14 ms·

Almost a year ago we got EO 14319 or the "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government" that explicitly regulated the "ideology" of LLMs. This Executive Order

by culi 5mo ago

Almost a year ago we got EO 14319 or the "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government" that explicitly regulated the "ideology" of LLMs. This Executive Order is just an expansion of the existing censorship framework.

nradov 5mo ago
There is no actual regulation in EO 14319. It only covers federal government purchasing and vendor management. No one is required to change the "ideology" of an LLM, although they might not be able to sell it to the government. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/28/2025-14217/preventing-woke-ai-in-the-federal-government https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/28/2025-14...
- fragmede 5mo ago
  With land desperately trying to recoup their costs on multi-hundred million dollar training runs, those are some very fine hairs you're splitting.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    Which hair is that? My statement was 100% accurate.
    - fragmede 5mo ago
      > No one is required to change the "ideology" of an LLM, although they might not be able to sell it to the government. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to train a model. If a large customers, the government, says they won't buy it if it doesn't adhere to a set of standards, no one is "required" to change, but it's a pretty heavy hand on the lever. It's like having a job. No one is "required" to have a job, but having one gets you money, and having money is pretty important to modern life.
      - nradov 5mo ago
        So what? No business has a legal right to sell their products to the government. The LLM vendors should probably find cheaper, more efficient ways to train their models rather than depending on government contracts. If your business lives or dies based on a single large customer then you don't have a viable business in the first place. I know lots of people who have money but no job.
- datsci_est_2015 5mo ago
  Might be fair to say it’s setting the tone, though, that if you use “woke” (subjectively defined) ideology in any of your company’s marketing, documentation, or other communications you won’t be considered for government contracts. That’s a major blow for any company given the naked corruption and grift coming from the current admin.
  - culi 5mo ago
    It's not "setting the tone" it says that explicitly and even goes into detail into the implementation of how that is going to be enforced > Implementation. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall issue guidance to agencies to implement section 3 of this order. They even say they will review existing contracts > (ii) to the extent practicable and consistent with contract terms, revise existing contracts for LLMs to include the terms specified in subsection (b)(i) of this section; and > (iii) within 90 days of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section, adopt procedures to ensure that LLMs procured by the agency comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.
- matthewdgreen 5mo ago
  Does the First Amendment actually let the US government dictate the types of speech you're allowed to put in your LLM? I mean, a US government that's bound by the Constitution, obviously.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    While that issue hasn't been specifically tested in court yet, the current interpretation of the First Amendment probably wouldn't allow the US government to dictate the types of speech you're allowed to put in your LLM. But federal government purchasing decisions aren't generally bound by the First Amendment. In other words, government officials can generally refuse to purchase your LLM services if they don't like the speech it outputs. So there's no real constitutional concern with this EO. I'm not claiming that this EO is sensible or enforceable, just that it's not prima facie unconstitutional.
- celdon25 5mo ago
  The specific text reads like a favor to Elon Musk's xAI, since "Truth-seeking" is the buzzword Elon Musk frequently used to talk about Grok: Sec. 3 Unbiased AI Principles. It is the policy of the United States to promote the innovation and use of trustworthy AI. To advance that policy, agency heads shall, consistent with applicable law and in consideration of guidance issued pursuant to section 4 of this order, procure only those LLMs developed in accordance with the following two principles (Unbiased AI Principles): (a) Truth-seeking. LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory. (b) Ideological Neutrality. LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI. Developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments into an LLM's outputs unless those judgments are prompted by or otherwise readily accessible to the end user.
- culi 5mo ago
  That's not accurate. The EO explicitly lays out the implementation > Sec. 4. Implementation. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall issue guidance to agencies to implement section 3 of this order. A major LLM that did not submit to this would be labeled a "supply chain risk". It's unquestionable that every major LLM would go through this process It even then goes on to say that existing contracts will be reviewed to ensure they are in compliance (reviewed by OMB) > (b) Each agency head shall, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law: > (i) include in each Federal contract for an LLM entered into following the date of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section terms requiring that the procured LLM comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and providing that decommissioning costs shall be charged to the vendor in the event of termination by the agency for the vendor’s noncompliance with the contract following a reasonable period to cure; > (ii) to the extent practicable and consistent with contract terms, revise existing contracts for LLMs to include the terms specified in subsection (b)(i) of this section; and > (iii) within 90 days of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section, adopt procedures to ensure that LLMs procured by the agency comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    Wrong. My comment was 100% accurate. No LLM vendor is legally required to change their ideology, nor does the EO constitute new regulation.
    - lompad 5mo ago
      Not technically but practically. The decrees are effectively considered law by the executive. Yes, you'll likely win in court later on, but you'll lose your job, get sent to prison, have your bank accounts and vehicle seized, etc., in the meantime. Legality isn't really of much practical concern anymore. It's about what gets/can be enforced immediately.
      - 5mo ago

by culi 5mo ago

nradov 5mo ago

There is no actual regulation in EO 14319. It only covers federal government purchasing and vendor management. No one is required to change the "ideology" of an LLM, although they might not be able to sell it to the government. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/28/2025-14217/preventing-woke-ai-in-the-federal-government https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/28/2025-14...

