Google calls for AI regulation, but on its own terms

iGuRu.gr > Google calls for AI regulation, but on its own terms

For more than three years, we’ve heard AI executives insist that the government should regulate their industry. OpenAI and Anthropic have led the way, with the latter’s CEO, Dario Amodei, calling for “binding regulations” in June 2026, when its latest models were suspended.

Now Google, which has also called for regulation of Artificial Intelligence, is trying to clarify its request for government intervention and is asking for a “middle ground” that is largely favorable to its interests.

See more articles from iGuRu.gr when you search for news on Google.

iGuRu.gr preferred source

“The debate over AI governance is stuck in a false choice between over-regulation and no regulation,” Google President Kent Walker wrote in a blog post . “There is a middle ground: A realistic, evidence-based approach that recognizes the unique challenges and opportunities of both cutting-edge AI and widely deployed AI applications.”

Walker doesn't explicitly define "excessive tuning," but he's likely talking about the recent banning of Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos 5 mods.

In Google’s 21-page policy document titled “A Pragmatic Approach to AI Governance in America” [ PDF ], the company argues that: “There is a middle ground that would balance market-driven innovation and independent oversight: a federally overseen frontier AI regulatory organization (FARO).”

FARO policy would be shaped by theoretically independent, industry-funded organizations, such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and the American Medical Association, each of which is overseen by some government commission or agency.

The idea of a middle ground is difficult to grasp after the last decade of ominous warnings about AI from technology leaders. If AI were truly an existential threat with the capacity to cause harm, one would expect it to be regulated like lead or asbestos.

However, Google claims:

“AI platforms should be required to take reasonable steps to display persistent disclaimers, filter sexually explicit content, avoid claims that the model is a person (and regularly point out that it is not), and not promote emotional dependency.”

The middle ground for AI governance is already here: non-consensual nudity images, copyright waivers, model bias, error compensation, and guidance on harms.

And this middle ground approach is more like “just let us do our thing” when it comes to copyright.

For widespread AI applications, instead of new, strict laws, the company is calling for the adaptation of existing legislation. It argues that issues such as copyright and child protection can be covered by updating existing frameworks.

“Using publicly available web data for training models is a transformative, non-expressive use – like an art student being inspired by a walk through a gallery – that should remain protected under fair use exceptions in the US,” Google’s document states.

Courts are still considering claims of AI copyright infringement. But as the company puts it, AI for Google is more like an art student controlling the market, cataloguing all of the Louvre’s images and then selling access to those images – always with fair use, and for profit! (Fair Use) .

The company is already facing pressure and litigation over inaccurate responses from its AI tools (such as AI Overviews) or for using publisher content without permission to train its models. By pushing for a more tailored regulatory framework, it is trying to limit its legal liability.

Google is asking for a middle ground, but one only needs to look at the increase in AI lobbying in recent years - up 340% by 2023 - to understand that the AI industry is paying to open this middle ground in a favorable direction.