We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Kevin Frazier
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
(2025)
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