Tech leaders like Palantir<\/a>, Nvidia<\/a> and Microsoft<\/a> were particularly concerned about the future of \u2014 and their role in servicing \u2014 third-party, open-source large language models and weights under the rule.\u00a0<\/p>\n It puts much of the regulatory responsibility on the wrong entity, commenters said \u2014 either on the contractor who may not have any ability to control the open or third-party AI as a platform provider, or conversely, on the developer who may not have any access to government data.<\/p>\n Nvidia pointed to a July letter<\/a> \u2014 which it co-signed with more than 230 companies, including Palantir, Microsoft, Meta, Google and OpenAI \u2014 urging the protection of open-weight models, likening it to the rise of open-source software that has flourished in the modern computing era.<\/p>\n \u201cOur AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector,\u201d the letter said. \u201cOpen weight models\u2014AI models that anyone can download, inspect, modify, and run on their own infrastructure\u2014are an important part of that foundation because they make advanced AI more accessible, adaptable, and widely available.\u201d<\/p>\n The proposed rule\u2019s current requirements would put the onus on the open or third-party publisher who might never receive or process government data, \u201cthe opposite of the safeguarding outcome GSA intends, and contrary to the national interest,\u201d wrote Bruce Andrews, Nvidia\u2019s chief external affairs officer.<\/p>\n On the contrary, Palantir said it is \u201ca fundamentally flawed and irrational assumption\u201d that an AI platform provider like itself would be held to the rule\u2019s standards for models it has no control over.<\/p>\n Palantir went as far as to formally urge the GSA to withdraw the rule completely, claiming the agency has no independent authority to promulgate a governmentwide rule, in addition to arguing that the clause is anti-commercial and contrary to the Trump administration\u2019s priorities.<\/p>\n \u201cGSA\u2019s Proposed Rule would significantly undermine the value of GSA contract vehicles because the Proposed AI Clause imposes obligations that are fundamentally incompatible with customary practices in the commercial market for AI technology,\u201d the comment said.<\/p>\n Who is responsible?<\/p>\n Two problems emerge with open-source or third-party AI: The rule\u2019s flowdown requirements could apply to a publisher who has no relationship with the government and cannot comply with its obligations, or the requirements would be put upon a platform provider who has no role in the AI.<\/p>\n As written, because the rule\u2019s flowdown requirements could not be fulfilled by open publishers of AI, it would exclude them from government contracting, Nvidia said.<\/p>\n The letter from the over 230 companies warned that relying solely on closed models \u201cis not inherently safe,\u201d as they can be breached, misused or fail in ways outsiders cannot detect. Also, open models and weights help users avoid lock-in<\/a> to a single provider or \u201close the knowledge and capabilities they build over time,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n White House officials said earlier this month that the federal government will only be reviewing closed models for potential security risks and not open ones, though that could change as tech advances, The New York Times<\/a> reported.<\/p>\n For others, the rule\u2019s requirements of a platform provider for third-party AI are misguided.<\/p>\n \u201cHolding a commercial platform provider contractually responsible for every aspect of how a third party\u2019s probabilistic AI system functions once deployed is irrational and contrary to established procurement law,\u201d Palantir\u2019s comment said.<\/p>\n The Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement<\/a> said the \u201coverly broad language\u201d in the clause may have a \u201cchilling effect on contractor use and adoption of AI,\u201d saying their members have concerns about the practicality of contractor implementation of the \u201dburdensome requirements,\u201d like assuming a contractor owns an LLM instead of operating it.<\/p>\n \u201cContractors can only be responsible for matters within their control, and contractors operating in these roles cannot as a general matter guarantee model neutrality, prevent commercial providers from conducting human content review, or compel the level of intermediate-step disclosure the proposed clause requires,\u201d the coalition said.<\/p>\n With this confusion and vague definitions like \u201cunbiased AI principles,\u201d companies are warning they may have to pursue government contracting outside of the GSA.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe continue to be concerned that the proposed terms will significantly alter existing commercial procurement frameworks under which our company currently makes AI technologies available to the government, will require re-engineering and expenses among commercial AI system providers, and may deter the sale of commercial AI systems to government,\u201d Microsoft said.<\/p>\n Put simply, \u201cobligations should follow the data, not the model\u2019s authorship,\u201d Nvidia\u2019s Andrews wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018Unbiased AI principles\u2019<\/p>\n GSA has made some changes to the part of the rule covering \u201cunbiased AI principles,\u201d which it defines as having LLMs prioritize \u201chistorical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity,\u201d while acknowledging uncertainty and being neutral and nonpartisan. But those changes don\u2019t appear to have assuaged industry concerns.<\/p>\n \u201cTo the extent a government official determines that a commercial AI model does not satisfy the \u2018unbiased AI principles,\u2019 the Proposed AI Clause would allocate all risk to Palantir to resolve whatever concerns the government may have,\u201d Palantir said.<\/p>\n
![\"K.](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787232249_284_Edit-10.jpg\")
<\/p>\n