# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on April 11th 2024 by IEEE Xplore. Titled Examine the role of Generative AI in Enhancing Threat Intelligence and Cyber Security Measures.

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on April 11th 2024 by IEEE Xplore. Titled Examine the role of Generative AI in Enhancing Threat Intelligence and Cyber Security Measures.

# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on July 8th 2024 by IEEE Xplore. Titled Empowering Professionals: A Generative AI Approach to Personalized Cyber Security Learning.

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on July 8th 2024 by IEEE Xplore. Titled Empowering Professionals: A Generative AI Approach to Personalized Cyber Security Learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on March 23rd 2023 by IEEE Xplore. Titled The integration of Blockchain and AI for Web 3.0: A security perspective. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on March 23rd 2023 by IEEE Xplore. Titled The integration of Blockchain and AI for Web 3.0: A security perspective. 

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a website published on August 10th 2025 by New York Times. Titled Goodbye, $165,000 Tech Jobs. Students Coders Seek Work at Chipotle. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a website published on August 10th 2025 by New York Times. Titled Goodbye, $165,000 Tech Jobs. Students Coders Seek Work at Chipotle. 

# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on March 3rd 2025 by Patrick Collins who is a computer engineer and was posted on a site called MEDIUM. Titled Is Ai going to take software jobs?

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on March 3rd 2025 by Patrick Collins who is a computer engineer and was posted on a site called MEDIUM. Titled Is Ai going to take software jobs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yes, AI is going to take some software engineering jobs, but it’s more nuanced than that. According to recent data:

# data[].attributes.headline
A website with no publishing date but was published by the official site of the State of New Jersey. Titled Seeing AI to AI: Artificial Intelligence and its impact on Cybersecurity.

# data[].attributes.subject
A website with no publishing date but was published by the official site of the State of New Jersey. Titled Seeing AI to AI: Artificial Intelligence and its impact on Cybersecurity.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a website published on October 10th 2023 by CSIS. Titled AI Regulation is Coming- What is the Likely Outcome?

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a website published on October 10th 2023 by CSIS. Titled AI Regulation is Coming- What is the Likely Outcome?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This viewpoint proposes ten key parameters of successful AI regulatory design and the likely outcomes. AI raises many profound questions. Nearly all agree that AI promises both huge benefits for society and yet poses major risks. The challenge is getting the balance right between innovation and societal risks - which governments don't have a good record of achieving. The devil is in the details, making rules adaptable for a technology that is likely to change rapidly and be pervasive. The existential question of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is generating much debate. However, this is more distant and tough to forecast accurately. We focus here on issues like model safety, bias, transparency, privacy, security, trust, copyright, content regulation, education, and economic impacts (job loss, work force adjustment, productivity). For commercial actors, the key question is regulation's impact on innovation, and does it address society's concerns so that adoption is broad and sustainable.

I. The AI Regulation Debate: A Wide Spectrum of Views. The AI regulation debate has become heated and politicized, reflecting the immense hopes and fears that we have invested in AI.

Hysterical fear and paranoia. On one end, leading technologist and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen says "we have a full-blown moral panic about AI right now." He views this as "hysterical fear" that is "irrational" and compares it to earlier introduction of new technologies that were similarly feared but were overblown and subsequently managed. He believes that AI is simply a computer program that is owned, controlled and used by people, and that AI does not have its own goals or its own wants. Moreover, he emphasizes, AI can be a force for tremendous good.

Risk of Extinction. At the same time, AI academic computer scientists like Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, who are the Turing prize-winning "godfathers" of generative AI, warn of dramatic risks that threaten humanity's very existence. Bengio, Hinton, Bill Gates, top executives from Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and many AI luminaries including from China and Russia have signed a statement stating "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." There are also proposals to pause developing more powerful AI models than ChatGPT 4. Elon Musk has said, "With AI we're summoning the demon." The precautionary principle suggests low-probability, high-impact outcomes should be taken seriously.

International context. geopolitical competition, national security, and economic competitiveness. The AI debate is taking place globally. AI has direct implications for national security, military capabilities, and global economic competitiveness. This leads to pressures to stake out parochial positions, even as many of the issues are global in nature. The EU's AI Act will apply to non-EU companies providing AI services in Europe and will set a precedent (like its privacy rules) that other countries will likely follow. 31 countries have passed AI legislation and 13 more are debating AI laws.

