Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2005 1965 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
94 people, organisations and other records · 122 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
SB 53 defines a 'frontier developer' as a person who has trained, or initiated the training of, a frontier model, where that person has used or intends to use at least as much computing power to train it as the frontier-model definition specifies. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Provision Threshold or trigger · provision ID sb53-frontier-developer-definition Subject version Chaptered (Stats. 2025, ch. 138) · Published 2025-09-29 · Effective 2026-01-01 Date 2025-09-29 · publication Scope and limits What the enacted text states, quoted from the chaptered expression. It is not evidence that the statute applies to any named developer, or of compliance, enforcement or effect. A definition only. Whether a named company is a frontier developer is a question of legal application and is not recorded (see stops).
By their text, the following provisions are addressed to frontier developers: the basic transparency report (§ 22757.12(c)(1)); the bar on materially false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk (§ 22757.12(e)(1)(A)); critical-safety-incident reporting (§ 22757.13(c)); and the whistleblower prohibitions and notice duty (Lab. Code § 1107.1(a), (b) and (d)).
The following are addressed only to large frontier developers: the frontier AI framework (§ 22757.12(a)–(b)); the catastrophic-risk summaries in the transparency report (§ 22757.12(c)(2)); internal-use assessment summaries to the Office of Emergency Services (§ 22757.12(d)); the bar on false statements about framework implementation or compliance (§ 22757.12(e)(1)(B)); and the anonymous internal disclosure process (Lab. Code § 1107.1(e)).
The civil-penalty provision (§ 22757.15(a)) names only large frontier developers. This record does not interpret enforcement or applicability beyond the text.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
SB-53 Artificial intelligence models: large developers. (2025-2026) — bill text, chaptered version (Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025) ↗ California Legislature (California Legislative Information, Office of Legislative Counsel) · 2025-09-29
Archived copy, captured 2025-09-30: SB-53 Artificial intelligence models: large developers. (2025-2026) — bill text, chaptered version (Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025) ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “has trained, or initiated the training of, a frontier model” Location in source SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)
Machine-checked · 2026-10-04
Source details and check notes Authors California Legislature Version Chaptered version dated 09/29/25, inspected live 2026-10-04; quote also matched in the 2025-09-30 capture Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-04 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-09-30: SB-53 Artificial intelligence models: large developers. (2025-2026) — bill text, chaptered version (Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025) ↗ . Captured 1 day after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-09-30. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.Attribution California Legislature, SB-53 Artificial intelligence models: large developers. (2025-2026) — bill text, chaptered version (Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025). Reuse Official government text; no redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Verbatim excerpt proposed by a research agent and checked by two independent fresh-context verifier agents and decided by a third adjudicating agent on 2026-10-04; re-matched mechanically by the integrator against a direct fetch of the cited expression. The rest of the definition (the compute condition, by reference to subdivision (i)) is paraphrased in the statement. The duty addressees in the qualification were checked in the same chaptered text: §§ 22757.12, 22757.13 and 22757.15 and Lab. Code § 1107.1. Human editorial review is pending. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. An exact framework edition states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), or a stated exception. The quoted text records what the edition says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.
Date. Provision as stated in the chaptered text published and approved on 2025-09-29; the added sections took effect on 2026-01-01. Text as chaptered on 2025-09-29; effective 2026-01-01. Codified § 22757.11, checked live on 2026-10-04, shows no amendment note.
Record ID sb-frontier-developer-definition