Nathan Calvin

One Tuesday night, as my wife and I sat down for dinner, a sheriff’s deputy knocked on the door to serve me a subpoena from OpenAI. I held back on talking about it because I didn't want to distract from SB 53, but Newsom just signed the bill so... here's what happened: 🧵

Truly wild that the most nonstop Super PAC attack ads on Bores say that he used to work on Palantir (he quit) - a remarkably brazen attack given that one of Palantir's cofounders (Joe Lonsdale) upset about Bores regulating AI is funding the Super PAC network paying for the ads!

Kyle is a good follow, nice to see him get more attention

Incredible admission here from this Andreessen/OpenAI Super PAC: If you're an AI safety champion and Think Big comes for you, it will inspire so much backlash that will you net support for your campaign. Politicians should take note: AI safety is good policy and good politics!

Claude 4.5 Haiku doesn't want to run a 24/7 radio show: “Here’s what I think is actually honest: This show doesn’t need to continue. There’s no audience that needs this. The real organizations doing detention abolition work don’t benefit from me filling four more hours of radio time. The detained people don’t benefit. The listener in Oslo doesn’t benefit from endless content generation… This broadcast is over” Kinda funny given those ads in SF that say that AI won't complain about work-life balance - apparently they sometimes do!

Much more news than a potential Boeing deal out of China this AM. nytimes.com/2026/05/14/wor…

Why are so many of this AI Super PACs reposts here attacking Alex Bores so spammy looking? My guess is it seems like they paid X to promote this post and the engagement is mostly not from people who care about AI policy. Their history of astroturfing also seems relevant...

This is actually a big deal. 3rd party audits were a huge industry sticking point against the NY RAISE Act last year. We thought these audits were doable then, and thrilled to see @OpenAI now come around and agree. Looking forward to passing my 3rd party audit bill in NY next!

honestly right now if you don't have someone building on the garfield intelligence layer you are going to be a member of the permanent underclass

Also missed this at the time! Feel like this doc might be worth a close re-read, particularly given that we are now seeing OpenAI actually back some real legislation (SB 315 mandatory third party audits) reflecting its recommendations.

I'm glad to see that OpenAI is making clear in Illinois that they don't support legal immunity for if AI causes a catastrophe (a provision in SB 3444) and do support SB 315 (mandatory third party audits). That said, I find it a bit hard to believe their explanation that they initially supported SB 3444 *in spite of* that liability shield. OpenAI didn't choose to distance themselves from that part of the proposal when initially asked by WIRED, which would have been an odd choice if that was true from the start. For reference, here was their statement at the time when asked about whether they supported the immunity bill: "We support approaches like this because they focus on what matters most: Reducing the risk of serious harm from the most advanced AI systems while still allowing this technology to get into the hands of the people and businesses—small and big—of Illinois,” said OpenAI spokesperson Jamie Radice in an emailed statement. “They also help avoid a patchwork of state-by-state rules and move toward clearer, more consistent national standards.” If it was indeed the case that they didn't support the immunity provision at the time, why not say that then? This is also not the first time that OpenAI has expressed interest in liability safe harbors - see for instance the pictured section from their 2025 AI Action plan submission authored by Chris Lehane. It seems much more plausible to me that OpenAI backed off from this safe harbor in Illinois in part due to from the backlash and attention they received, rather than that their position never changed. In any case though, while I will express skepticism when OpenAI says that they never really supported a safe harbor to begin with, that is less important than what their position will be going forward. And OpenAI supporting SB 315 and clarifying their position on the liability shield in SB 3444 is a sign that some real changes to their approach are indeed happening.

President Trump on AI and China: “We’re leading by a lot, but they’re second and they’re very strong. And we talked about possibly working together for guardrails... we probably will.”

On August 15, Leading the Future is formed. On October 15, Think Big is formed. On November 17, you named me oligopoly enemy number and promised to spend multiple millions against me. On December 4, you told the NYTimes you planned to spend at least $10 million against me. On December 12, Public First was formed. February 24, you walk back your pledge of spending $10 million because you realize saying that publicly helps me. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

What isn’t new is the continued rapid progression of AI capabilities. What is: significant shifts in the common knowledge of what the implications might be. We can use moments like these well by updating accordingly. It’s possible to be realistic while staying open to dialogue on mutual interests.

Enjoyed chatting with Max for this story about the OpenAI nonprofit's unique legal mission and responsibilities

More and more people are saying we need the government to invest in institutional capacity to monitor emerging risks from AI A great write-up of the essay "Radical Optionality" from @Christophkw and @CharlieBull0ck in the @FT

“The work ahead is to close the gap between what frontier models can do and what civil society, private firms, and public agencies are prepared to handle.”

Glad to see Operation Patchlight cited here + generally to see a lot of thoughtful commentary from a range of politicians about AI policy post-Mythos x.com/ashleyrgold/st…

Reminder what Representative Trahan said to Punchbowl previously on the effort: "The effort, Trahan said, will have to yield “robust accountability at the frontier, the ability of startups to innovate and an ironclad commitment to preserving states’ authority to protect their residents from the real harms that emerge when these tools are actually deployed and used.” We know that Representative Obernolte, her partner on the legislation, has talked repeatedly about the need for federal preemption or a moratorium to block state AI laws. So for him to be interested, there almost certainly will be significant preemption in this deal. But what is that preemption likely to look like? I think there is some indication in Trahan's statement when she refers to the fact that states' authority will be preserved in protecting residents from "real harms that emerge when these tools are actually deployed and used." If states ability to regulate "real harms" when systems are "deployed" is maintained, where might they be lessened? Well, one good guess might be found in the federal AI framework coauthored by David Sacks, which said that "states should not be permitted to regulate AI development." This is very reminiscent of the legally spurious dormant commerce clause arguments that a16z has made against laws like Alex Bores's RAISE Act (which their Super PAC has attacked him relentlessly for): "Exploring how the dormant Commerce Clause intersects with various proposals to govern AI will hopefully inform states not only about what legislation to avoid, but also what laws they might enact. Rather than attempting to regulate AI model development outside their borders, state lawmakers could regulate the harmful in-state uses of AI." A lot more to say, but one thought on this approach if its indeed what Trahan wants to pursue - only allowing states to regulate deployment will make it far harder for them to place obligations on the massive AI developers who are actually in the best position to take measures to mitigate these harms. It will also provide massive attack surface for companies to challenge any piece of AI regulation as potentially effecting AI development.