From last Wednesday's decision in X.AI LLC v. Bonta, by Judge Jesus Bernal (C.D. Cal.):
Assembly Bill 2013 …, entitled "Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency" requires developers of "a generative artificial intelligence system or service" that is "publicly available to Californians for use" to "post on the developer's internet website documentation regarding the data used by the developer to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service." The documentation must include "[a] high-level summary of the datasets used in the development of the generative artificial intelligence system or service" addressing, but not limited to, twelve enumerated topics. Those topics include:
(1) The sources or owners of the datasets.
(2) A description of how the datasets further the intended purpose of the artificial intelligence system or service.
(3) The number of data points included in the datasets, which may be in general ranges, and with estimated figures for dynamic datasets.
(4) A description of the types of data points within the datasets….
(5) Whether the datasets include any data protected by copyright, trademark, or patent, or whether the datasets are entirely in the public domain.
(6) Whether the datasets were purchased or licensed by the developer.
(7) Whether the datasets include personal information ….
(8) Whether the datasets include aggregate consumer information ….
(9) Whether there was any cleaning, processing, or other modification to the datasets by the developer, including the intended purpose of those efforts in relation to the artificial intelligence system or service.
(10) The time period during which the data in the datasets were collected, including a notice if the data collection is ongoing.
(11) The dates the datasets were first used during the development of the artificial intelligence system or service.
(12) Whether the generative artificial intelligence system or service used or continuously uses synthetic data generation in its development….
The court concluded that the law likely didn't violate the First Amendment. It first concluded that the law likely compelled speech only in the context of commercial speech:
