Some particularly noteworthy segments of Section 4.2 of the 10/30 AI Executive Order are as follows:
4.2. Ensuring Safe and Reliable AI.
(a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, to ensure and verify the continuous availability of safe, reliable, and effective AI in accordance with the Defense Production Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq., including for the national defense and the protection of critical infrastructure, the Secretary of Commerce shall require:
(i) Companies developing or demonstrating an intent to develop potential dual-use foundation models to provide the Federal Government, on an ongoing basis, with information, reports, or records regarding the following:
[...]
(ii) Companies, individuals, or other organizations or entities that acquire, develop, or possess a potential large-scale computing cluster to report any such acquisition, development, or possession, including the existence and location of these clusters and the amount of total computing power available in each cluster.
- - - - - - -
Some have suggested that the desired requirements (especially those regarding compute cluster and model development reporting) expand the authority of the Defense Production Act:
More concerningly, the EO contains a problematic expansion of the Defense Production Act. The DPA was originally enacted at the height of the Cold War to, as the bill’s longer title stated, “facilitate the production of goods and services necessary for the national security.” In recent decades, presidents have invoked the DPA for purposes well outside its original intent. The AI Executive Order unfortunately continues that trend, invoking the authority of the DPA to establish a comprehensive new regulatory framework on companies developing large AI models.
Thus, the question is whether regulations enacted as a result of or in the vein of Section 4.2 will be formally challenged in court by the end of 2024.
Resolution details: [Suggestions for exact resolution details—e.g., how far in the process a challenge needs to go—are welcome as long as they come soon. For now, I will default to any lawsuit being filed in a federal (or equivalent) court that receives at least one news article of coverage and specifically states the DPA is being over-extended or otherwise that the resulting regulations of Section 4.2 are not permissible.]