A draft proposal would require providers of large general-purpose models to disclose training data sources, evaluation results, and known limitations. Backers call it a baseline for accountability; critics warn the reporting burden falls hardest on smaller labs.

Proposed rules would force big-model makers to publish their data sources, eval results, and limitations. Supporters want accountability; smaller labs worry about the paperwork.

The provider lowered per-token inference pricing across several model tiers, crediting efficiency gains from its latest accelerator hardware. Analysts expect rivals to respond, accelerating a broader race to make production AI cheaper to run.

New accelerators let the vendor drop per-token prices across tiers. Expect competitors to follow as serving AI keeps getting cheaper.

The lab released weights for a small multimodal model that runs on modest hardware, alongside benchmarks and a permissive license. Early testers highlight its appeal for teams needing on-prem image-and-text understanding without large GPU budgets.

A new open-weights vision-language model runs on modest hardware under a permissive license — handy for on-prem multimodal work without big GPUs.

Survey data suggests procurement teams are taking more time to vet AI vendors, citing security review, unclear ROI, and integration risk. The trend is lengthening sales cycles even as overall interest in deploying AI stays high.

Buyers are slowing down AI purchases over security, ROI, and integration concerns — longer sales cycles despite strong interest.

A fresh court filing reopens the fair-use question for training on copyrighted data — the ruling could reset licensing norms industry-wide.

A new filing revives questions about whether training models on copyrighted material qualifies as fair use. The outcome could shape licensing norms and how future datasets are assembled across the industry.

Researchers released an open safety benchmark built with input from several model providers, covering misuse, robustness, and refusal behavior. Contributors hope shared tests make safety claims easier to compare across systems.

An open safety benchmark — covering misuse, robustness, and refusals — launched with multi-vendor input, aiming to make safety claims comparable.