selekoa

A documentary history of machine intelligence.

Found and cross-checked by machines · How this works →

Comparison · 15 questions · 9 instruments

Laws compared

A cell records what a text requires of the parties it defines. It does not show that any developer falls within them, or complied.

What does each binding government instrument that addresses developers of frontier or general-purpose AI models say on the same questions? Each column is one instrument; each row is one question, worded so that it fits every instrument. The questions are Selekoa’s; an instrument’s own terms appear only in quotation marks. Some instruments address providers of services rather than developers, and the first row quotes the party each one defines.

The same kind of questions put to developers’ own frameworks: Compare frameworks →

Download every cell as CSV

Question Q10Adopted or signed

When was the instrument adopted, signed, approved or issued, according to its own text or official record?

Criterion: A date with its kind, quoted from the instrument or the official legislative or gazette record. Dates of other kinds (publication, entry into force) go in Q11 and Q12.

What the statuses mean
Stated
A passage of the instrument meets the question’s criterion as worded, however conditional or narrow its scope. The condition or scope is in the note.
Stated, partly
A passage has what the criterion asks for, but in a weaker form than the criterion’s own words: for example, a power (“may”) where the criterion asks for a duty (“shall”), or a duty without the deadline the question asks about.
Not found in the recorded search
No passage meeting the criterion was found. The cell lists the sections read, the search terms and every passage set aside, with the reason. It does not show that the instrument lacks such a provision elsewhere, or that no other law imposes one.
Does not apply
The question does not arise for this instrument, for the reason given (for example, there is no framework document whose publication could be asked about).

Four rules decide “partly” in borderline cases:

  1. An order to an agency to impose a duty counts as partly.
  2. Protection only by reference to another law counts as partly.
  3. “Without undue delay” counts as a stated deadline.
  4. Required security measures for model weights count as risk-management measures under Q03.

Every stated or partly cell quotes the instrument’s own text with its article, section or page; Chinese passages carry Selekoa’s working translation. Three cells give a paraphrase with its locator instead, and say so. A not-found cell lists the sections read, the terms searched and every passage set aside, with the reason.

Paraphrased with its locator, not quoted: quoting it would pass the source’s quotation limit, or the source’s length is not known.

Limits of this comparison
  • A cell records what the text requires of the parties it defines. It does not show that any named developer falls within them, or that anyone complied.
  • A not-found cell is bounded by its search: the sections read and the terms searched. Another provision, or another law, may still impose the duty.
  • The Code of Practice is a compliance route, not a law. Executive Order 14110 is revoked, and the BIS rule’s rescission was announced; each column shows its standing.
  • The table compares and does not rank. Statuses are not scores and are not to be summed.
  • Biological and chemical risk provisions are recorded at policy level only.
  • Dates keep their kind: adoption, signature, approval, publication, entry into force and application are different events. A computed date is marked as computed.
How we searched

The instruments started from those on the frameworks-and-law page. A column was kept where the instrument is binding, or is the AI Act’s stated means of compliance (the Code), and places duties on developers or providers of frontier or general-purpose AI models. Fifty other instruments on that page were set aside, each with its reason, in the research pack: proposed or vetoed texts, guidance and reports, voluntary commitments, binding texts that place no duty on developers, and one standard whose text was not retrieved (GB 45438-2025).

United Kingdom: within the searches made, no UK law or other binding instrument placing duties on developers of such models was located. This is not a finding that none exists. The 2024 King’s Speech announced an intent to legislate; the 2026 briefing notes contain none of the searched terms; the memoranda with developers state that they are not legally binding; and title searches of legislation.gov.uk for 2023 to 2026 found one instrument, which places a duty on the Information Commissioner.

Other US federal texts: as read, none places a binding duty on developers. Executive Order 14409 of 2 June 2026 provides for a voluntary access framework and says that its section 3 authorises no licensing requirement.

Not yet read: the Republic of Korea’s AI Basic Act, Japan’s AI Promotion Act (2025), China’s provisions on deep synthesis (2022) and on algorithm recommendation (2021), and Colorado SB 24-205 (2024). They are not in the dataset; a later pack starts with Korea.

