Jump to content

News-August-03-2026

From AI Law Wiki
(Redirected from News-August-3-2026)

August 3, 2026 — The White House completed a voluntary framework for government testing of advanced artificial-intelligence models' cybersecurity capabilities and planned an August 4 meeting with AI companies to discuss it.[1][2] At an August 4 meeting, Trump administration advisers told leading AI companies that the voluntary safety-testing program would not cover open-weight models, according to two sources familiar with the discussion.[3] Separately, the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed a lawyer's use of generative AI that produced fabricated or inaccurate citations in filings.[4][5] Britain's AI minister also said the government would consider regulating advanced AI models if voluntary pre-deployment testing stopped providing sufficient public protection.[6] Apple also asked a U.S. judge for a preliminary injunction in its trade-secrets case against two former employees and OpenAI.[7] In South Korea, the Korea Music Copyright Association began accepting AI-assisted songs for registration when a human made a substantial creative contribution, while excluding songs generated entirely from prompts.[8][9]

Contents

[edit]
  1. White House completes voluntary advanced-AI testing framework
  2. Connecticut Supreme Court addresses AI-hallucinated citations
  3. Britain signals openness to AI regulation if voluntary safeguards fall short
  4. Apple seeks preliminary injunction in OpenAI trade-secrets case
  5. South Korea permits registration of substantially human-created AI-assisted songs

White House completes voluntary advanced-AI testing framework

[edit]

A White House official confirmed that the administration had completed the voluntary framework and would host AI companies on August 4 to discuss it.[1][2] CNBC reported that Anthropic representatives were expected to participate and that OpenAI and Google were also expected to attend.[1] At the August 4 meeting, administration advisers told leading AI companies that open-weight models would not be included in the voluntary testing program.[3]

The framework implements President Donald Trump's June 2 executive order, under which participating developers may provide the government access to qualifying frontier models for as long as 30 days before making them available to other trusted partners.[1] The early-access process is intended to help the government and developers evaluate whether advanced models could discover software vulnerabilities or enable sophisticated cyberattacks.[1]

The executive order directed the Treasury Department, National Security Agency, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to establish a classified benchmarking process for advanced cyber capabilities.[1] CNBC reported that the benchmark and review threshold are expected to remain classified, that the completed framework had not been publicly released, and that the voluntary program cannot create a mandatory federal licensing, permitting, or preclearance regime for AI models.[1]


Connecticut Supreme Court addresses AI-hallucinated citations

[edit]

In TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez, the Connecticut Supreme Court said it was confronting for the first time a lawyer's use of generative AI that resulted in court filings containing fabricated or inaccurately generated citations.[4] Reuters reported that the court emphasized lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of filings produced with generative AI.[5]

The court's published summary states that attorney Ian G. Gottlieb and GLG Law filed applications and later briefs containing hallucinated citations after generative AI was used during editing and review.[4] At a July 7 show-cause hearing, Gottlieb admitted that submitting approximately seven erroneous and unverified citations violated, at minimum, Rule 1.1 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.[4]


Britain signals openness to AI regulation if voluntary safeguards fall short

[edit]

Artificial Intelligence Minister Kanishka Narayan said Britain would consider regulating advanced AI models if its voluntary pre-deployment testing system no longer proved sufficient to protect the public.[6]

Britain currently relies on voluntary agreements under which its AI Security Institute receives pre-deployment access to models from companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, while existing sectoral authorities handle issues such as competition, human rights, and health and safety.[6] Narayan said the institute had advance access to almost every frontier model developed by Western companies and described the government's priority as protecting the public rather than committing to a single regulatory mechanism.[6]


Apple seeks preliminary injunction in OpenAI trade-secrets case

[edit]

Apple asked a U.S. judge on August 3 for a preliminary injunction barring two former employees and OpenAI from accessing, acquiring, using, or disclosing alleged Apple confidential information.[7] The request follows Apple's July 10 lawsuit alleging that former Apple employees took trade secrets related to hardware development for OpenAI's benefit.[10]

OpenAI publicly disputed Apple's account, said the preliminary-injunction request was based on false information and unnecessary, and released emails and messages that it said undercut Apple's allegations.[11][10] OpenAI said it did not possess or want Apple's trade secrets.[11]


South Korea permits registration of substantially human-created AI-assisted songs

[edit]

The Korea Music Copyright Association's amended rules took effect on August 3, replacing a ban that had excluded any song made with AI assistance from registration and royalties.[8] The association will now register AI-assisted songs when a human made a substantial and leading contribution to the melody, lyrics, structure, or arrangement; songs generated entirely by AI from prompts remain ineligible.[8][9]

Applicants must disclose which parts involved AI, identify the tools used, and describe their own creative contribution.[8] The association may request supporting materials and may hold or recover royalties or terminate a trust contract when a filing falsely presents an entirely AI-generated work as human-created.[8]

References

[edit]