Last week's editorial called for the next phase of AI regulatory work to focus on coherence across existing rules rather than on additional substantive rule-making. The board has received considered correspondence in response. Four representative letters appear below.

From a former regulator

Former senior FTC official Diane Lin writes: “The editorial captured the operational reality. The fragmentation between agencies is the binding constraint on effective enforcement. The question is which institutional configuration produces the coherence; the editorial does not address that question, and it is the harder question.”

From a compliance officer

The author, who works at a major AI infrastructure company, writes: “The editorial undersold the operational burden of the current patchwork. We staff entire teams to navigate the redundancies. Coherence work would meaningfully reduce the cost of compliance and free resources for the substantive work the rules are supposed to produce.”

From a state attorney general's office

The author, who asked to be identified only by office, writes: “Federal coherence work is welcome but should not produce federal preemption of state regulatory frameworks. The state frameworks have, in several specific categories, been ahead of the federal frameworks; preserving state capacity should be part of the coherence design.”

From a reader

Vivian Park of Boston writes: “I am a non-specialist reader who tries to follow the AI policy conversation. The editorial was clearer than most coverage of these questions. The clarity itself is useful; the policy work the editorial calls for would be more useful still if it produces rules that ordinary citizens can understand.”