6 November 2026

Commentary urges AI policy advocates to target specific harms and plan for gridlock

• The author argues that vague goals like making AI 'safe' lumped many separate issues together and weakened advocacy.
• A new Congress faces obstacles like the filibuster and presidential vetoes, so advocates need a backup plan.
• The piece recommends pursuing concrete harms in separate bills rather than one sweeping measure.

How it was covered

PlatformerCasey Newton

Defining what safety means, distinct AI harm categories, lack of a backup plan, filibuster and veto obstacles, and design-liability litigation as an alternative