Bipartisan House lawmakers propose bill to ‘stop smuggling' of AI chips
The bill comes amid a broader effort in Washington to curb competition with China and prevent U.S.-made tech from ending up in the hands of adversaries. It
The legislation, titled the Chips Security Act, would require companies to ensure their high-end AI chips location verification abilities and to report when a product has been diverted or changed location. It follows recent reports of increased smuggling of chips, including those made by Nvidia, into China despite tight export controls.
It also would mandate the Commerce Secretary evaluate security measures to prevent the misuse or diversion of chips and gives the secretary enforcement capabilities.
The bill was introduced by Reps. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) and House Select Committee on China Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.)
'As Congress' chip designer, AI programmer, and PhD physicist, I know that we have the technical tools to prevent powerful AI technology from getting into the wrong hands,' Foster said Thursday.
It comes nearly a week after Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) unveiled similar legislation in the upper chamber.
Earlier this week, the Commerce Department officially rescinded the former Biden administration's AI diffusion rule that would have placed caps on chip sales to most countries around the world.
The Bureau of Industry and Security said the Biden-era rule, which was supposed to go into effect Thursday, would 'have stifled American innovation and saddled companies with burdensome new regulatory requirements.'
The BIS said it plans to issue a replacement rule in the future.
Several technology companies including Microsoft and Nvida urged Trump to loosen the rule once he was back in office.
Concerns over China's AI development ramped up earlier this year after the Chinese AI company DeepSeek released a high-performing model for a fraction of the cost of American-made models.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
DNC chair says Democrats will start process of setting 2028 primary calendar this month
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said on Sunday that the party will begin deliberating the 2028 primary calendar later this month at a meeting in Minneapolis. 'We're going to start that conversation actually this month in August at our DNC meeting in Minneapolis,' Martin said in an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' when Chris Stirewalt asked about the primary calendar in the next president election. 'The Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is newly composed, will start this conversation by putting forward the rules and procedures, and start to really figure out how we're going to engage in this,' he continued. Martin said the process will play out over the next year, and he expects to have a calendar set by the end of next year. Stirewalt asked Martin about questions arising from the party's 2024 postmortem, specifically about the decision to heed former President Biden's request to shift the primary calendar to favor South Carolina and Michigan — states in which Biden was expected to perform well. Stirewalt noted the primary calendar changes 'probably insulated the incumbent president to an unhelpful degree,' pointing to the fact that Biden waited until July to end his campaign. But Martin, who was elected chair in February, said he is committed to making the process fair and said any state that wants an early primary date should be permitted to bid for one and be considered. 'The process of having states come in to bid for this has to be fair and open,' he said. 'Any state that wants to be part of the early states window will be considered by the DNC.' Martin also said he anticipates a crowded primary field in 2028 and said he wants to make sure the process for setting the calendar is guided by three principles: 'One, it has to be rigorous. Two, it has to be efficient. Three, it has to be fair.' 'It has to be rigorous, in the sense that it battle tests our nominee and prepares them for the general election,' he said, expanding on the first principle. Martin said it has to be 'efficient' in a way that 'we don't bankrupt our candidates in the early part of this process,' adding, 'We want them to have resources for the general election because the only prize that matters is November.' 'And the third thing is that it has to be fair,' he added. 'It has to allow all of our candidates, which God knows how many candidates we're going to have, to actually compete in those early states.'