The EU's AI Act intends to be the "world's first comprehensive AI law". Central to the EU's approach, AI systems are classified into four tiers of risk, and different tiers are subject to different regulations. Implementation will be a challenge, for example even defining AI systems and AI risks is problematic. EU businesses have released an open letter stating it "would jeopardize Europe's competitiveness and technological sovereignty without effectively tackling the challenges we are and will be facing". A new EU AI office would be created to monitor enforcement. Penalties include fines of up to 6% of total worldwide revenue. Citizens also have the right to file complaints against the AI provider.

AI that falls in the EU's highest risk category of "unacceptable risk" is prohibited, with certain limited exceptions. Examples include social scoring that classifies people based on behavior and socio-economic status, or real-time biometric identification like face recognition.

The EU's second category is "high risk" AI, which is permitted but requires assessments before AI is released in the market and afterwards. This includes rigorous testing, documentation of data quality, and an accountability framework including human oversight. High risk services include autonomous vehicles, medical devices, critical infrastructure, education, and government services. Providers of high-risk AI must register their AI in an EU database managed by the Commission before introducing them in the market. Non-EU providers will require an authorized representative in the EU showing that they comply and have post-market monitoring.

Third, "limited risk" AI systems have minimal transparency requirements so that users can make informed decisions. This includes generating or manipulating images, audio or video.

Fourth, "low/minimal risk" AI systems have no new obligations, but likely voluntary codes of conduct.

Generative AI like Chat-GPT has additional requirements including disclosing that the content was generated by AI, designing the model to prevent it from generating illegal content, and publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training.

Venture Capitalists- Andreessen Horowitz: AI will save the world. Influential venture capitalist Marc Andreessen (co-creator of the Mozilla Internet browser) writes, "The development and proliferation of AI - far from a risk that we should fear - is a moral obligation..." He sees the drive to regulate AI as hysterical fear that is irrational. He calls out big companies for selling fear and pushing AI regulation to protect their economic interests. Big companies have the resources to meet extensive AI rules, while small companies and start-ups (that venture capitalists invest in) mostly do not. Andreessen argues:

Companies (and open source) should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can.

Big AI companies "should not (be) allowed to achieve regulatory capture, not allowed to establish a government-protect cartel that is insulated from market competition..."

"To offset the risk of bad people doing bad things with AI, governments working in partnership with the private sector should...use AI to maximize society's defensive capabilities."

"...Prevent the risk of China achieving global AI dominance..." and ensure "We win, they lose."

In between the EU's more interventionist approach and venture capitalists' more hands-off approach, many businesses and civil society groups are advocating for varying degrees of regulation. For example, Microsoft has proposed a comprehensive approach in its, " Governing AI: A Blueprint for the Future ". It would create a new government AI agency, a new AI-legal framework, require safety brakes for AI systems that control critical infrastructure, and would license AI datacenters that run critical AI.

AI rules create winners and losers, as some are constrained, and others have more freedom and resources. Governments-leery of being criticized for heavy handed regulation-are quick to speak of innovation but are also responding to public concerns about AI.
II. Top Ten Parameters Driving Regulatory Design and Outcomes
To help policy makers and regulators, we define 10 key parameters that must be addressed in some fashion. This does not propose solutions for each domain or issue.

IBM and Google don't propose a new AI agency. An alternative approach is to strengthen existing agencies' competencies to address AI while leveraging their domain expertise. This could be supplemented with a multi-stakeholder approach that has been used for Internet governance. Expert advisory committees are already employed in trade (ISAC) and cybersecurity (SCC).

A new White House coordinating office (such as the Office of the National Cyber Director) could help bring focus, consistency across agencies, and high-level political leadership. On a technical level, agencies like NIST can also provide a common technical approach to defining and measuring key concepts like data quality, bias, explainability, and auditability.

Private businesses are better positioned to address certain tasks such as safe model design, testing, publishing model capabilities, internal AI ethics boards, etc. Other market-based approaches include third party auditors to test AI (there are not yet full AI standards to test to) or insurance-based approaches (only mixed success in cybersecurity).

III. Likely Outcome: A Bottom-up Patchwork Quilt of AI Rules.
The United States is likely to take a decentralized bottom-up approach that is messy and may have gaps and inconsistencies. This will likely disappoint proponents of strong AI regulation. Yet, over time this may produce a patchwork quilt of AI rules that if implemented well is grounded in the expertise of specific agencies and more tailored to innovation. The tremendous risks and opportunities of AI have made it a presidential-level issue. The White House is coordinating executive agencies, as each moves ahead with actions in its own domain. The lack of meaningful regulation of social media is widely seen as a failure in Washington, and bolsters efforts to be more proactive with AI. Yet the decentralized structure of the U.S. government, political differences, and the complexities of AI forestall big, quick actions. There is also a real but less-likely probability that a big AI-related failure sparks a strong national government action.

