After OpenAI hearing, A.I. experts urge Congress to listen to more diverse voices on regulation
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testifies before a Senate Judiciary Privacy, Technology, and the Law Subcommittee hearing titled ‘Oversight of A.I.: Rules for Artificial Intelligence’ on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 16, 2023. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
Elizabeth Frantz | Reuters
At most tech CEO hearings in recent years, lawmakers have taken a contentious tone, grilling executives over their data-privacy practices, competitive methods and more.
But at Tuesday’s hearing on AI oversight including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, lawmakers seemed notably more welcoming toward the ChatGPT maker. One senator even went as far as asking whether Altman would be qualified to administer rules regulating the industry.
Altman’s warm welcome on Capitol Hill, which included a dinner discussion the night prior with dozens of House lawmakers and a separate speaking event Tuesday afternoon attended by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has raised concerns from some AI experts who were not in attendance this week.
These experts caution that lawmakers’ decision to learn about the technology from a leading industry executive could unduly sway the solutions they seek to regulate AI. In conversations with CNBC in the days after Altman’s testimony, AI leaders urged Congress to engage with a diverse set of voices in the field to ensure a wide range of concerns are addressed, rather than focus on those that serve corporate interests.
OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.
A friendly tone
For some experts, the tone of the hearing and Altman’s other engagements on the Hill raised alarm.
Lawmakers’ praise for Altman at times sounded almost like “celebrity worship,” according to Meredith Whittaker, president of the Signal Foundation and co-founder of the AI Now Institute at New York University.
“You don’t ask the hard questions to people you’re engaged in a fandom about,” she said.
“It doesn’t sound like the kind of hearing that’s oriented around accountability,” said Sarah Myers West, managing director of the AI Now Institute. “Saying, ‘Oh, you should be in charge of a new regulatory agency’ is not an accountability posture.”
West said the “laudatory” tone of some representatives following the dinner with Altman was surprising. She acknowledged it may “signal that they’re just trying to sort of wrap their heads around what this new market even is.”
But she added, “It’s not new. It’s been around for a long time.”
Safiya Umoja Noble, a professor at UCLA and author of “Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism,” said lawmakers who attended the dinner with Altman seemed “deeply influenced to appreciate his product and what his company is doing. And that also doesn’t seem like a fair deliberation over the facts of what these technologies are.”
“Honestly, it’s disheartening to see Congress let these CEOs pave the way for carte blanche, whatever they want, the terms that are most favorable to them,” Noble said.
Real differences from the social media era?
At Tuesday’s Senate hearing, lawmakers made comparisons to the social media era, noting their surprise that industry executives showed up asking for regulation. But experts who spoke with CNBC said industry calls for regulation are nothing new and often serve an industry’s own interests.
“It’s really important to pay attention to specifics here and not let the supposed novelty of someone in tech saying the word ‘regulation’ without scoffing distract us from the very real stakes and what’s actually being proposed, the substance of those regulations,” said Whittaker.
“Facebook has been using that strategy for years,” Meredith Broussard, New York University professor and author of “More Than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech,” said of the call for regulation. “Really, what they do is they say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’re definitely ready to be regulated.’… And then they lobby [for] exactly the opposite. They take advantage of the confusion.”
Experts cautioned that the kinds of regulation Altman suggested, like an agency to oversee AI, could actually stall regulation and entrench incumbents.
“That seems like a great way to completely slow down any progress on regulation,” said Margaret Mitchell, researcher and chief ethics scientist at AI company Hugging Face. “Government is already not resourced enough to well support the agencies and entities they already have.”
Ravit Dotan, who leads an AI ethics lab at the University of Pittsburgh as well as AI ethics at generative AI startup Bria.ai, said that while it makes sense for lawmakers to take Big Tech companies’ opinions into account since they are key stakeholders, they shouldn’t dominate the conversation.
“One of the concerns that is coming from smaller companies generally is whether regulation would be something that is so cumbersome that only the big companies are really able to deal with [it], and then smaller companies end up having a lot of burdens,” Dotan said.
Several researchers said the government should focus on enforcing the laws already on the books and applauded a recent joint agency statement that asserted the U.S. already has the power to enforce against discriminatory outcomes from the use of AI.