fragmede 5mo ago
With land desperately trying to recoup their costs on multi-hundred million dollar training runs, those are some very fine hairs you're splitting.
- nradov 5mo ago
  Which hair is that? My statement was 100% accurate.
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    > No one is required to change the "ideology" of an LLM, although they might not be able to sell it to the government. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to train a model. If a large customers, the government, says they won't buy it if it doesn't adhere to a set of standards, no one is "required" to change, but it's a pretty heavy hand on the lever. It's like having a job. No one is "required" to have a job, but having one gets you money, and having money is pretty important to modern life.
    - nradov 5mo ago
      So what? No business has a legal right to sell their products to the government. The LLM vendors should probably find cheaper, more efficient ways to train their models rather than depending on government contracts. If your business lives or dies based on a single large customer then you don't have a viable business in the first place. I know lots of people who have money but no job.
datsci_est_2015 5mo ago
Might be fair to say it’s setting the tone, though, that if you use “woke” (subjectively defined) ideology in any of your company’s marketing, documentation, or other communications you won’t be considered for government contracts. That’s a major blow for any company given the naked corruption and grift coming from the current admin.
- culi 5mo ago
  It's not "setting the tone" it says that explicitly and even goes into detail into the implementation of how that is going to be enforced > Implementation. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall issue guidance to agencies to implement section 3 of this order. They even say they will review existing contracts > (ii) to the extent practicable and consistent with contract terms, revise existing contracts for LLMs to include the terms specified in subsection (b)(i) of this section; and > (iii) within 90 days of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section, adopt procedures to ensure that LLMs procured by the agency comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.
matthewdgreen 5mo ago
Does the First Amendment actually let the US government dictate the types of speech you're allowed to put in your LLM? I mean, a US government that's bound by the Constitution, obviously.
- nradov 5mo ago
  While that issue hasn't been specifically tested in court yet, the current interpretation of the First Amendment probably wouldn't allow the US government to dictate the types of speech you're allowed to put in your LLM. But federal government purchasing decisions aren't generally bound by the First Amendment. In other words, government officials can generally refuse to purchase your LLM services if they don't like the speech it outputs. So there's no real constitutional concern with this EO. I'm not claiming that this EO is sensible or enforceable, just that it's not prima facie unconstitutional.
celdon25 5mo ago
The specific text reads like a favor to Elon Musk's xAI, since "Truth-seeking" is the buzzword Elon Musk frequently used to talk about Grok: Sec. 3 Unbiased AI Principles. It is the policy of the United States to promote the innovation and use of trustworthy AI. To advance that policy, agency heads shall, consistent with applicable law and in consideration of guidance issued pursuant to section 4 of this order, procure only those LLMs developed in accordance with the following two principles (Unbiased AI Principles): (a) Truth-seeking. LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory. (b) Ideological Neutrality. LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI. Developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments into an LLM's outputs unless those judgments are prompted by or otherwise readily accessible to the end user.
culi 5mo ago
That's not accurate. The EO explicitly lays out the implementation > Sec. 4. Implementation. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall issue guidance to agencies to implement section 3 of this order. A major LLM that did not submit to this would be labeled a "supply chain risk". It's unquestionable that every major LLM would go through this process It even then goes on to say that existing contracts will be reviewed to ensure they are in compliance (reviewed by OMB) > (b) Each agency head shall, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law: > (i) include in each Federal contract for an LLM entered into following the date of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section terms requiring that the procured LLM comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and providing that decommissioning costs shall be charged to the vendor in the event of termination by the agency for the vendor’s noncompliance with the contract following a reasonable period to cure; > (ii) to the extent practicable and consistent with contract terms, revise existing contracts for LLMs to include the terms specified in subsection (b)(i) of this section; and > (iii) within 90 days of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section, adopt procedures to ensure that LLMs procured by the agency comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.
- nradov 5mo ago
  Wrong. My comment was 100% accurate. No LLM vendor is legally required to change their ideology, nor does the EO constitute new regulation.
  - lompad 5mo ago
    Not technically but practically. The decrees are effectively considered law by the executive. Yes, you'll likely win in court later on, but you'll lose your job, get sent to prison, have your bank accounts and vehicle seized, etc., in the meantime. Legality isn't really of much practical concern anymore. It's about what gets/can be enforced immediately.
    - 5mo ago