> (a) A large frontier developer that violates this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed $1,000,000
per violation.
> (b) A large chatbot provider that violates this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed $50,000 per
violation.
> (c) A civil penalty described in this Section shall be recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General.
This is the "penalties" section of the bill (available at https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/104/SB/PDF/10400S...). I'm not sure what counts as a violation, but if it's simply the act of releasing the model, this isn't going to have much impact at $1,000,000 maximum.
As to the bigger question of how can Illinois regulate a company that isn't based in Illinois: the general principal is that states can regulate a company's conduct within or targeted at the state. In the U.S., there are constitutional limits to this kind of regulation (https://texaslawreview.org/state-regulation-of-online-behavi...). It's a fuzzy line, though, and if this were a big enough headache for the frontier labs to comply with they would probably litigate it.
Illinois has a population of about 12 million people, 6th largest populace in the nation. I presume they will pursue companies in the same manner they have for those violating biometrics laws (BIPA), for operating in the jurisdiction regardless of nexus.
If enough states by population follow, it becomes the standard. California, New York, etc.
(have contributed to policy at the state level in Illinois, but not on this topic)
States can regularly things whose users or customers are in that state. This is already the case for various online services like retailers. The regulations have to just avoid violating the commerce clause in the constitution.
From the article: "... Illinois’ bill goes a step further, requiring independent auditors to verify that an AI lab is adhering to its own safety standards. ..."
Ah yes, the fox guarding the chicken-coop; the auditors are to verify that the fox is indeed guarding the chicken-coop per the standards the fox has set. No mention of disappearing chickens anywhere in the standards.
The regulatory regime will end up turning into a censorship and moderation machine like with social media. That’s why it is dangerous. They will also add age verification and other invasive things next. The big closed AI companies will comply because regulatory capture and bans on open source AI will help them.
I'm not big on law, can someone explain how an Illinois law like this would apply to a company that isn't in Illinois?
> Section 40. Civil penalties.
> (a) A large frontier developer that violates this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed $1,000,000 per violation.
> (b) A large chatbot provider that violates this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed $50,000 per violation.
> (c) A civil penalty described in this Section shall be recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General.
This is the "penalties" section of the bill (available at https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/104/SB/PDF/10400S...). I'm not sure what counts as a violation, but if it's simply the act of releasing the model, this isn't going to have much impact at $1,000,000 maximum.
As to the bigger question of how can Illinois regulate a company that isn't based in Illinois: the general principal is that states can regulate a company's conduct within or targeted at the state. In the U.S., there are constitutional limits to this kind of regulation (https://texaslawreview.org/state-regulation-of-online-behavi...). It's a fuzzy line, though, and if this were a big enough headache for the frontier labs to comply with they would probably litigate it.
Illinois has a population of about 12 million people, 6th largest populace in the nation. I presume they will pursue companies in the same manner they have for those violating biometrics laws (BIPA), for operating in the jurisdiction regardless of nexus.
If enough states by population follow, it becomes the standard. California, New York, etc.
(have contributed to policy at the state level in Illinois, but not on this topic)
> California, New York, etc.
This is a kind of issue where big states should think and co-operate and discuss before they act, to present a united front in Congress and courts.
States can regularly things whose users or customers are in that state. This is already the case for various online services like retailers. The regulations have to just avoid violating the commerce clause in the constitution.
From the article: "... Illinois’ bill goes a step further, requiring independent auditors to verify that an AI lab is adhering to its own safety standards. ..."
Ah yes, the fox guarding the chicken-coop; the auditors are to verify that the fox is indeed guarding the chicken-coop per the standards the fox has set. No mention of disappearing chickens anywhere in the standards.
The regulatory regime will end up turning into a censorship and moderation machine like with social media. That’s why it is dangerous. They will also add age verification and other invasive things next. The big closed AI companies will comply because regulatory capture and bans on open source AI will help them.