Illinois: the act’s official website refused the preparer’s requests, and the Internet Archive reset the connections. The cross-family checker’s session saved the enacted text from an Internet Archive capture of the official PDF (2026-09-08), and the cells were drafted from that saved text. The two model families read the act independently and agreed on the status of 13 of 15 cells. The approval date rests on the checker’s copy of the official bill status record, which the preparer could not open; it is given as a paraphrase, labelled as that copy.

Texts were read in official copies: the EU texts through the Publications Office’s repository, because EUR-Lex returned empty responses; California SB 53 from the Legislative Counsel’s database file, because its website refused requests; New York’s chapters in the Senate print and the Assembly’s bill records, not the session laws; the Chinese measures in the gov.cn policy library. Six web pages served changed bytes between retrievals; every quotation still matched.

Roles: one model family (Claude) drafted the cells, audited 50 of them in a fresh context and adjudicated. A model from another family (GPT, through Codex) checked 122 items, answering 85 of them blind before seeing the drafted answers. Where it disagreed, its status was applied. One cell it disputed (Executive Order 14110, Q06) was settled as not found after its second pass. For Illinois the roles were reversed: the checker read the act first, blind, and the drafter then wrote all fifteen cells without seeing its answers. The maintainer decided the remaining questions, including the four rules for “partly” and Illinois Q05 (partly, as for California’s identical wording). No person has checked the cells against the texts.

European Union

  1. EU AI Act

    EU AI ActBinding regulation

    Stated

    • “Done at Brussels, 13 June 2024.”

      Closing formula following Article 113

    • “Done at Strasbourg, 8 July 2026.”

      Closing formula

    Note: Signature dates of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and of the amending Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. Publication dates (12.7.2024; 24.7.2026) are from the Official Journal headers and are not adoption dates.

    Inspect sources and checks

  2. EU Code of Practice, Safety and Security

    EU Code of Practice, Safety and SecurityCompliance route, not binding

    Not found in the recorded search

    Read
    Whole text, including the cover page with chair names (PDF p. 1), Objectives and Recitals (PDF pp. 2 to 5) and Glossary.
    Terms searched
    “2025”, “July”, “adopt(ed|ion) of (this|the) Code”, “published”.
    Passages read and set aside
    Measure 3.5 (PDF p. 14): 'Signatories will publish suitable criteria' concerns evaluator selection, not a date of the Code.

    Note: The PDF text carries no date of adoption, approval or issue. A publication date for the Code is recorded elsewhere in the dataset, not from this text.

    Open the search record

United States: states

  1. California SB 53

    California SB 53Binding statute

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The chaptered version's record lists the action of approval by the Governor, dated 29 September 2025.

      CAML record, caml:History (action APPROVED)

    Note: Approval by the Governor, 29 September 2025 (Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025); the same record gives FILED 2025-09-29 (filing with the Secretary of State). These are the Legislative Counsel database’s structured action fields; the printed approval line (“Approved by Governor September 29, 2025”) is in the chaptered text on the Legislature’s website, quoted in the dataset’s record of the approval.

    Inspect sources and checks

  2. New York RAISE Act (As amended, Chapter 96 of 2026)

    New York RAISE ActAs amended, Chapter 96 of 2026Binding statute; the amended duties take effect on 1 January 2027

    Stated

    • “03/27/2026 SIGNED CHAP.96”

      Actions list, final entry

    Note: Signature by the Governor, 27 March 2026, as Chapter 96 of 2026, according to the Assembly’s action list (delivered to the Governor 03/20/2026). The chapter as printed in the session laws was not inspected.

