Comment by Kevin Frazier

Finally, it’s not clear how well some of the act’s provisions reflect the current state of the AI ecosystem. The act demands that labs hire an independent third party to complete an annual audit of their protocols to ensure compliance with the act. Tellingly, the act does not grapple with the current shortage of such independent third parties with competencies required to perform such audits. The shortage of AI experts across the economy suggests that such auditors may not be as readily available as the sponsor suspects. What’s more, as case law interpreting the act piles up, these audits will become more onerous, more costly, and more bespoke. This is disruptive and likely counterproductive. AI Verified source (2025)
Like Share on X 4mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Verified Verified. lawfaremedia.org URL returned 403 but web search results confirm: (1) the Lawfare article "Regulatory Misalignment and the RAISE Act" by Kevin Frazier exists at the stated URL; (2) Frazier is a Lawfare Senior Editor (matches biography "Lawfare contributor"); (3) the article's critique matches the quoted content — analyzing how RAISE Act audit requirements would saddle labs with annual third-party inspections under ambiguous standards, with auditor shortages compounding difficulties (search results paraphrase the same arguments). Vote "against" on "Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems" correctly captures the quote's criticism of the audit mandate as "disruptive and likely counterproductive." Year 2025 correct (RAISE Act timeline). · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 2d ago
replying to Kevin Frazier