Fact Check: Assemblymember Alex Bores claimed that the regulatory burden of the RAISE Act is relatively light and should not prevent tech companies from operating their products in New York.

Fact Check: "Assemblymember Alex Bores claimed that the regulatory burden of the RAISE Act is relatively light and should not prevent tech companies from operating their products in New York."

What We Know

Assemblymember Alex Bores has stated that the regulatory burden imposed by the RAISE Act is "relatively light" and should not hinder tech companies from operating in New York. This claim is rooted in the provisions of the RAISE Act, which aims to regulate frontier AI models developed by major tech companies. The Act mandates that these companies publish safety and security reports and report safety incidents, but it is designed to avoid stifling innovation among startups and researchers (TechCrunch).

The RAISE Act specifically targets companies that have trained AI models using over $100 million in computing resources, which limits its scope to a small number of large tech firms (TechCrunch). Critics, however, argue that the Act does not address many potential risks associated with AI, suggesting that while the regulatory framework is light, it may not be comprehensive enough to ensure safety (City Journal).

Analysis

Bores' assertion that the RAISE Act's regulatory burden is light can be supported by the fact that the Act does not impose extensive requirements on all AI developers but focuses on a limited set of severe risks associated with powerful AI models. The Act does not mandate a "kill switch" for AI models, which has been a point of contention in previous legislation (TechCrunch, City Journal).

Moreover, the design of the RAISE Act, as articulated by its co-sponsor, Senator Andrew Gounardes, aims to strike a balance between safety and innovation. He stated that the Act was crafted to avoid chilling innovation, a criticism often levied against similar legislation (TechCrunch). This suggests that while there are regulatory requirements, they are tailored to minimize disruption to tech companies' operations.

However, the reliability of Bores' claim can be questioned when considering the broader implications of the Act. Critics argue that the limited scope of the regulations may leave significant safety risks unaddressed, potentially undermining the intended protective measures (City Journal). Furthermore, the pushback from Silicon Valley indicates that some industry stakeholders perceive even light regulations as burdensome, which could suggest that the regulatory environment is more contentious than Bores implies (TechCrunch).

Conclusion

The claim that the regulatory burden of the RAISE Act is relatively light and should not prevent tech companies from operating in New York is Partially True. While the Act does impose certain requirements, its focus on a narrow set of high-risk scenarios and its intent to foster innovation suggest that the regulatory burden may not be as heavy as some fear. However, the criticisms regarding the Act's limited scope and the industry's resistance indicate that the situation is more complex than Bores' statement suggests.

Sources

1. NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A6453A
2. New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
3. New York's RAISE Act Misses AI Safety Risks
4. The RAISE Act: New York Enters the AI Safety Debate
5. New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
6. Opinion: The time for smart, responsible AI regulation is now
7. New York Passes Landmark Bill Targeting Frontier AI Labs
8. A New York legislator wants to pick up the pieces of ...