Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.
California SB 53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act
SB 53 requires "large frontier developers" (developers of the most compute-intensive models above statutory thresholds) to publish a frontier AI framework describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, publish transparency reports when deploying new frontier models, report critical safety incidents to the California Office of Emergency Services, and protect employees who report safety concerns. It also directs creation of a public computing cluster ("CalCompute").
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
A broad online-safety act that covers frontier developers, AI companions, AI in employment and synthetic content. Its frontier provisions bar retaliation against whistleblowers and require large frontier developers to set up an anonymous internal reporting process and report to their boards quarterly; no duty to publish a safety framework or transparency report was found.
In force 1 Oct 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The EU AI Act is a binding regulation that sets rules for developing, placing on the market and using AI systems in the European Union. It bans a small set of practices considered unacceptable, imposes detailed requirements on "high-risk" AI systems used in areas such as employment, education, credit, essential services, law enforcement and safety-critical products, requires transparency for chatbots and synthetic content, and creates separate duties for providers of general-purpose AI models. Obligations apply in phases between 2025 and 2028.
Applies from 2 Aug 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Illinois's frontier-AI safety and transparency law, built on the model of California SB 53: large frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework and update it every year, publish a transparency report when they deploy a new or substantially modified frontier model, report critical safety incidents to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security, and protect whistleblowing employees. Unlike the California and New York laws, it also requires annual independent third-party audits, with a published summary.
Adopted 6 Jul 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
New York Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act (S.6953-B / A.6453-B, signed December 2025)
The RAISE Act requires large developers of frontier AI models (defined by training compute and revenue thresholds) to publish and follow a safety and security protocol, report critical safety incidents to the state within a set period, not deploy models that create unreasonable risk of critical harm, and submit to Attorney General enforcement with civil penalties; the chapter amendments create a state oversight office and align definitions with California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act.
Applies from 1 Jan 2027Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The Bletchley Declaration by countries attending the AI Safety Summit, 1–2 November 2023
Signed by countries including the United States, China, the EU, India, Japan and Brazil, the declaration recognises the opportunities of AI and the risks of frontier models, commits signatories to cooperate on identifying AI safety risks and building risk-based policies, and launched the summit series continued in Seoul (2024) and Paris (2025) and the network of AI safety institutes.
Adopted 1 Nov 2023Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Hiroshima Process International Code of Conduct for Organizations Developing Advanced AI Systems (G7, 30 October 2023)
Eleven voluntary actions for organisations developing the most advanced AI systems, including foundation and generative models: risk identification and mitigation across the lifecycle, post-deployment vulnerability and incident monitoring, public transparency reports, responsible information sharing, security controls, content authentication such as watermarking, research on societal risks, priority to global challenges, technical standards, and data-input and personal-data safeguards. It sits alongside the Hiroshima Process guiding principles and, from 2025, an OECD-run voluntary reporting framework.
Adopted 30 Oct 2023Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Anything a government or standards body has actually issued: acts, regulations, executive orders, rules, national strategies, frameworks, guidance, codes of practice, voluntary standards and open consultations. Each record states which of those it is, whether it binds anyone, and links the official source it was read from.
Are these records legally verified?
A record is marked verified only after a named reviewer has opened its official source and confirmed each field. Anything that has not been through that carries "pending review" on the record itself, and the data-health document reports the current totals. Nothing here is legal advice.
How current is the information?
Every record carries the date its source document was published and the date it was last checked. A record not re-checked within the freshness window set by the verification policy is flagged as stale rather than quietly presented as current.
Can I reuse this data?
Yes. The records are published under CC BY 4.0 with attribution, and are available as CSV, newline-delimited JSON and a read-only REST API that needs no key. Cite the record URL, the date accessed and the official source alongside it.
