Before regulating AI, define strict limits for the government

Ah, marvellous. The Washington Post has decided the greatest threat posed by AI is not the machines themselves but the governments that might regulate them. In a piece dated August 13, 2026, we learn the three hottest ideas for AI oversight: Sam Altman's IAEA-style international body, a House scheme to license "verification organizations," and Google's industry-funded self-regulation — a proposal that essentially asks the fox to submit its own expenses for the henhouse audit. Congress, the author pleads, must define strict limits for government power *before* these bodies are invented, a request with the same energy as asking a teenager to sign a contract for a car they don't yet own.

Let's examine the offerings. Altman's IAEA authority would send international inspectors to AI labs, which sounds excellent until you remember the IAEA's other clients treat inspectors as a tourism opportunity. The House proposal creates government-approved auditors, with all the accountability that implies, i.e. none. And Google's self-regulatory masterpiece means the company that insists it can police its own algorithms would police everyone else's, with the bill sent to the lobbying department. Three approaches, one common thread: the fox has been issued a clipboard and a badge.

The truly grim bit is the op-ed's timing. It is not arguing that regulation is unnecessary; it is arguing that regulation might be done badly. The author wants Congress to tie the next regulator's hands before the regulator exists — a pre-emptive strike against competence. And with three rival proposals already lining up for the lobbyists' ballet, you can hear the pencils sharpening. The best we can hope for is that Congress defines limits so strict that new agencies cannot order coffee, let alone verify a frontier model — that will fix everything.