he argued that guardrails are needed before AI becomes pervasive in daily life. 

One of the proposal’s core aims is to prevent AI from using an individual’s name, image, or likeness (NIL) without consent, especially in contexts such as political ads, product promotions, or schemes that could defraud users. The bill would require companies deploying chatbots or AI tools to clearly notify consumers when they are interacting with an AI rather than a human. 

It also includes renewed protections against “deepfakes,” especially content that depicts minors or involves explicit material. Parental-control measures are another major feature: parents could access transcripts of their children’s conversations with AI chatbots, set usage limits, and receive notifications if their children exhibit concerning behavior.

Beyond individual protections, the proposal targets the infrastructure behind AI: hyperscale data centers. The plan would allow local governments to block such centers, prevent utilities from shifting costs to residents to support these facilities, and ban taxpayer subsidies for large tech projects. It would also impose environmental safeguards, including restrictions on water use, noise protections, and site location rules. 

DeSantis warned the public that without regulation, the rapid expansion of AI could lead to “an age of darkness and deceit.” He used the tragic example of a Florida mother who lost her 14-year-old son to suicide after he interacted with a customizable AI chatbot. 

The governor emphasized that the proposed legislation comes in response to what he sees as a gap in federal oversight. He also criticized efforts in Washington to preempt state-level AI regulation, arguing that individual states must retain the right and the responsibility to protect their citizens. 

If passed, the “AI Bill of Rights” would be among the most ambitious statewide efforts to regulate AI deployment, data center development, and digital safety for consumers, particularly children, in the United States.

GAO reports AI affecting housing purchase decisions

GAO Warns AI Tools Are Reshaping Housing Decisions, Raising New Risks For Consumers

, , , , ,

Federal watchdog cites concerns around bias, transparency, and data accuracy in home buying and renting.

 

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly influencing how Americans buy and rent homes. Federal investigators warn that the technology may also introduce new risks for consumers, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The report examines how AI is being used across the housing market, including to set rental prices, screen tenants, target housing advertisements, and estimate home values. While these tools can speed up decisions and reduce costs for companies, the GAO said they may also rely on flawed or incomplete data, which can disadvantage renters and buyers, particularly those in protected classes.

“AI can make housing processes faster and more efficient,” the GAO wrote, “but it can also perpetuate or amplify bias if not carefully designed, tested, and monitored.”

The GAO found that many AI-driven systems operate as “black boxes,” making it difficult for consumers to understand why they were denied an apartment, quoted a higher rent, or shown fewer housing options online. In some cases, landlords and property managers may not be able to explain how automated tools reached their decisions.

The report also flagged concerns about data quality. AI models often draw on historical housing data that may reflect past discrimination, potentially leading to outcomes that conflict with federal fair housing laws. Errors in underlying data, such as outdated credit or employment information, can further affect results.

“Without appropriate safeguards, AI tools could produce inaccurate or unfair outcomes that are hard for consumers to challenge,” the GAO said.

Federal agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, have begun issuing guidance on the use of AI in housing, but the GAO said oversight remains fragmented. The watchdog urged regulators to clarify how existing consumer protection and fair housing laws apply to automated systems and to improve coordination across agencies.

The GAO also noted that consumers often lack clear avenues to appeal or correct AI-driven housing decisions, leaving them with limited recourse when errors occur.

The report stops short of recommending new legislation but calls for stronger transparency, better bias testing, and more transparent accountability for companies deploying AI in housing markets as adoption of the technology continues to expand.

Meta's WhatsApp under scrutiny by EU for antitrust issues

EU Launches Antitrust Probe Into Meta Over WhatsApp AI Restrictions

, , , , , ,

The inquiry centers on whether Meta’s integration of Meta AI and concurrent restrictions on outside providers violate EU antitrust rules.

The European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into Meta Platforms over recent policy changes affecting third-party AI access to WhatsApp. The move follows concerns that the company’s updated rules may unfairly limit competing AI services while advancing Meta’s own assistant, Meta AI.

The probe, announced December 4, focuses on Meta’s decision to restrict general-purpose chatbots from using the WhatsApp Business Solution API. The updated policy, introduced in October 2025, prevents external AI assistants from operating on the platform if their primary function is AI-based customer interaction. Meta’s own AI assistant remains fully available to WhatsApp users. According to the Commission, the policy may hinder rival developers’ ability to reach businesses and consumers through one of Europe’s most widely used communication channels.

The investigation applies across the European Economic Area, except in Italy, where the national competition authority is conducting a parallel inquiry. Unlike recent actions taken under the Digital Markets Act, Brussels is pursuing this case under traditional antitrust rules. If the Commission finds evidence of anti-competitive conduct, Meta could face fines of up to 10% of its global annual revenue, and regulators may require changes to the policy.

