Will not be enforceable imo, not sure if it is even constitutional - like it or not, output of AI engines is a type of free-speech. (and no, not that 'AI' has free speech rights, the creators of the AI do)
Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.
*Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
The explanation is: "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial."
Note that "substantial" is not wrt what an individual does but "what if everyone did that?"
Honestly, Filburn v. Whitaker was my biggest wake up call that the US is a complete farce with absolutely corrupt checks and balances.
Couple that with other outcomes like Hylton v. United States, where the SC argued that a clear direct tax was actually a usage tax and not subject to apportionment. Plenty of examples of SCOTUS relabeling an activity to say it's fine when it's in clear violation of the Constitution.
It would be similarly a violation if, say, the sale of newspapers was regulated. I suspect you know this but you want to make a glib Twitter style comment rather than have a real discussion.
Your right to free speech is not magically absolute. It does not supercede the rights to life, security, and safety. You can't sell snake oil. You can't claim your product does something it doesn't, or that your service does something it doesn't.
Nobody wants to an AI doctor that gets the diagnosis wrong half of the time, or an AI pharmacist that forgets to account for drug contraindications sometimes to be available for sale on the market. Nobody wants an AI self-driving car that rams into a pedestrian without even slowing down. Nobody wants AI load-testing software to forget that steel bolts aren't infinitely ductile.
If you want to bring a product to market, you don't get to just slap a "NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED" on it because it's software. That never actually worked.
Otoh if you take the view that the sum of LLM predictions is a kind of speech at the instigation of the operator, maybe...
A lot of this should be moot. Whatever Llama or whatever predicts or says, it isn't dangerous. Regulating what an LLM can generate is like banning books. Regulating specific outcomes is a different story. If I make a chatbot that gives bad medical advice, I don't see any legal difference vs giving bad medic advice without the chatbot and that can be regulated and litigated accordingly. The "AI" angle is mostly just a trojan horse to try and exert more control in the name of defeating some boogeyman.
An llm as is is simply a tree. It cannot produce speech by itself, and even if it did modern robotics are not considered citizens (we can deal with that when it comes).