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Digital Trends
8 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
Apple is eyeing a ChatGPT-like search, but it must focus beyond Siri
It's no secret that Apple is currently struggling to deliver a smash-hit AI product, the way Google has served with Gemini, or Microsoft has achieved with Copilot. The company has been trying a similar overhaul with Siri, but those plans have been beset by delays, and it is only expected to see the light of day in late 2026. The delay spooked Apple to such an extent that the company inked a stopgap deal with OpenAI, which helped integrate ChatGPT with Siri, and broadly, with the Apple Intelligence stack. But it seems Apple is working on a radical in-house solution, one that would essentially be a watered-down approach to ChatGPT, but with internet search capabilities. Siri, but flavored like ChatGPT Lite? According to Bloomberg, a newly formed Answers, Knowledge and Information (AKI) team at Apple is working on a ChatGPT-inspired search framework for Siri. 'While still in early stages, the team is building what it calls an 'answer engine' — a system capable of crawling the web to respond to general-knowledge questions,' says the report. In addition to Siri, Apple reportedly plans to integrate the search functionality within Spotlight and Safari, as well. Spotlight has already received a massive functional upgrade in macOS Tahoe, so it won't be surprising to see it evolve into a universal answering hotspot, one that covers local data and information sourced from the internet. Recommended Videos It may sound chaotic at first, but it's not entirely alien. How does Siri, Spotlight, or Safari know when I want an AI to answer my query, or launch a web Search? Well, look no further than Dia. The universal search box in the AI-focused browser dynamically switches between 'chat' and 'Google' mode as you type your search keywords. When you type 'Birkin bag' in the text field, it defaults to web search mode. But as you type 'where to buy a Birkin bag,' the search field automatically switches to chat mode and offers the answer, just the way ChatGPT or any other AI answering engine like Perplexity would handle your questions. Right now, when you summon Siri on your iPhone and ask it a question that requires searching the internet or just pulling knowledge from an information bank, it opens a prompt box asking whether the question can be offloaded to ChatGPT. Once you agree, ChatGPT kicks into action and offers the required information. Of course, it's not seamless. With Siri gaining web search capabilities and enhanced natural language comprehension (akin to a ChatGPT or Gemini), it would be much easier for users to simply ask anything they want and get it answered. In its current state, Siri feels like a relic of the past, especially when compared to products such as Google's Gemini Live or ChatGPT's voice mode. In fact, Gemini works better on iPhones than Siri. As far as Apple's plans go, building something as advanced as ChatGPT or Gemini seems like a far-fetched goal. As per Bloomberg, plans for 'LLM Siri' have kept running into delays, and the recent exodus of top AI talent casts more doubts over Apple's ambitions of reimagining Siri for the AI era. It's not just about a phone assistant Building a next-gen virtual assistant – just the way Google Assistant has evolved into Gemini, or Copilot at Microsoft – is not the only area where Apple is currently lagging far behind the competition. In fact, Big Tech is now as focused as much on chatbots as it is on web browsers. Agentic workflows are now being seen as the next big thing in the field of AI. In a recent interview, co-founder and chief of Perplexity, Aravind Srinivas, explained why browsers are more suitable for AI than AI chatbots and apps: 'You get full transparency and visibility, and you can just stop the agent when you feel like it's going off the rails and just complete the task yourself, and you can also have the agent ask for your permission to do anything. So that level of control, transparency, trust in an environment that we are used to for multiple decades, which is the browser.' Unfortunately, Apple is severely lagging behind in the browser wars. With the introduction of AI Mode in Search and deeply integrating Gemini across its Workspace ecosystem, Google has changed how deeply AI can change web browsing and web-based workflows. Safari desperately needs an AI overhaul Upstart browsers such as Dia and Perplexity's Comet have proved that the era of legacy tools such as extensions is coming to an end. Soon, skills and custom agents will take over. Less than a week ago, Microsoft introduced Copilot Mode in Edge. I have spent a few days with the new AI-powered tools in Edge, and I believe it's a bold (and dramatically more practical) new direction for web browsers. In comparison, Safari misses out on any such AI-driven experiences. From a context-aware sidebar to multi-tab contextual actions, Apple's browser is sorely missing out on the conveniences that AI is bringing to modern age web browsers. Assuming Apple succeeds at building its own ChatGPT-like answer engine, it would take a massive undertaking to build meaningful features around it in Safari. Right now, what Apple needs to do is not just build an answering engine, but pay close attention to the competition. I am sure Apple is monitoring the shifting landscape of AI agents and browsers. It simply has to pick up pace, or as CEO Tim Cook hinted at in a recent all-hands meeting, the company 'will make the investment to do it.' Will Apple acquire a hot AI lab like Perplexity or Anthropic? Only time will tell, but the company certainly has to take a more holistic approach with AI than just focus on building the next great AI chatbot.