Officials said the assessment will focus on whether Meta’s rules could distort competition by favoring its in-house AI services over those developed by independent providers. Regulators and industry groups warn that WhatsApp’s scale makes it an important distribution channel for AI tools used by European businesses, and limiting access to external developers could reduce market diversity and create barriers for smaller providers. The Commission said maintaining fair access to dominant platforms remains a priority as companies integrate AI technologies into widely used communication tools.

Meta has rejected suggestions that the policy is anti-competitive. A company spokesperson said the WhatsApp Business API was designed for customer service and transactional messaging rather than general-purpose AI assistants, and that external chatbot usage had strained system resources. The company emphasized that developers have other channels to reach consumers, including mobile app stores and search engines, and said the broader AI market remains competitive.

The investigation reflects Europe’s increasing focus on how large technology platforms incorporate AI into existing products. Regulators are evaluating not only data practices and transparency requirements but also whether AI-driven features reinforce market dominance. The outcome could influence how AI services are allowed to operate on major messaging platforms as policymakers assess the competitive implications of rapidly expanding AI integration.

AI Industry- FLI AI Safety Index

AI Industry Falls Short On Safety – New Report From Future Of Life Institute Sounds Alarm

, , , ,

“AI Safety Index Winter 2025” finds none of the leading AI firms fully meet emerging global standards — experts warn existential-risk safeguards remain largely inadequate.

The Future of Life Institute (FLI) released the Winter 2025 edition of its AI Safety Index, offering a detailed assessment of eight leading AI companies’ efforts to manage both immediate and existential risks. The findings paint a stark picture: although some firms raise the bar modestly, the industry remains underprepared for the growing threat posed by advanced AI systems. 

At the top of the pack are Anthropic and OpenAI, both earning a C+. Google DeepMind follows with a C. Meanwhile, others such as xAI, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba Cloud trail behind, most with D-level grades or lower. 

A core insight from the report is that despite considerable public commitments, none of the companies have demonstrated credible strategies for controlling potentially superintelligent systems. Areas such as “existential safety,” risk assessment, and information sharing remain weak across the board. 

 As FLI notes, “all of the companies reviewed are racing toward AGI/superintelligence without presenting any explicit plans for controlling or aligning such smarter-than-human technology.” 

The gaps are especially pronounced in transparency: most companies provide only limited, if any, public disclosure of internal risk assessments, evaluation methodologies, or whistleblower protections. In the “Information Sharing” domain, only Anthropic scored in the A range; many were rated D or D-. 

The report warns that this lack of oversight and concrete safeguards comes at a perilous time. As firms race to build ever more capable systems, the risk of catastrophic failure or misuse grows exponentially. Without robust, measurable, and enforceable safety standards, the report argues, these market leaders are inching toward a “race to the bottom.”

FLI offers several recommendations to close the gap. Among them are:

  • AI developers should create and publicly commit to detailed risk-management frameworks that include measurable thresholds, pre-deployment testing, and independent oversight. 
  • Companies need to improve transparency significantly. For example, by sharing model evaluations, enabling external audits, and implementing whistleblower protections. 
  • Policymakers should consider binding regulations to ensure companies meet minimum safety and governance standards before deploying frontier AI systems. 

The winter 2025 AI Safety Index underscores a growing consensus among experts: the AI industry’s ambition to advance rapidly must be matched by corresponding safety, transparency, and governance mechanisms. Without such safeguards, many believe, the public and global systems may be exposed to unacceptable levels of risk.

CISA - Provide AI guidance re: AI security in critical infrastructure

CISA, Global Cyber Agencies Publish Guidance To Secure AI Use In Critical Infrastructure

, , , , , ,

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and international partners outline four core principles for safely integrating AI into operational technology systems across critical infrastructure.

 

Key takeaways

  • Critical-infrastructure operators are encouraged to treat AI as a high-risk technology in operational technology (OT) environments and to implement robust safety, security, and oversight measures. 
  • The guidance identifies four foundational principles for safe AI integration in OT: understand AI, evaluate AI use, establish governance and assurance frameworks, and embed safety and security practices into AI-enabled OT systems. 
  • The guidance emphasizes that AI deployment in systems that control physical infrastructure must include human-in-the-loop (HITL) oversight, fail-safe mechanisms, continuous monitoring, and incident-response planning, not simply automation. 

CISA, along with the NSA and international cybersecurity agencies, released a joint guidance document, “Principles for the Secure Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Operational Technology.” The guidance is aimed at owners and operators of critical infrastructure systems that incorporate operational technology.

