Laws to ensure AI applications are safe, fair, and transparent are needed. But the White House's use of the Defense Production Act—typically reserved for war or national emergencies—distorts AI through the lens of security, for example with phrases like "companies developing any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security." Yes, AI -- like many technologies such as electricity and encryption -- is dual use in the sense it can be used for civilian or military purposes. But conflating AI safety for civilian use cases and military applications is a mistake. It’s also a mistake to set reporting requirements based on a computation threshold for model training. This will stifle open source and innovation: (i) Today’s supercomputer is tomorrow’s pocket watch. So as AI progresses, more players -- including small companies without the compliance capabilities of big tech -- will run into this threshold. (ii) Over time, governments’ reporting requirements tend to become more burdensome. (Ask yourself: Has the tax code become more, or less, complicated over time?) The right place to regulate AI is at the application layer. Requiring AI applications such as underwriting software, healthcare applications, self-driving, chat applications, etc. to meet stringent requirements, even pass audits, can ensure safety. But adding burdens to foundation model development unnecessarily slows down AI’s progress. While the White House order isn’t currently stifling startups and open source, it seems to be a step in that direction. The devil will be in the details as its implementation gets fleshed out -- no doubt with assistance from lobbyists -- and I see a lot of risk of missteps. I welcome good regulation to promote responsible AI, and hope the White House can get there.