Dotan said there were bright spots in the hearing when she felt lawmakers were “informed” in their questions. But in other cases, she said she wished lawmakers had pressed Altman for deeper explanations or commitments.
For example, when asked about the likelihood that AI will displace jobs, Altman said that eventually it will create more quality jobs. While Dotan said she agreed with that assessment, she wished lawmakers had asked Altman for more potential solutions to help displaced workers find a living or gain skills training in the meantime, before new job opportunities become more widely available.
“There are so many things that a company with the power of OpenAI backed by Microsoft has when it comes to displacement,” Dotan said. “So to me, to leave it as, ‘Your market is going to sort itself out eventually,’ was very disappointing.”
Diversity of voices
A key message AI experts have for lawmakers and government officials is to include a wider array of voices, both in personal background and field of experience, when considering regulating the technology.
“I think that community organizations and researchers should be at the table; people who have been studying the harmful effects of a variety of different kinds of technologies should be at the table,” said Noble. “We should have policies and resources available for people who’ve been damaged and harmed by these technologies … There are a lot of great ideas for repair that come from people who’ve been harmed. And we really have yet to see meaningful engagement in those ways.”
Mitchell said she hopes Congress engages more specifically with people involved in auditing AI tools and experts in surveillance capitalism and human-computer interactions, among others. West suggested that people with expertise in fields that will be affected by AI should also be included, like labor and climate experts.
Whittaker pointed out that there may already be “more hopeful seeds of meaningful regulation outside of the federal government,” pointing to the Writers Guild of America strike as an example, in which demands include job protections from AI.
Government should also pay greater attention and offer more resources to researchers in fields like social sciences, who have played a large role in uncovering the ways technology can result in discrimination and bias, according to Noble.
“Many of the challenges around the impact of AI in society has come from humanists and social scientists,” she said. “And yet we see that the funding that is predicated upon our findings, quite frankly, is now being distributed back to computer science departments that work alongside industry.”
Noble said she was “stunned” to see that the White House’s announcement of funding for seven new AI research centers seemed to have an emphasis on computer science.
“Most of the women that I know who have been the leading voices around the harms of AI for the last 20 years are not invited to the White House, are not funded by [the National Science Foundation and] are not included in any kind of transformative support,” Noble said. “And yet our work does have and has had tremendous impact on shifting the conversations about the impact of these technologies on society.”
Noble pointed to the White House meeting earlier this month that included Altman and other tech CEOs, such as Google’s Sundar Pichai and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella. Noble said the photo of that meeting “really told the story of who has put themselves in charge. …The same people who’ve been the makers of the problems are now somehow in charge of the solutions.”
Bringing in independent researchers to engage with government would give those experts opportunities to make “important counterpoints” to corporate testimony, Noble said.
Still, other experts noted that they and their peers have engaged with government about AI, albeit without the same media attention Altman’s hearing received and perhaps without a large event like the dinner Altman attended with a wide turnout of lawmakers.
Mitchell worries lawmakers are now “primed” from their discussions with industry leaders.
“They made the decision to start these discussions, to ground these discussions in corporate interests,” Mitchell said. “They could have gone in a totally opposite direction and asked them last.”
Mitchell said she appreciated Altman’s comments on Section 230, the law that helps shield online platforms from being held responsible for their users’ speech. Altman conceded that outputs of generative AI tools would not necessarily be covered by the legal liability shield and a different framework is needed to assess liability for AI products.
“I think, ultimately, the U.S. government will go in a direction that favors large tech corporations,” Mitchell said. “My hope is that other people, or people like me, can at least minimize the damage, or show some of the devil in the details to lead away from some of the more problematic ideas.”
“There’s a whole chorus of people who have been warning about the problems, including bias along the lines of race and gender and disability, inside AI systems,” said Broussard. “And if the critical voices get elevated as much as the commercial voices, then I think we’re going to have a more robust dialogue.”
WATCH: Can China’s ChatGPT clones give it an edge over the U.S. in an A.I. arms race?
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai meets with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Warsaw, Poland, on February 13, 2025.
Klaudia Radecka | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Google has reversed a policy forbidding employees from discussing its antitrust woes following a settlement with workers.
