"xAI "has not alleged that it actually uses datasets that are unique, that it has meaningfully larger or smaller datasets than competitors, or that it cleans its datasets in unique ways." Therefore, xAI is not likely to succeed on the merits of its Fifth Amendment claim."
""Nothing in the language of the statute suggests that California is attempting to influence Plaintiff's models' outputs by requiring dataset disclosure," Bernal wrote, addressing xAI's First Amendment concerns about the law targeting controversial or biased outputs from its Grok chatbot."
""No part of the statute indicates any plan to regulate or censor models based on the datasets with which they are developed and trained," Bernal wrote, clarifying that the law mandates transparency without controlling AI system outputs or developer speech."
A court rejected xAI's constitutional challenges to California's data disclosure law for AI systems. The company failed to prove its datasets were unique or proprietary compared to competitors, undermining its Fifth Amendment trade secret claim. Regarding First Amendment protections, the court found California's requirement to disclose data sources does not improperly regulate speech or attempt to control AI model outputs. The law simply mandates transparency about training data without dictating what developers can say about their methods. Despite xAI's concerns that disclosure requirements target controversial outputs from its Grok chatbot, the court determined the statute contains no language suggesting intent to regulate or censor models based on their training datasets.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]