How States Are Approaching AI Developer Definitions in AI Legislation
Weekly Update, Vol. 82.
Key Takeaways
State AI legislation is increasingly focused on how AI developer definitions determine which entities are responsible for model design, training, and documentation, shaping the scope of regulation and compliance obligations.
Colorado AI law SB 205 and similar bills in other states expand developer obligations to include not only original creators but also those who intentionally and substantially modify AI systems, especially when changes introduce new risks of algorithmic discrimination.
Frontier AI model regulation in California and New York uses computing power and revenue thresholds to distinguish between large and small developers, aiming to target regulatory requirements at entities with greater capability and potential for downstream impact.
Lawmakers continue to refine developer obligations in state laws to balance meaningful oversight with the need to avoid overburdening startups and smaller software vendors, with ongoing debates about where to set thresholds and exemptions.
If you’re a subscriber, click here for the full edition of this update. Or, click here to learn more about our MultiState.ai+ subscription.
We recently took a look at how state AI laws defined “deployers” and related downstream actors, and why those definitions matter for businesses that use artificial intelligence systems to make consequential decisions. But deployers are only one half of the regulatory equation. Many of the most consequential policy choices in state AI legislation occur further upstream, in how lawmakers define who counts as a “developer” of an artificial intelligence system in the first place. Those definitions determine which entities are responsible for model design, training, testing, and documentation, and whether obligations attach at the point a system is built or only once it is put to use.
This article continues our series by focusing on how states define AI developers, and how those definitions diverge across emerging regulatory frameworks. As with deployers, small drafting choices can dramatically expand or narrow the scope of regulation, determining whether a law applies to a handful of frontier model builders, a broad swath of software companies, or nearly any business that meaningfully modifies an AI system.
If you’re a subscriber, click here for the full edition of this update. Or, click here to learn more about our MultiState.ai+ subscription.
