For #1, a policy reversal on ASI could be credibly signaled by legislative recommendations treating human-replacement ASI as something to be avoided (which would contrast with the March 2026 National Policy Framework on AI); or by signing a law passed by Congress that restricts ASI (e.g. something like the Sanders-Casar bill); or even by an executive order directing federal agencies not to participate in the creation of ASI. It sounds like you already agree with me on #2, that liability for actions of AI is not likely under the current regime. To my view, that's a huge problem; and therefore a huge area for improvement. As it stands, we have a loophole through all of criminal law. The legal system does not bind AI agents, nor does it demand that humans take responsibility for AI agents they create. Even the degree of responsibility that the law assigns to dogs and to dog-owners, has not been applied to AI agents and their keepers. Changing this would be an element of good AI policy.