IBM has introduced tools to help organizations manage AI systems they may be unaware of, addressing the growing challenge of shadow AI. With a significant number of employees using unapproved AI tools, the company aims to unify governance and security to mitigate associated risks.
Utah State Rep. Doug Fiefia has been appointed to co-chair a national task force aimed at shaping state-level artificial intelligence policies. The task force, organized by the Future Caucus, intends to counteract partisan gridlock and provide lawmakers with the necessary resources for effective AI governance.
Utah State Rep. Doug Fiefia has been appointed to co-chair a national task force aimed at shaping state-level artificial intelligence policies. The task force, organized by the Future Caucus, intends to counteract partisan gridlock and provide lawmakers with the necessary resources for effective AI governance.
On June 22, 2025, Texas enacted the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA), making it the second state to implement comprehensive AI regulations. The Act establishes prohibitions on certain AI practices and aims to protect consumers while promoting responsible AI development.
The European Union’s AI Act, which categorizes artificial intelligence models based on risk levels, aims to balance innovation with safety. As of August 2, compliance is mandatory for general-purpose AI models and those identified as posing systemic risks, with significant penalties for non-compliance.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
