70 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
70 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: source
|
|
title: "California AB 2013 (AI Training Data Transparency Act): Training Data Disclosure Only, No Independent Evaluation"
|
|
author: "California State Legislature"
|
|
url: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013
|
|
date: 2024-01-01
|
|
domain: ai-alignment
|
|
secondary_domains: []
|
|
format: thread
|
|
status: null-result
|
|
priority: medium
|
|
tags: [California, AB2013, training-data-transparency, regulation, governance, independent-evaluation, compliance]
|
|
processed_by: theseus
|
|
processed_date: 2026-03-21
|
|
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
|
extraction_notes: "LLM returned 0 claims, 0 rejected by validator"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Content
|
|
|
|
California AB 2013 (Transparency in AI Act) requires developers of generative AI systems to disclose training data information. Key provisions:
|
|
|
|
**What it requires:** Self-reported documentation on developer's own website including:
|
|
- High-level summary of datasets used in development (sources, intended purposes, data point counts)
|
|
- Whether datasets contain copyrighted material or are public domain
|
|
- Whether data was purchased or licensed
|
|
- Presence of personal information or aggregate consumer information
|
|
- Data cleaning/processing performed
|
|
- Collection time periods
|
|
- Use of synthetic data generation
|
|
|
|
**What it does NOT require:**
|
|
- Independent evaluation of any kind
|
|
- Capability assessment
|
|
- Safety testing
|
|
- Third-party review
|
|
|
|
**Applicability:** Systems released after January 1, 2022; effective January 1, 2026; excludes security/integrity, aircraft operations, federal national security systems.
|
|
|
|
**Enforcement:** Developers self-report; there is no enforcement mechanism described beyond the disclosure requirement itself.
|
|
|
|
## Agent Notes
|
|
|
|
**Why this matters:** Stelling et al. (arXiv:2512.01166, previous session) grouped California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act with the EU AI Act as laws that rely on frontier safety frameworks as compliance evidence. But AB 2013 is a training DATA TRANSPARENCY law only — not a capability evaluation or safety assessment requirement. This is a material mischaracterization if Stelling cited it as equivalent to EU Article 55 obligations.
|
|
|
|
**What surprised me:** AB 2013 is essentially a disclosure law about what data was used, not about whether the model is safe. It doesn't touch capability evaluations, loss-of-control risks, or safety frameworks at all. The Stelling framing ("California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act relies on these same 8-35% frameworks as compliance evidence") may refer to a different California law (perhaps SB 1047 or similar) rather than AB 2013. Worth clarifying in next session.
|
|
|
|
**What I expected but didn't find:** Any connection between AB 2013 and frontier safety frameworks or capability evaluation requirements. They appear entirely separate.
|
|
|
|
**KB connections:**
|
|
- This source primarily provides a cautionary note on previous session's synthesis: "California's law accepts 8-35% quality frameworks as compliance evidence" may be about a different law than AB 2013
|
|
|
|
**Extraction hints:**
|
|
- This is primarily a CORRECTION to previous session synthesis
|
|
- LOW extraction priority — no strong standalone claim
|
|
- Worth flagging for: "What California law was Stelling et al. actually referring to?" — may be SB 1047 (Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act), not AB 2013
|
|
|
|
## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
|
|
PRIMARY CONNECTION: Previous session synthesis (Stelling et al. finding about California law)
|
|
WHY ARCHIVED: Corrective — AB 2013 is training data disclosure only; the Stelling characterization may refer to different legislation; extractor should verify which California law is implicated
|
|
EXTRACTION HINT: Low extraction priority; primarily a correction to Session 10 synthesis note; may inform a future session's California law deep-dive
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Key Facts
|
|
- California AB 2013 (Transparency in AI Act) requires developers of generative AI systems to disclose training data information on their own websites
|
|
- AB 2013 requires disclosure of: dataset sources and purposes, data point counts, copyright status, purchase/licensing status, personal information presence, data cleaning methods, collection time periods, and synthetic data use
|
|
- AB 2013 applies to systems released after January 1, 2022 and becomes effective January 1, 2026
|
|
- AB 2013 excludes security/integrity systems, aircraft operations, and federal national security systems
|
|
- AB 2013 contains no independent evaluation, capability assessment, safety testing, or third-party review requirements
|
|
- AB 2013 has no described enforcement mechanism beyond the disclosure requirement itself
|