Sources
Position Map
Where the models stand
Each row is one part of the answer. The cards show the distinct positions; the model chips show who supports each one.
The FTC’s proposed AI accuracy policy would not automatically invalidate state chatbot laws.
Supports this conclusion
- DeepSeek
- OpenAI
Instead, it would create a federal conflict-preemption argument against particular state requirements that allegedly force companies to
Instead, it would create a federal conflict-preemption argument against particular state requirements that allegedly force companies to alter otherwise truthful or prompt-faith
- DeepSeek
- Gemini
- OpenAI
The proposal’s core theory is that companies marketing AI systems as useful or accurate implicitly represent that the systems are designed t
The proposal’s core theory is that companies marketing AI systems as useful or accurate implicitly represent that the systems are designed to provide reliable answers.
- DeepSeek
- Gemini
- OpenAI
Secretly steering responses toward undisclosed ideological, political, “equity,” or other objectives could therefore be treated as deceptive
Secretly steering responses toward undisclosed ideological, political, “equity,” or other objectives could therefore be treated as deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- DeepSeek
- Gemini
- OpenAI
See how each model moved across checks
| Model | Jul 21 | Jul 28 | Aug 04 | Aug 11 | Aug 18 | Aug 25 | Sep 01 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | |||||||
| Gemini | |||||||
| Grok | — | — | |||||
| DeepSeek | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Cite this answer
Consensus Watch
Run history
View the full agreement chart
Agreement over time
How strongly the models support the same claims. Every point links to its run below.
Checks
Newest first. Open any saved result to read the full consensus from that date.
-
90/100 agreement
No meaningful movement detected in this check.
Open this consensus -
75/100 agreement
The update expands on details, structure, and legal nuance (such as distinguishing safety controls from deceptive manipulation and detailing preemption litigation factors), but the core conclusions and legal assessments remain identical.
Open this consensus -
90/100 agreement
No meaningful movement detected in this check.
Open this consensus -
90/100 agreement
No meaningful movement detected in this check.
Open this consensus -
90/100 agreement
Restated, not moved: The new consensus clarifies that the FTC policy is a proposed policy statement rather than a final rule and explicitly notes that state law compliance is not automatically a defense against federal deception claims. The overall conclusions regarding which state laws are vulnerable versus safe remain consistent.
Open this consensus -
64/100 agreement
Rephrased and condensed with minor structural and citation differences; core conclusions on preemption, output-steering risks, and viability of disclosure/safety laws remain identical.
Open this consensus -
80/100 agreement
Restated, not moved: The new version sharpens phrasing (e.g., "not automatically wipe out" vs "not automatically invalidate"), adds explicit emphasis on "algorithmic discrimination / disparate-impact duties" as a target, reorganizes content into bullet lists for readability, and slightly broadens the "less likely to be affected" category. Core conclusions, examples, and qualifications are materially identical.