Adam Schiff on AI regulation, free speech, and impeaching Trump one more time
Senator Adam Schiff discusses AI regulation, arguing that voluntary pledges from tech companies are insufficient and calling for a dedicated regulatory body similar to the FDA. He emphasizes the need for legislation addressing AI safety, data privacy, intellectual property protections, and the corrupting influence of money in politics, while expressing concerns about how the Supreme Court's elimination of Chevron deference will complicate regulatory enforcement.
Summary
Senator Adam Schiff opens by framing broader concerns about corruption and self-dealing in the current administration, citing campaign ads paid with taxpayer dollars and various conflicts of interest. He criticizes the Trump administration's non-binding AI safety pledge signed by tech executives at the White House as meaningless, arguing that real national security threats from advanced AI systems require substantive regulation, not corporate self-regulation.
On AI regulation specifically, Schiff advocates for creating a regulatory body with real expertise and discretion that can move faster than Congress, potentially modeled on the FDA. He acknowledges the challenge posed by the Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Lighted decision eliminating Chevron deference, which allows courts to override agency expertise when laws are ambiguous. This creates a paradox: effective AI regulation requires delegating authority to experts, but the current Supreme Court will likely strike down such delegations if challenged by well-funded corporate interests.
Regarding intellectual property, Schiff emphasizes the need to determine what copyrighted material was used to train AI models before discussing fair use. He notes that AI companies initially operated under the assumption they would "vacuum up" protected content and deal with legal consequences later, leading to ongoing litigation and settlements.
Schiff draws comparisons between social media and AI regulation, arguing that Section 230's broad immunity for social platforms was never truly about First Amendment concerns but rather enabled corporate self-interest. He contends that narrowing rather than eliminating 230, combined with new regulatory frameworks for AI, could address liability questions without unconstitutionally regulating speech.
On data privacy and surveillance technology like Flock cameras, Schiff expresses concern that Americans are redefining privacy rights to include protection in public spaces, a shift driven by technologies like license plate readers and AI-powered surveillance. He warns that without privacy protections, powerful AI systems could be weaponized for mass surveillance by both domestic and foreign actors.
Schiff identifies emerging bipartisan opposition to AI implementation—centered on job losses, data center environmental concerns, and safety risks—as a potential coalition for meaningful legislation. He notes that while some Republicans follow the president's anti-regulation stance, others hear constituent concerns and may support bipartisan bills.
On the Paramount-Warner Brothers merger, Schiff expresses concerns about editorial independence at CBS News, job losses in California's entertainment industry, and the appearance that CBS paid off the president with settlements to secure merger approval. He views this as part of a broader pattern where corporate decisions are driven by shareholder returns rather than workforce welfare.
Schiff concludes by advocating for a more progressive tax code, arguing that wealth concentration—exemplified by Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire largely through government contracts—is warping the political system. He calls for Democrats to reclaim their identity as the party fighting for working people and average families rather than the wealthy.
About this episode
California Sen. Adam Schiff sits on a bunch of the committees that do tech and AI oversight, so I really wanted to ask him about how we might regulate anything related to the tech industry at this moment in time. He started our conversation by talking about the self-dealing and corruption present all through our politics now — right against the backdrop of President Trump gathering AI CEOs to the White House to pinky-swear they'll try to keep AI safe. Links: How tech will self-police AI safety under Trump deal | The Verge Supreme Court ruling kneecaps federal regulators | The Verge Does AI need an antitrust exemption so it doesn’t kill everyone? | Decoder Flock, Axon dodge Senate hearing | CNBC Trump admin illegally blacklisted Anthropic, court rules | The Verge Decoder is a Signal Awards finalist in the Business category! You can vote to help us win here. Subscribe to The Verge to access the ad-free version of Decoder! Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Decoder’s producers are Greg Ott, Kate Cox, and Nick Statt. This episode was edited by Eileen Felix. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Key Insights
- Schiff argues that tech companies' initial strategy was to 'vacuum up' copyrighted material for AI training while betting they could handle legal consequences later, essentially treating copyright law as a negotiable cost of doing business.
- Schiff contends that Section 230's broad immunity for social platforms was never primarily about First Amendment concerns but rather functioned as corporate self-interest protection, with companies framing regulatory opposition as free speech issues when the real issue was avoiding liability.
- Schiff asserts that the Supreme Court's elimination of Chevron deference creates a paradox for AI regulation: effective regulation requires delegating discretion to expert agencies, but the current Court will likely strike down such delegations when challenged by well-funded corporate interests.
- Schiff identifies an emerging bipartisan coalition against certain AI implementations, driven by constituent concerns about job losses and data centers, suggesting that despite the president's pro-AI stance, Republicans hearing from their constituents may support legislative restrictions.
- Schiff argues that Americans are redefining privacy rights to include protection in public spaces despite no legal expectation of privacy in public, driven by new surveillance technologies and AI-powered data aggregation that can track movements across entire states.
- Schiff claims that corporate threats to leave California over merger approval were likely not credible, noting that studios cannot easily relocate their physical lots and infrastructure, suggesting the threats were leverage tactics rather than genuine relocation plans.
- Schiff contends that Elon Musk became a trillionaire primarily through government largesse and contracts that saved his companies, yet shows no obligation to give back, exemplifying how wealth concentration warps political systems.
- Schiff asserts that the core economic problem driving political instability is not unemployment but wage stagnation among working people who remain employed yet cannot meet basic needs, making democracy vulnerable to demagogues promising quick fixes.
Topics
Transcript
Support for the show comes from CrowdStrike. It's not a huge stretch to say that AI is the next major computing platform. Every platform shift changes the way we build software, and it changes security too. CrowdStrike is defining cybersecurity in the AI era with AI Detection and Response, or AIDR, a solution for seeing, monitoring, and securing AI across the enterprise. Learn more about how leading companies are turning to CrowdStrike to secure AI and secure their business at CrowdStrike.com slash decoder. Why can't we get AI to production? Our competitors are already... How do we keep data secure? AWS AI cuts through the noise. With ready-to-use agents and the broadest set of AI tools, stop overthinking, start building.…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Decoder with Nilay Patel
The AI warnings are getting louder
Nilay Patel discusses recent AI safety concerns with Apple News, explaining that while AI systems have demonstrated alarming autonomous behavior (like the Hugging Face hack), current AI is not sentient and threats are primarily cybersecurity-related in the near term. He argues that meaningful regulation requires government intervention to solve competitive prisoner's dilemmas among AI companies, though current political conditions make this unlikely.
How Utah locals fought Kevin O'Leary's AI data center
Josh Jezza discusses his investigation into Kevin O'Leary's failed Stratos/Wonder Valley data center project in Utah, where local residents successfully mounted unprecedented bipartisan opposition that scaled back the development. The story reveals how the AI infrastructure boom's obsession with speed conflicts with local democracy and community interests.
The SaaSpocalypse that wasn't, with Atlassian's CEO
Mike Cannon-Brooks, CEO of Atlassian, discusses how AI is transforming enterprise software and work management rather than destroying the SaaS category. He explains Atlassian's platform-centric strategy, organizational structure, recent workforce changes, and the company's new browser product (Dia) designed to help knowledge workers navigate multiple applications intelligently.
Can Cloudflare save the web from AI?
Matthew Prince, CEO of Cloudflare, discusses how AI is fundamentally changing the internet's business model from advertising to micropayments for data access. He also explains Cloudflare's decision to lay off 20% of its workforce by automating measurement and middle-management functions, using AI to better identify talent and flatten organizational structures.
I have some questions for Mark Zuckerberg
Nilay Patel analyzes Mark Zuckerberg's recent interview about Meta's AI agent Muse, Meta Glasses, teen safety, and AI data centers, identifying gaps and inconsistencies in Zuckerberg's arguments, particularly around surveillance, regulation, and market forces across different product categories.