The company sent a notice to U.S. employees last week saying it rescinded “the rule requesting that workers refrain from commenting internally or externally about the on-going antitrust lawsuit filed against Google by the U.S. Department of Justice,” according to correspondence viewed by CNBC.
Google settled with the Alphabet Workers Union, which represents company employees and contractors, according to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB. The settlement and policy reversal mark a major victory for Google staffers, who have seen increased censorship on subjects such as politics, litigation and defense contracts by the search giant since 2019.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google in 2020, alleging that the company has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance.
Google said it “will not announce or maintain overbroad rules or policies that restrict your right to comment, internally or externally, about whether and/or how the on-going antitrust lawsuit filed against Google by the U.S. Department of Justice may impact your terms and conditions of employment,” according to last week’s notice.
The policy change was first reported by The New York Times.
The reversal comes as Google and the DOJ prepare to return to the courtroom for their scheduled remedies trial on April 21. The DOJ has said it is considering structural remedies, including breaking up Google’s Chrome web browser, which it argues gives Google an unfair advantage in the search market.
A U.S. District Court judge ruled in August that Google illegally held a monopoly in the search market. Google said it would appeal the decision. The DOJ doubled down on its calls for a breakup in a March filing.
Following the August ruling, Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, sent a companywide email directing employees to “refrain from commenting on this case, both internally and externally.”
Shortly after, the Alphabet Workers Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Google with the NLRB. The union alleged that Walker’s message was an “overly broad directive” and said that a breakup could impact workers’ roles. The NLRB in March ruled that Google must allow workers to speak on such topics.
Google’s settlement states that the National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right to form, join or assist a union. It notes that Google is not rescinding its prior clarification that states employees may not speak on behalf of Google on this matter without approval from the company. The settlement also adds that Google will not interfere with, restrain or coerce workers in the exercise of their rights.
Despite the settlement, spokesperson Courtenay Mencini said Google did not agree with the NLRB’s ruling.
“To avoid lengthy litigation, we agreed to remind employees that they have the right to talk about their employment, as they’ve always been free to and regularly do,” Mencini said in a statement to CNBC.
The settlement by Google comes at a “crucial moment” ahead of the remedies trial, the Alphabet Worker’s Union said Monday.
“We think the potential remedies from this trial could have impact on our wages, working conditions and terms of employment,” said Stephen McMurtry, communications chair of the Alphabet Workers Union-CWA, told CNBC.
Apple CEO Tim Cook inspects the new iPhone 16 during an Apple special event at Apple headquarters on September 09, 2024 in Cupertino, California.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images
Apple shares skyrocketed 15% on Wednesday after President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on his administration’s “reciprocal tariffs,” which would have affected the company’s production locations in Vietnam, India, and Thailand.
The rally added over $400 billion to Apple’s market cap, which now stands just under $3 trillion. It was Apple’s best day since January 1998, when late founder Steve Jobs was the interim CEO and three years before the company unveiled the first iPod. At the time, Apple’s market cap was close to $3 billion.
Apple has been the most prominent name to get whacked by Trump’s tariffs. Before Wednesday, it was on its worst four-day trading stretch since 2000. Investors worried about Apple’s outlook because the company still makes the majority of its revenue from selling physical devices, which need to be imported into the U.S.
Most of Apple’s iPhones and other hardware products are still made in China, which was not exempted from tariffs on Wednesday. In fact, Trump increased tariffs on China to 125% on Wednesday, up from 54%.
China issued an 84% tariff on U.S. goods this week, raising the possibility that Apple could get caught up in a trade war and lose ground in China, its third-largest market by sales.
Apple has worked to diversify its supply chain to lessen reliance on China in recent years.
On Wednesday, tariffs on Vietnam were reduced from 46% to 10%, and tariffs on India were cut 26% to 10%, which raises the possibility that Apple will be able to serve a large percentage of its U.S. customers from factories outside of China with lower tariffs.
Stocks skyrocketed across the board on Wednesday after Trump announced the tariff pause. The Nasdaq Composite climbed over 12%, its second-best day ever.
Apple hasn’t commented publicly on Trump’s tariffs, but CEO Tim Cook will likely address the topic on an earnings call on May 1.
The Nasdaq Marketsite is seen during morning trading on April 7, 2025 in New York City.
Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images
Every bear market has days like this.
The Nasdaq soared 12% on Wednesday, the second-best day on record for the tech-heavy index and its sharpest rally since January 2001, which was the middle of the dot-com crash.
During the financial crisis in October 2008, the Nasdaq enjoyed two of its best five days ever. The other two came as the tech bubble was bursting. The index’s sixth-best day since its beginning in 1971 came on March 13, 2020, as the Covid pandemic was hitting the U.S.
Of the 25 best days for the Nasdaq, including Wednesday, 22 took place during the dot-com collapse, the 2008-09 financial crisis or the early days of Covid. One occurred on Oct. 21, 1987, two days after Black Monday. The other was in November 2022.
Call it a dead-cat bounce, a relief rally or short covering. It’s a familiar reaction during the worst of times for Wall Street.
Be prepared for plenty more volatility.
The worst month on record for the Nasdaq was October 1987, when the index plunged 27%. Second to that was a 23% drop in November 2000. In March 2020, the Nasdaq sank 10%. It’s still down 1% this month just after closing out its worst quarter since 2022.
President Donald Trump sparked the Wednesday bounce when he dropped new tariff rates on imports from most U.S. trade partners to 10% for 90 days to allow trade negotiations with those countries. The president’s social media post lifted optimism that levies would be less severe than expected and immediately boosted a market that’s been hammered since Trump rolled out his sweeping tariff plan last week.
Wealthy Trump donors and business leaders, including hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone and billionaire investor Leon Cooperman have weighed in with hefty criticism of Trump’s tariffs. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said earlier on Wednesday that the tariffs will likely lead to a recession, after BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said Monday at an event in New York that, “Most CEOs I talk to would say we are probably in a recession right now.”
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a cabinet meeting held by U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on March 24, 2025.
Win McNamee | Getty Images
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and one of Trump’s closest confidantes in the White House, spent the early part of this week slamming Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade advisor, calling him a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.”
Musk’s electric vehicle company has gotten pummeled of late, tumbling 22% in the four prior trading sessions after suffering its worst quarter since 2022. The stock soared 23% on Wednesday, its second-best day on record.
The big difference between the current market tumult and the downturns in 1987, 2000-2001, 2008 and 2020 is that many investors say this one was easily avoidable and, potentially, can be reversed based on what the president decides to do.
“What Trump unveiled Wednesday is stupid, wrong, arrogantly extreme, ignorant trade-wise and addressing a non-problem with misguided tools,” investor Ken Fisher wrote in a post on X on Monday, referring to last week’s announcement. “Yet, as near as I can tell it will fade and fail and the fear is bigger than the problem, which from here is bullish.”
Trying to predict Trump’s next move is a fool’s errand.
On Sunday evening the president told reporters that he’s not trying to push the market down, “but sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something.” He stressed the importance of fixing the country’s trade deficit with China, and said “unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal.”
The president is keeping his hard line on China, at least for now. He said on Wednesday that he was raising the tariff on China higher, to 125%. All other countries would go back to the 10% baseline tariff rate as negotiations take place.
Prior to his latest pronouncement, economic fears had spilled into the bond market, raising concerns that higher interest rates would create further problems for consumers at the worst possible time. The 10-year Treasury note yield, which helps decide rates on mortgages, credit card debt and auto loans, spiked overnight to 4.51% after hitting 3.9% last week. It’s currently at 4.38%.
As the tech industry’s megacap companies, which make up an outsized portion of the Nasdaq and the S&P 500, prepare to report quarterly results starting late this month, management teams will be looking for some visibility that can guide forecasts for the rest of the year and into 2026.
In the absence of more clarity, many of their plans will likely be on hold as they figure out how much existing and expected tariffs will raise costs and hurt revenue, and what they need to do to shore up supply chains.
Wednesday provided some relief. Investors like Ackman are celebrating.
“This was brilliantly executed by @realDonaldTrump,” Ackman wrote on X. “Textbook, Art of the Deal.”
In a note, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives called it “the news we and everyone on the Street was waiting for” after the president’s “self-inflicted Armageddon.”
But for companies that are in the crosshairs of Trump’s wavering policy decisions, all the uncertainty remains.
WATCH: Trump’s 90-day pause
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway