Twitter/X

@deanwball (2026-06-28) says the First Amendment ("1A") will place real limits on…

2026-06-28 · 00:32 UTC ·@deanwball ·1 min read

Brief

@deanwball argues (2026-06-28) that while the First Amendment (1A) will constrain state intervention and could complicate finely detailed alignment rules, it does not make AI regulation impossible. He urges regulators to target frontier labs as entities rather than models, framing this limit as an acceptable tradeoff to preserve American popular sovereignty and 1A protections.

Why it matters

@deanwball (2026-06-28) says the First Amendment ("1A") will place real limits on state intervention in AI, but argues those limits do not make AI regulation impossible; he warns 1A could "bite" if policymakers try to regulate alignment in high levels of detail.

Key details

  • He recommends focusing regulation on frontier labs as entities rather than on models, framing that choice as a hard but necessary tradeoff to preserve American popular sovereignty and the First Amendment’s protections.
Source evidence

Some people in AI safety will respond, reasonably, with "won't this risk creating a situation where AI regulation, including the friendly, softer kind you (Dean) support, is impossible?"

Realistically I think the answer here is no. This is part of why my regulatory focus has always been the frontier labs as entities rather than the models. It is true that 1A will place real limits on state intervention, and that some of those could bite in a world where e.g. it is desirable to regulate alignment in high levels of detail.

But this is the hard tradeoff of 1A, and it always has been. Sovereignty, in America, rests ultimately with the people. The First Amendment was, and is, a wild leap of faith. At some level, you have to choose: do we, the people, maintain our sovereignty, or do we not?