查找相似内容

🇺🇸White House Releases National AI Legislative Framework The White House published a national AI legislative framework aimed at centralizing regulation and preventing U.S. states from enacting their own AI laws. The initiative follows an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in December, which blocked state-level enforcement, and reflects a light-touch federal approach covering areas from data centers to AI-enabled scams. The framework outlines six objectives for Congress, including tools for parental control over children’s digital presence, streamlined permitting for data centers, and measures to address AI-related fraud. It also proposes balancing intellectual property rights with the need to train AI systems on real-world data and calls for limits on government influence over content moderation by technology providers. The administration emphasizes sector-specific regulation instead of a single rule-making authority and seeks to preempt state laws governing AI model development. According to White House officials, the framework is intended to support innovation while addressing safety risks associated with broader AI deployment. #AIRegulation#USpolicy#AIgovernance#TechLaw#ArtificialIntelligence

🇪🇺📖ETSI Publishes Baseline AI Security Standards for Europe The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has released baseline cybersecurity standards for organizations implementing AI systems in Europe. The document sets out AI security expectations across the full lifecycle of AI tools, including design, deployment, and operational use. The standards were developed using guidance from the UK National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. They are intended to serve as a common security reference point for AI adoption, establishing minimum expectations for safeguarding AI systems against cyber risks. #AIRegulation#AIGovernance#Cybersecurity#AIStandards#ETSI#TechLaw

🇺🇸Court Allows Enforcement of California AI Training Data Disclosure Law A US federal court has denied a request by Elon Musk’s AI company xAI to block enforcement of California Assembly Bill 2013. The law requires AI developers whose models are accessible in California to publicly disclose key information about training datasets, including dataset sources, collection timelines, whether collection is ongoing, and whether datasets contain copyrighted, trademarked, patented, or personal data. Companies must also indicate whether training data was licensed or purchased and the extent of synthetic data used. xAI argued the law would force disclosure of trade secrets, including dataset sources, dataset sizes, and data-cleaning methods. According to the company, such transparency could allow competitors to infer what datasets it uses and replicate its approach. The company warned that compliance could be “economically devastating” and reduce the value of its proprietary data practices. However, US District Judge Jesus Bernal ruled that xAI failed to demonstrate that the law requires disclosure of protected trade secrets. The court found the company’s claims too general and based largely on hypotheticals. The motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, allowing the law—which took effect in January—to remain in force while the lawsuit continues. #AIRegulation#AITransparency#TrainingData#TradeSecrets#AIAct#AIGovernance#TechLaw

The Complexity of Regulating Foundation Models in the AI Act Hello, AI & Law community! Kai Zenner, the Head of Office and Digital Policy Adviser at the Office of MEP Axel Voss, shared his opinion on the OECD website about regulating foundation models in the AI Act. 🔹 The Existing Gap: The proposed AI Act by the European Commission, created before foundation models gained prominence in AI, doesn't explicitly cover these versatile models. Their potential for diverse, unforeseen purposes makes it tricky to fit them into the current product safety approach. The Act's use case approach, limiting AI systems to specific risk classes, is too inflexible for the latest foundation models that can handle various tasks. This creates a regulatory gap that needs to be addressed. 🔹 Positive Progress: The European Parliament has taken a proactive step to tackle this issue by introducing Article 28b, which adds a regulatory layer specifically for foundation models. This article outlines nine essential obligations for developers, including identifying risks, testing, evaluation, and thorough documentation. These measures aim to strike a balance between ensuring safety and fostering innovation in the AI landscape. 🔹 Targeted Approach: A crucial consideration is to avoid putting too much burden on smaller providers while still effectively regulating foundation models. Zenner proposes adopting a systemic approach, targeting only a small number of highly capable and relevant foundation models under the AI Act. This strategy could be similar to how Very Large Online Platforms are designated under the Digital Services Act, ensuring a balanced and efficient regulatory framework. #AIRegulation#FoundationModels#AIAct#AIInnovation#AICommunity#TechLaw#OECDInsights

🚀 xAI Files Lawsuit to Block Colorado's Senate Bill 24-205 xAI has initiated legal action against the state of Colorado, filing a lawsuit in a U.S. district court on Thursday. According to NS3.AI, the company aims to prevent the enforcement of Senate Bill 24-205, which is set to take effect on June 30. xAI argues that the legislation would necessitate alterations to its Grok platform and impose requirements related to fairness and equity. #xAI#Colorado#SenateBill24205#Lawsuit#AIRegulation#Grok#TechLaw#Fairness#Equity