US President Donald Trump has sparked new debates in the AI world, declaring that artificial intelligence companies should not burden them with paying for copyrighted material that their models are trained. Speaking at the White House AI Summit on Wednesday, Trump aimed at what he considers as a “workable” intellectual property demand, but pitched a bold national AI strategy that bystanders some of the hot button issues that dominate the global AI conversation.
“When you are expected to pay for every article, a book, or whatever you have studied, you cannot expect to succeed in an AI program,” Trump said. “We appreciate it, but you can't do it, so you can't do it. And if you're going to try it, you're not going to have a successful program.”
Framing the issue as a global competition issue, Trump has urged “common-sense artificial and intellectual property rules” and pointed to China as an example of a country moving forward with AI without the constraints of robust IP laws.
“When people read books or articles, you get a lot of knowledge. That doesn't mean you have to violate copyright laws or have to deal with all content providers,” he said. “You can't do that. China isn't doing that.”
Trump's comments coincided with the official release of his administration's AI Action Plan. It is a drastic policy document focusing on accelerating the country's AI infrastructure, cutting the deficit and keeping government-supported AI projects free from what they call “ideological bias.”
Copyright concerns are largely ignored
The AI Action Plan dedicates space to issues like deepfakes, but does not directly address the storm's growth against piracy, considering what First Lady Melania Trump does. AI companies face growing lawsuits from authors, musicians and entertainment giants such as Disney and NBCUniversal to train models without permission using copyrighted materials.
Instead of addressing these concerns, Trump doubled the idea that training copyrighted content without payment is simply a practical need.
The plan also targets a growing patchwork of state-level AI laws, requiring the federal government to limit funding to states known as “burdened AI regulations.” The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suggest that they will review local laws and court decisions that could “overburden AI innovation.”
Trump said he was particularly dull on this point during his speech, saying, “The United States must have a single federal standard, not the 50 states that will regulate this industry in the future.”
That statement didn't work in California. There, Gov. Gavin Newsom's office condemned the implications of the plan that a powerful child safety law on AI could lead to refunds.
“Some people may say that it is an interesting priority, especially in light of his close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” the governor's office said with a sharp reprimand.
Safety to expand
The Trump plan shows a notable shift from the approach of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Joe Biden's AI policy focuses on safety, equity and regulation. The new plan acknowledges certain risks, such as national security threats and privacy issues, but the tone is to empower developers and protect them from restrictions.
One notable proposal is to amend federal procurement regulations so that the system is awarded only to AI developers who ensure that it is “objective and has no top-down ideological bias.” The plan also proposes updating the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI risk management framework to remove references to “misinformation”, “diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)” and “climate change.”
“We must ensure that freedom of speech flourishes in the age of AI and that the AI sourced by the federal government objectively reflects the truth, not the agenda of social engineering,” the plan says.
Trump's AI blueprint is ambitious on scale, but its critics could argue that it gloss an important issue. By circumventing copyright and underestimating content moderation, the plan may please AI developers, but it leaves a big question mark about how to protect creators and those caught up in the AI crosshairs.
– end
I'll adjust it
