I remember that discussion about the original order, but I'm in the same boat as OP—this is the first I'm hearing about an RFC about open weights. It looks like it was discussed once, about a month ago [0], but I hadn't seen any of the public comments show up on HN until today, even though they date back weeks.
Exactly -- I remember the 'Executive Order on ...' headline now, but I never bothered to click on it, because why would I. The second story, I never noticed at all, and neither did anybody else.
One of the few cases where a bit more alarmism in the headline might not have been out of place.
The executive order (and associated DoC/NTIA RFC) was long, and dense with both legal references and political platitudes. Not great reading, (though the EO got a good amount of discussion here). It's unfortunate, but less than surprising that it didn't make actual news outlets.
It seems complicated now, and many would like to see how things play out a little more before committing the time to deciding things. (I think that's a bad idea; regardless of the revolutionary tech, it seems wise to begin governmental thought early.)
It's kinda been buried in an otherwise heavy news cycle since the end of October of last year, AI and otherwise. I assume that wasn't intentional, but it seems hard to hide something so big at a better time.
And though I hate to say it, I suspect: apathy. Both traditional from the bottom ("too far off, unfixable, can't do anything about it"), and from the top ("once we get too big to fuck with, we just won't give a damn about any changes they try to make anyway").
A careless or reckless president might overly depend on advisers for drafting executive orders, sidelining personal oversight. This delegation risks orders that may not align with the president's intent or could lead to adverse outcomes due to unchecked biases or agendas among advisers. Without the president's close review, policies might lack comprehensive vetting, inviting legal issues, public disapproval, or impractical implementations. Excessive reliance on advisers could also push more extreme policies under reduced scrutiny. Effective governance requires the president's informed engagement to ensure executive orders reflect their vision and serve the nation's best interest. Instead we have someone who offers his "concerns" to the public while shipping billions worth of dollars of explosives to the enemies of humanity. Don't expect any concerns or input from the public to make any difference.
Is there a reason why this executive order / RFC received no coverage on HN (or anywhere else I'm aware of) until after the deadline had passed?