    Inspect sources and checks

  3. New York RAISE Act (As signed, Chapter 699 of 2025)

    New York RAISE ActAs signed, Chapter 699 of 2025Binding statute; the amended duties take effect on 1 January 2027

    Stated

    • “12/19/2025 SIGNED CHAP.699”

      Assembly bill record for S06953, Actions, entry 12/19/2025

    Note: Signature by the Governor, 19 December 2025, as Chapter 699 of 2025, according to the Assembly’s action list; the list also records delivery to the Governor on 12/09/2025 and an approval memo (APPROVAL MEMO.76) on the same day as signature.

    Inspect sources and checks

  4. Illinois AI Safety Measures Act

    Illinois AI Safety Measures ActBinding statute

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The Actions table lists approval by the Governor (Senate) on 6 July 2026.

      Actions table, “Governor Approved” row (checker’s copy)

    • Paraphrase: The Actions table lists passage by both houses (Senate) on 29 May 2026.

      Actions table, “Passed Both Houses” row (checker’s copy)

    Note: Approval by the Governor, 6 July 2026; passage by both houses, 29 May 2026 (official bill status record of SB 315). The act’s own text carries no date. The preparer could not open the record. The cell rests on the cross-family checker’s copy of it, read through an Internet Archive capture of 2026-07-31 and labelled as that copy; it is given as a paraphrase because the record’s length is not known. Executive Order 2026-07 (22 September 2026) states that the Governor signed the act, without a date; its date is the order’s, not the act’s.

    Inspect sources and checks

China

These measures address providers of services, not developers as such.

  1. China, generative AI services (2023)

    China, generative AI services (2023)Binding measures, addressed to service providers

    Stated

    • “2023年7月10日”

      Working translation: 10 July 2023

      Order No. 15 (令第15号), date line

    Note: Date of the order of seven authorities (国家互联网信息办公室, 国家发展和改革委员会, 教育部, 科学技术部, 工业和信息化部, 公安部, 国家广播电视总局), Order No. 15, issuing the Measures (gov.cn 成文日期 2023-07-10). The order also states that the Measures were deliberated and adopted at the 12th office meeting of 2023 of the Cyberspace Administration of China on 23 May 2023, with the agreement of the other six authorities (paraphrase, not quoted to save budget).

    Inspect sources and checks

  2. China, AI content labelling (2025)

    China, AI content labelling (2025)Binding measures, addressed to service providers and others

    Stated

    • “2025年3月7日”

      Working translation: 7 March 2025

      Notice, date line

    • “国信办通字〔2025〕2号”

      Working translation: Guoxinban Tongzi [2025] No. 2

      Notice header

    Note: Date of the notice of four authorities (国家互联网信息办公室, 工业和信息化部, 公安部, 国家广播电视总局) issuing (印发) the Measures to provincial-level counterparts (gov.cn 成文日期 2025-03-07).

    Inspect sources and checks

Revoked, or rescission announced

Kept as part of the record, each with its standing shown.

  1. US Executive Order 14110

    US Executive Order 14110Revoked by Executive Order 14148 (2025-01-20)

    Stated

    • “THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 2023.”

      88 FR 75226, signature block

    Note: Signature date as printed. Published in the Federal Register of 1 November 2023.

    Inspect sources and checks

  2. US BIS AI diffusion rule

    US BIS AI diffusion ruleRescission announced on 2025-05-13; no formal rescission rule inspected

    Not found in the recorded search

    Read
    Federal Register PDF, 90 FR 4544–4584: DATES, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections III and IV and Rulemaking Requirements; regulatory text §§ 740.27, 742.6(a)(13) and (b)(14), Supplement No. 10 to part 748 in full, ECCN 4E091 entry; signature and filing lines.
    Terms searched
    “Dated”, “signed”, “Filed”.
    Passages read and set aside
    Filing line, 90 FR 4584 (PDF p. 41): “FR Doc. 2025–00636 Filed 1–13–25”: the date of filing with the Office of the Federal Register, a publication-process date, not adoption, signature or issue; the signature block is undated.

    Note: No signature or issue date is printed; the rule is signed by the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration without a date. The filing line gives filing with the Office of the Federal Register on 13 January 2025; publication was on 15 January 2025 (ACTION line and masthead).

    Open the search record