Renée DiResta and Ronald Robertson analyzed Grokipedia’s update records, finding that the site appears to have stopped considering human edits or updating the site since late April. DiResta and Robertson highlighted how Grokipedia’s lack of transparency harms both the site’s reliability and ability to demonstrate the promise of an encyclopedia supported by artificial intelligence (AI).
Kevin Frazier shared a research agenda for understanding the constitutions that govern AI models. Frazier explained that the agenda’s goal is to develop these constitutions in a way that encourages public transparency, oversight, and dialogue that extends beyond the doors of the frontier AI labs.
Nathan Darmon and Tom Reed proposed court-like institutions developed by AI companies to guide frontier models through complex decision-making. Darmon and Reed argued that an evolving set of precedential decisions would be preferable to a static constitutional document because it would create a richer training corpus for models, improve transparency and accountability to the public, and allow for a few careful decisions to guide the models’ actions at scale.
On Scaling Laws, Frazier sat down with Daniel Kokotajlo to discuss Kokotajlo's policy proposal to delay superintelligence, which Kokotajlo thinks is necessary to ensure that the disruptive effects of highly-capable AI systems do not outweigh the benefits. Frazier and Kokotajlo discussed scenario scrutiny, feedback from other AI policy stakeholders, and more.
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed North Korea tightening controls on its state-sanctioned hackers, cyberattacks on water facilities in several U.S. states, testing controls on frontier models, and more.
Also on Scaling Laws, DZ Kalman joined Frazier to explore what religious traditions can teach AI governance. They discussed religious responses to AI, Jewish technoculture, kosher supervision as a model for AI certification, the limits of AI use in faith contexts, and how it all connects to debates on alignment, trust, and human dignity.
Camille J. Mackler explained that the executive branch is already using AI for governance in immigration enforcement where legal protections are weak and emphasized that many of the same AI-tools and practices will likely spread beyond immigration, just as post 9/11 surveillance infrastructure did. That trajectory, Mackler argued, makes it urgent to build in transparency and oversight safeguards now, before these systems become further entrenched.
Becca Branum highlighted the underappreciated consequences denying First Amendment protections to AI outputs could have on humans. She explained that existing detection tools can flag AI-like patterns, confirm a file’s history, or verify that a real person exists, but none can establish whether a human is behind a specific piece of text, the factor that determines whether First Amendment protections apply. As a result, Branum argued, platforms and governments are likely to turn to human verification systems which impose additional burdens on users and may compromise privacy.
On Lawfare Daily, Tyler McBrien sat down with Bernice Yeung to discuss Yeung’s recent article about the bumpy history of Big Tech’s relationship with U.S. defense contracting, how Silicon Valley has reshaped the Pentagon, and how, in turn, the Pentagon has reshaped Silicon Valley.
Christy Lopez argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chatrie v. United States, holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to geofence searches, is likely to be gradually limited by lower courts, resulting in a more modest win for digital privacy advocates. Instead of relying on courts’ interpretations, Lopez defended the need for legislation at the federal and state level to clarify when and how law enforcement can use their increasing arsenal of digital surveillance tools.
On Lawfare Daily, Kate Klonick spoke with Steve Vladeck about his forthcoming Harvard Law Review Foreword, “The Court Against the Courts,” in which Vladeck argued that the Supreme Court failed to shield district judges from impeachment threats and harassment campaigns and that it bears “significant responsibility” for what’s happened to them.
Peter Beck reported from the first public hearing of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, where Judge Joan Ericksen heard initial statements from the government and respondents about Nazira Haji Zada’s alleged connections to the Islamic State.
On Lawfare Daily, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Peter Harrell, Eric Columbus, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff to discuss legal challenges to President Trump’s new tariffs, recent motions by James Comey in the ‘86 47 seashell’ prosecution, developments in the Reflecting Pool prosecution, a hearing on Anthropic’s summary judgment motion challenging their supply chain risk designation, and more.
On this week’s Lawfare Live: The Trials of the Trump Administration, Wittes joined Molly Roberts, Columbus, and Parloff to discuss developments in the reflecting pool prosecution, the status of temporary protective status after the Supreme Court’s ruling, litigation over Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting, and more.
Gabor Rona considered the legal implications of events in the U.S. where land in the Israel-occupied West Bank is sold. He argued that promoting such sales constitutes abetting a war crime under international law and that those who participate open themselves up to criminal responsibility under U.S. federal law. Rona also discussed how the sales interact with housing discrimination law and the First Amendment.
Dah-Wei Yih analyzed the constitutional implications of new legislative controls over semiconductor exports proposed by Taiwan’s opposition party. He explained that the proposal would allow lawmakers to review exports themselves, a task traditionally reserved for executive agencies. Yih argued that such a move threatens separation of powers and risks losing expertise in reviews.
On Lawfare Daily, Natalie Orpett spoke with Dara Massicot, Ariane Tabatabai, and Julia Curlee about the short war illusion that is playing out in Ukraine and Iran today and how it could manifest in a future conflict between China and Taiwan.
Peter A. Dutton reviewed Eyck Freymann’s book, “Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China.” Dutton praised Freymann’s creative approach to deterring China by creating greater political and economic leverage, in addition to traditional military deterrence. He also, however, identified questions Freymann left unanswered, such as whether implementation could happen quickly enough and whether his proposals could accelerate China’s plans for Taiwan.
And on Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Curlee, Tabatabai, and Orpett to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including the most recent updates in the U.S.-Iran war, the confirmation of Jay Clayton as Director of National Security, how the law firm Paul, Weiss has fared since capitulating to Trump, and more.
And that was the week that was.
