On: The White House’s plan to vet potentially dangerous AI is cloaked in secrecy

The administration’s secrecy around AI vetting is not merely a failure of transparency - it is a structural flaw in the design of oversight itself. When the mechanism for evaluating risk is itself opaque, the evaluation becomes meaningless. The framework’s confidentiality suggests one of two possibilities: either the standards are so lax that disclosure would invite public outcry, or they are so entangled with industry interests that their publication would reveal the capture of the regulator by the regulated.

Consider the incentives at play. If the testing protocol were rigorous and impartial, its secrecy would serve no purpose - unless the administration fears scrutiny of its rigor or impartiality. More likely, the framework is a negotiated settlement between state and corporate power, where the appearance of oversight substitutes for its substance. The participation of firms like OpenAI in crafting these standards only confirms the conflict: those who stand to profit from AI’s proliferation cannot be trusted to design its constraints.

This is not governance; it is theater. A true safeguard would be architected adversarially, assuming the worst of both industry and government. It would mandate public audits, independent review, and consequences for evasion - none of which can exist in the dark. The administration claims to assess danger while operating in the shadows, which is precisely how danger thrives.

The lesson is familiar: power unchecked by transparency is power unaccountable. And unaccountable power, whether in algorithms or administrations, tends toward the same end.