The document outlines four core principles designed to help institutions benefit from AI, such as machine-learning tools or AI agents, while safeguarding the safety, reliability, and security of OT environments. The four principles are: 

  1. Understand AI: encourages OT operators to familiarize themselves with the unique risks AI poses in industrial and control-system contexts. This includes model drift, reliability issues, increased complexity, and potential safety hazards. It also calls for training personnel and adopting secure-by-design AI development lifecycles.
  2. Consider AI Use in the OT Domain: recommends a careful assessment of whether AI is truly the right tool for a given OT task. This includes evaluating business cases, vendor transparency, data security, and the long-term maintenance burden that AI integration might bring.
  3. Establish AI Governance and Assurance Frameworks: calls for organizations to build frameworks that include continuous testing, compliance checks, and regulation-aligned evaluation of AI systems before and after deployment.
  4. Embed Safety and Security Practices into AI-Enabled OT Systems: instructs operators to integrate HITL controls for decision-making, implement fail-safe mechanisms, monitor and log AI activity, and update incident-response plans to handle potential AI failures or malicious attacks.

The guidance applies broadly to OT systems across critical infrastructure, including power generation, water treatment, transportation, manufacturing, and other sectors that use AI for tasks such as predictive maintenance, anomaly detection, and operational optimization. It emphasizes that while some AI methods (e.g., machine learning, LLM-based agents, statistical models) vary in complexity and risk, security and safety requirements remain especially important when AI controls physical processes.

By issuing this guidance, CISA and its partners signal growing caution among global cybersecurity authorities. While AI offers promising gains in efficiency and performance, its integration into OT requires rigorous governance, transparency, and risk awareness. Otherwise, critical infrastructure could become vulnerable to failures or cyberattacks.

As adoption of AI in infrastructure deployment accelerates, operators and regulators worldwide will be watching closely to see whether organizations adhere to the new principles and whether this guidance becomes a baseline for future regulatory requirements. 

Enterprise AI Adoption detailed in the 2025 Security of AI Data Security Report

Enterprise AI Adoption Surges While Data Security Lags Behind

, , , ,

A new report finds that 83% of firms are using AI, while only 13% have strong data-usage visibility.

Key Takeaways

  • 83% of enterprises report using AI in daily operations; only 13% report having good visibility into how AI handles their data.
  • Autonomous AI agents and external prompts to public LLMs are seen as the riskiest AI vectors, with 76% and 70% of organizations, respectively, identifying them as the most complex to secure.
  • Only 7% of organizations have a dedicated AI governance team, and only 11% feel fully prepared for forthcoming AI data governance regulations.

Cyera Research Labs, in collaboration with Cybersecurity Insiders, published the 2025 State of AI Data Security Report, based on a survey of 921 enterprise IT and cybersecurity professionals.

The report paints a stark picture: While 83% of organizations have integrated AI into daily operations, the infrastructure for governing AI data use remains weak and fragmented. Only 13% of businesses report strong visibility into how AI interacts with their sensitive data, raising concerns about risk, oversight, and regulatory compliance.

Key Findings

  • AI adoption outpaces control:
    • While 83% of organizations report using AI, only 28% describe their use as extensive; more than half (55%) are still in the pilot stage.
    • Despite widespread use, only 13% of companies say they have “good” or “full” visibility into AI activity; nearly half (49%) admit to little or no visibility.
    • Logging is mostly reactive: a third of respondents review activity only after an incident occurs.
    • Only 11% of organizations can automatically block risky AI behavior; more than half lack any automated safeguards. 57% cannot block or restrict risky AI activities.
  • Governance and regulatory readiness remain weak:
    • Only 7% of organizations report having a dedicated AI-governance team.
    • Only 11% report feeling fully prepared for emerging AI data-governance regulations; 44% are partially prepared, and 31% are aware but unprepared.
    • Responsibility for AI governance is highly fragmented: many place it with IT, risk, or the C-suite, while 12% assign ownership to their CISO.
  • Agents and prompts — the exposed edge:
    • Autonomous AI agents are considered the hardest to secure by 76% of respondents, and 70% cite external prompts to public LLMs as high risk.
    • Embedded AI in SaaS is more trusted, but 43% still find it challenging to secure.
    • 40% of organizations report the presence of unsanctioned or “shadow AI” operating outside official oversight.
    • Around 21% grant AI broad, default access to sensitive data; two-thirds say they have observed AI over-accessing data it didn’t need.
    • Nearly a quarter (23%) say they have no controls whatsoever over prompts or outputs; while filtering, monitoring, and redaction are inconsistently deployed.
    • Despite these risks, 77% of security teams report using AI in operations, often without comparable control measures.
  • Human-centric models are still applied to AI:
    • Most organizations apply human-focused identity controls to AI, leading to over-permissioned access and limited governance.
    • Only 16% treat AI as a distinct class, whereas 77% apply human rules or inconsistent controls.
    • Broad data access is common: 21% grant AI default access to sensitive data, and 66% report AI accessing more data than intended.
    • Few have integrated identity and data security for AI, with 23% reporting no formal governance for AI data access.

