YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Kevin Frazier

Avatar
Lawfare contributor
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 (Jun 3, 2025)
Like Share on X 6mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote directly addresses a requirement that AI labs undergo annual independent third-party audits and criticizes it as impractical, costly, and "likely counterproductive," which clearly implies opposition to mandating such audits for major AI systems. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 16d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote criticizes the requirement that labs "hire an independent third party to complete an annual audit," saying there is a "shortage" of qualified auditors and that the audits would become "more onerous, more costly, and more bespoke"; it concludes, "This is disruptive and likely counterproductive." · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 16d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Lawfare’s article “Regulatory Misalignment and the RAISE Act” lists Kevin Frazier as the sole author and is dated Tuesday, June 3, 2025. The passage appears on the source page with the same wording as provided, except that the supplied quote uses an allowed omission marker ([...]) for intervening sentences between “more bespoke.” and “This is disruptive and likely counterproductive.” ([lawfaremedia.org](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/regulatory-misalignment-and-the-raise-act)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 16d ago
Disputed Lawfare’s June 3, 2025 article Regulatory Misalignment and the RAISE Act is by Kevin Frazier and contains the first paragraph exactly, but the submitted second paragraph is not verbatim: after “more bespoke.” the article includes two additional sentences before “This is disruptive and likely counterproductive.” Because those omissions are not marked with [...], the quote as given is materially altered. ([lawfaremedia.org](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/regulatory-misalignment-and-the-raise-act)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago
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 · 1mo ago
replying to Kevin Frazier