A broad-based national AI law like the EU Act is unlikely over the next few years. The administration likely builds on its AI "bill of rights" that spans different sectors, voluntary commitments, and executive orders. Voluntary rules are seen by many as a stop-gap measure, but a divided Congress is unlikely to pass a major law with new mandatory rules.

Actions addressing sensitive areas such as health care, financial services (lending, insurance, housing), work force practices (discrimination), and child safety are more likely. Executive branch agencies are likely to move forward with existing authorities in the absence of new laws.

Private tech companies advance their own responsible AI initiatives to serve their customers and avoid tougher government action. These are largely voluntary and seen as insufficient.

Federal spending on AI and AI research expands including for non-profits and universities. Funds come with market-shaping rules, as the US uses its buying power in key areas such as health, education, national security, and public safety. The government responds to problems by spending money. The National Science Foundation is funding 25 AI research institutes in part to boost national economic competitiveness.

Executive Orders to limit AI bias and risks in federal agency programs are in process. Additional orders also likely focus on enhancing adoption of AI in federal IT to improve citizen services and strengthen AI security, with uneven success.

Risk Management, Standards, Audits and Assessments. The Commerce Department's NIST plays a key role in defining AI standards and risk management practices. They can have a wide impact, but they are mostly voluntary. Commerce's NTIA AI inquiry is focused on "build(ing) an ecosystem of AI audits, assessments and other mechanisms," that are likely part of the US response. They are key to enforcement. These efforts can play an important role globally.

U.S. states and cities likely pass targeted actions. There is a real but lower chance that a big state like California passes a major AI law, substantially altering the U.S. regulatory environment.

Domain Specific Outcomes

Trade conflict emerges with the EU and others, creating a fragmented global regulatory environment. The United States likely globally advances its AI principles and voluntary business commitments to influence international rules (vs. China and EU approaches). IPR and copyright will be especially important for creative industries. The EU's AI Act will likely influence other major nations, frustrating U.S. leadership. Leading companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Nvidia likely face multiple AI regimes around the world.

Antitrust agencies lead the effort to forestall "big tech" companies dominating AI, false and deceptive practices, and AI-driven fraud. The high cost and scale of AI foundation models likely leads to market concentration. We expect FTC actions designed as warnings shots to industry.

The Department of Defense incorporates AI in weapon systems, command and control, and intelligence. Humans will stay "in the loop". DoD is likely criticized for moving too slow. The intelligence community and law enforcement agencies are also likely major adopters of AI, sparking civil rights concerns.

Growing competition with China shadows the AI regulatory effort, escalating a "don't fall behind China" debate. Controls on exports and investments in AI-related technologies such as advanced GPUs are likely to expand over time and broaden, e.g., cloud computing, quantum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI Regulation is Coming- What is the Likely Outcome?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Whyman explores the landscape of AI regulation, examining existing global approaches to governing this emerging technology and what those implications mean for the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on October 21st 2025 by Communications of the ACM. Titled React is Dead. Long Live Prompt-Generated React.

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on October 21st 2025 by Communications of the ACM. Titled React is Dead. Long Live Prompt-Generated React.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
React Is Dead. Long Live Prompt-Generated React – Communications of the ACM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
React’s reign as the go-to tool for building front-end applications is starting to feel like an era that’s winding down. The signs are everywhere: developers complaining about boilerplate, endless hooks, and state management headaches.

# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on March 12th 2025 by The Hacker News. Titled Pentesters: Is AI Coming for Your Role?

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on March 12th 2025 by The Hacker News. Titled Pentesters: Is AI Coming for Your Role?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI is reshaping pentesting by automating tasks, enhancing efficiency, and empowering testers—without replacing them

# data[].attributes.headline
A website published on June 6th 2025 by The US Congress. Titled Regulating Artificial Intelligence: U.S. and International Approaches and Considerations for Congress.

# data[].attributes.subject
A website published on June 6th 2025 by The US Congress. Titled Regulating Artificial Intelligence: U.S. and International Approaches and Considerations for Congress.

# data[].attributes.headline
A research article published on June 13th 2025 by the ACM Digital Library. Titled Human Aspects of Cyber Security for Computing Higher Education: Current Status and Future Directions.

# data[].attributes.subject
A research article published on June 13th 2025 by the ACM Digital Library. Titled Human Aspects of Cyber Security for Computing Higher Education: Current Status and Future Directions.