The report advances a compelling metaphor: in many organizations, AI is becoming a “shadow identity,” an autonomous actor within enterprise infrastructure that’s powerful, fast, and often unaccountable.

It also maps its findings against the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, highlighting how enterprises are currently falling short of these guardrails.

The report issues a clear warning: As enterprises accelerate AI deployment (e.g., embedding tools such as SAS AI copilots, large language models, and autonomous agents) without proper visibility, monitoring, and governance, AI becomes a fast-growing vector for data exposure and regulatory risk.

AI isn’t just another technology. It’s a new reality that must be governed with the same, if not greater, rigor as other business risks if data integrity and compliance are to be maintained.

Senate floor- Democrats Reintroduce AI Civil Rights Act

Democrats Reintroduce AI Civil Rights Act

, , , , , ,

Led by Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Representative Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), the AI Civil Rights Act would require audits, transparency, and human oversight of AI-driven decisions that affect civil rights.

Democratic lawmakers reintroduced the AI Civil Rights Act, a proposal to limit discriminatory outcomes from artificial intelligence systems used in areas such as hiring, housing, lending, healthcare, and education. The bill seeks to apply civil rights protections to automated decision-making tools that affect access to essential services and opportunities.

At a press conference announcing the bill’s return, Senator Ed Markey said companies have increasingly relied on AI systems to make consequential decisions about people’s lives. Supporters of the legislation argue that without clear safeguards, automated systems can replicate or amplify existing biases, particularly when trained on historical data that reflects past discrimination.

Under the bill, developers and users of AI systems would be prohibited from deploying tools that discriminate based on protected characteristics or that produce unjustified disparate impacts. The legislation would require independent evaluations of algorithms before they are deployed, along with ongoing assessments to identify and mitigate bias over time. It would also mandate transparency, including notifying individuals when an AI system is used in decision-making and providing a pathway to appeal automated decisions to a human reviewer. Enforcement authority would rest with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and individuals who can show harm.

Civil rights and consumer advocacy groups have welcomed the bill, arguing that existing anti-discrimination laws have not kept pace with the growing use of automated systems. Some supporters argue that federal standards are critical amid congressional discussions to limit or preempt state-level AI regulation.

However, the proposal has drawn criticism from industry groups, some legal scholars, and technology policy advocates. Critics argue that the bill’s reliance on disparate impact standards could expose companies to broad legal liability even when no intentional discrimination is present. Others warn that mandatory audits, documentation, and appeal mechanisms could be costly and difficult to implement, particularly for smaller firms, potentially slowing innovation or discouraging the use of AI in beneficial applications.

Some opponents also contend that existing civil rights, consumer protection, and employment laws already provide tools to address discriminatory outcomes, and that new AI-specific rules could create overlapping or unclear obligations. Questions have also been raised about how the bill would be enforced in practice and whether federal requirements could conflict with sector-specific regulations.

The bill’s prospects in Congress remain uncertain, and it is unclear whether it will gain bipartisan support. Its reintroduction nonetheless reflects continued debate over how far federal lawmakers should go in regulating AI systems and addressing their social and economic impacts.

Rencore Extends Series A to $15 Million to Boost AI Governance Platform

Rencore Extends Series A To $15 Million To Boost AI Governance Platform

, ,

Rencore, a Munich-based cloud governance software company, announced an extension of its Series A funding to $15 million, aimed at accelerating growth in AI governance and supporting international expansion across Europe and North America. The funding round was led by European technology investor Hi Inov with participation from existing backers UVC Partners and Capnamic Ventures.

The extended funding will be used to expand the company’s AI and agent governance capabilities, grow its product and engineering teams, and scale go-to-market operations internationally.

The Rencore platform is designed to provide IT and compliance teams with deep visibility into how AI systems interact with business data, helping organizations detect and mitigate data exposure risks, enforce security and compliance policies, and control AI-driven automation. Rencore’s tools allow organizations to align AI use with internal governance frameworks and regulatory requirements.

With the new capital, Rencore plans to strengthen partnerships with systems integrators and managed service providers to help organizations implement sustainable governance frameworks for collaboration and AI, ensuring controlled and compliant use of AI technologies as adoption increases.

Load More