[nonplus]

I guess I think we should hold models used for non-academic reasons to a higher standard, and there should be oversight.

I don't know if all the language in this bill does what we need, but I'm against letting large corporations like a META or X live test whatever they want on their end users.

Calling out derivative models are exempt sounds good; only new training sets have to be subjected to this. I think there should be an academic limited duty exemption, models that can't be commercialized likely don't need the rigor of this law.

I guess I don't agree with affuture.org and think we need legislation like this in place.

[jph00]

It sounds like you do agree with affuture.org though. The proposed draft does not hold models used for non-academic reasons to a higher standard, and "models that can't be commercialized" are covered by it. It will be far harder to academics to work on large models under this draft.

[nonplus]

> It sounds like you do agree with affuture.org though.

From the post. > We need your help to stop this now.

I do not want to stop this bill; I want it revised. If that is not understood, then I suspect my primary goal for safer, less biased models is at odds with your primary goal of unregulated innovation.

At least if we continue to discuss this as a binary where agreeing with this affuture.org post means killing this legislation (as the post asks for) and not replacing it.