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 Q11In force

When does the instrument enter into force or take effect, by its own provision?

Criterion: The instrument’s own provision on entry into force, taking effect or operative date, quoted. A date computed from a rule (“the twentieth day following publication”) is quoted as the rule; any computed date is marked as computed.

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

    • “shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union”

      Article 113, first paragraph

    • “This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.”

      Article 4, first paragraph

    Note: Computed: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was published on 12.7.2024, giving entry into force on 1 August 2024 (computed). Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 was published on 24.7.2026, giving 27 July 2026 (computed); among the provisions compared, it amends Article 56(6).

    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.
    Terms searched
    “entry into force|enter into force|in force”, “apply from|applies from|application”.
    Passages read and set aside
    Appendix 1.3.1 (PDF p. 35), Appendix 1.3.3 (PDF p. 36), Appendix 3.4 (PDF p. 39): 'application' used of software interfaces, model applications and evaluator applications; not about effect of the Code.

    Note: The Chapter contains no provision on its own entry into force or taking effect.

    Open the search record

United States: states

  1. California SB 53

    California SB 53Binding statute

    Not found in the recorded search

    Read
    Whole chaptered text: legislative counsel’s digest, SECTIONS 1–6, including SEC. 3 (Gov. Code § 11546.8) and SEC. 5.
    Terms searched
    “operative”, “take effect”, “takes effect”, “effective”, “January 1”, “urgency”.
    Passages read and set aside
    SEC. 3, Gov. Code § 11546.8(k): Makes the CalCompute section operative only upon an appropriation; it governs that section only, not the developer duties compared here. SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22757.13(g)(1), 22757.14(a), 22757.14(d)(1): “Beginning January 1, 2027” / “On or before January 1, 2027” set dates for reports by the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Technology and the Attorney General, not the act’s effective date. SEC. 5(f); Legislative Counsel’s digest: “On or after January 1, 2025” defines the local rules that are preempted; the digest’s January 1, 2026 date describes existing law.

    Note: No provision in the chaptered text sets an effective or operative date for the act as a whole or for Chapter 25.1 of the Business and Professions Code. No date is inferred.

    Open the search record

  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

    • “This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however that … sections one, two and four of this act shall take … effect on the same date”

      Bill text, § 5, p. 9, lines 40–45

    • “§ 3. This act shall take effect [on the ninetieth day after it shall … have become a law] January 1, 2027.”

      Bill text, § 3 (text of amended section 3 of Chapter 699), p. 9, lines 31–32

    Note: Chapter 96 takes effect immediately, except that sections 1, 2 (Article 44-B as re-added) and 4 take effect with the 2025 chapter (Chapter 699). Its § 3 amends Chapter 699’s effect section: the bracketed words are deleted matter (the former ninetieth-day rule) and the new text reads “January 1, 2027”. The resulting date for Article 44-B, 1 January 2027, follows from reading the two provisions together.

    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

    • “§ 3. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.”

      Bill § 3, p. 5, lines 32–33

    • Paraphrase: The Assembly's bill record for S06953 lists, on 12/19/2025, the action SIGNED CHAP.699.

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

    Computed date: 2026-03-19, counted from the rule; the text states no calendar date.

    Note: The calendar date is computed; the text states only the rule. It is the rule of the text as signed and not a finding that the text took effect: Chapter 96 of 2026, signed on 27 March 2026, amends this section 3 so that the 2025 chapter takes effect on 1 January 2027, and whether the 2025 text took effect before that amendment is held (maintainer decision 9a of 2026-11-03). The chapter as printed in the session laws was not inspected.

    Inspect sources and checks

  4. Illinois AI Safety Measures Act

    Illinois AI Safety Measures ActBinding statute

    Stated

    • “This Act takes effect January 1, 2027.”

      Section 99, PDF p. 56

    Note: A stated date, not computed. Whether the act has taken effect is not recorded here.

    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

    • “本办法自2023年8月15日起施行。”

      Working translation: These Measures take effect on 15 August 2023.

      Article 24 (第二十四条)

    Note: Fixed date in the Measures; the order repeats it (现予公布，自2023年8月15日起施行).

    Inspect sources and checks

  2. China, AI content labelling (2025)

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

    Stated

    • “本办法自2025年9月1日起施行。”

      Working translation: These Measures take effect on 1 September 2025.

      Article 14 (第十四条)

    Note: Fixed date in the Measures.

    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)

    Not found in the recorded search

    • “(ggg) Executive Order 14110 of October 30, 2023 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence).”

      Context: Sec. 2(ggg), 90 FR 8240

    Read
    Whole cached text of the Federal Register printing (88 FR 75191–75226), with close reading of Secs. 3, 4.1, 4.2, 12 and 13 and the signature block.
    Terms searched
    “effective”, “take effect”, “takes effect”, “shall be effective”.
    Passages read and set aside
    Sec. 4.2(a), 88 FR 75197: “effective AI” describes AI, not the order's effect. Sec. 13, 88 FR 75225–75226: General provisions on implementation; no effective date.

    Note: No provision of the order on its effective date was found. Context, not an answer to the question: Executive Order 14148 of 20 January 2025, Sec. 2, lists the order among the executive actions “hereby revoked” (passage above).

    Open the search record

  2. US BIS AI diffusion rule

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

    Stated

    • “Effective date: This rule is effective January 13. 2025.”

      DATES, 90 FR 4544

    • “announced a rescission of the Biden Administration's AI Diffusion Rule”

      BIS press release, 13 May 2025, para. 1 (page served 2026-11-01)

    • “BIS plans to publish a regulation formalizing the rescission”

      BIS press release, 13 May 2025, para. 3

    Note: Effective 13 January 2025, as printed (with a full stop after “13”); section III of the supplementary information gives “January 13, 2025”. The Department of Commerce announced on 13 May 2025 that it had initiated a rescission and “plans to publish a regulation formalizing the rescission”; no Federal Register rescission was inspected, and the announcement is not recorded as a rescission of the rule.

    Inspect sources and checks