>If your model was trained on less than 10²⁶ flops and doesn't outperform those that were? The speed at which the article glazes over one of the major issues w

>If your model was trained on less than 10²⁶ flops and doesn't outperform those that were? The speed at which the article glazes over one of the major issues with the bill is incredible. The definition of "outperform those that were" (wording is pretty much the same in the bill) is part of the issue. The bill doesn't define any benchmarks, so whose to say tomorrow a new benchmark doesn't come out and your model trained at home on 3 4090s all of a sudden is the best at something. And the bill also makes you responsible for what people do with your model. If it is decided that you didn't put in enough safeguards (again, no real definition) your liability goes through the roof. Now companies are pretty likely to just ignore all this in the short term, but laws like this essentially make it just a matter of perspective to decide if someone is breaking the law or not. If you look hard enough from the right angle, any model could be argued to be in noncompliance.