At the White House, AI chiefs sign a "morally binding" pledge to regulate themselves

Axios had published the list of 31 confirmed participants the day before. It includes Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, and Lisa Su, as well as JD Vance, Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, and Susie Wiles. The figure therefore encompasses administration officials, in addition to sector leaders. Axios specifies that Greg Brockman represented OpenAI, with Sam Altman in San Francisco for the DevDay conference.

According to The Hill, the document is titled "The White House Accord on Superintelligence Joint Commitment on Frontier SI Responsibilities". Mike Johnson describes it, according to Axios, as "a statement of principles". On CNBC, he says he hopes the safeguards remain voluntary: companies "see the handwriting on the wall".

At Berlingske, which cites Fox News, Mark Zuckerberg talks about a "good first step" and an agreement around which the entire industry can rally. Jensen Huang, quoted by the same newspaper, says he sees no conflict between innovation and security.

It is noted that Trump did not provide any details about the text. When asked about its mandatory nature, he cited the economic interest of the groups: "Their businesses are at stake if something goes wrong." Berlingske and Politiken indicate that the text had not been published at the time of the reports; Axios writes that the scope and application of the agreement remain unclear.

According to ABC, the text states that "each company is responsible for the safe development of its own technology," with four "layers of controls and audits" and regular meetings on standards. According to dpa, as reported by ZEIT, the idea of external observers corresponds to a proposal presented by Dario Amodei a few weeks earlier and supported by Sam Altman.

Axios reports that sources in the AI sector fear that self-regulation may not solve the security problem. Teemu Roos, a professor at the University of Helsinki interviewed by MTV Uutiset, considers the path of self-regulation "really difficult," as under competition law, companies are already not allowed to agree among themselves on restrictions.

That morning, during an event in Washington, Trump said he did not want to work with Xi Jinping on AI governance. According to TimesLIVE and Business Day, he believes such cooperation would complicate the task of American companies compared to their Chinese competitors. La República and To Vima quote his phrase: "Ahora estamos por delante de China y de todos los demás, y quiero que siga siendo así".

The South China Morning Post reports on the formula used by Trump on "superintelligence" and the absence of a second place. Le Monde reports that Amandeep Gill, deputy secretary-general of the UN, considers it "positive" that Washington and Beijing are dialoguing, with Scott Bessent and He Lifeng having agreed to examine a risk notification system.

Jiemian puts the renaming of AI into a series of name changes wanted by the administration. The site quotes analysts who believe the decision aims to rally the technology sector, markets, and conservative voters.

According to Axios, Congress is leaving Washington at the end of the week until after the November election. Democratic Senator Mark Warner cited the risk of uncontrollable autonomous agents to national security and wanted to seek unanimous consent on Tuesday. The Straits Times reports that Congress is debating but should not adopt a law before the elections.

Two polls are cited, each by a different media outlet. Protothema mentions a CNN poll from mid-September: 82% of Americans are concerned about the pace of AI. MTV Uutiset, via Teemu Roos, states that more than 80% find data centers and AI more worrying than exciting.

On CBC, Geoffrey Hinton estimates that Trump "doesn't really understand AI". HuffPost France notes that Amodei dined with Trump on Sunday and called in mid-September to slow down the pace; L'Express relays a report published on Monday, September 28, on the University of Cambridge website, signed by Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, among others.

A methodological note: the Argentine and South African coverage in the corpus dates back to before the end of lunch and does not report its outcome. This finding concerns the collected articles, not the entire press in these countries.