Musk blockiert nicht das kalifornische Datenoffenlegungsgesetz, von dem er befürchtet, dass es xAI ruinieren wird | Musk kann die Richter nicht davon überzeugen, dass es der Öffentlichkeit egal ist, woher die KI-Trainingsdaten stammen

Some of the key issues:

>Elon Musk’s xAI has lost its bid for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily blocked California from enforcing a law that requires AI firms to publicly share information about their training data.
>
>xAI had tried to argue that California’s Assembly Bill 2013 (AB 2013) forced AI firms to disclose carefully guarded trade secrets.
>
>The law requires AI developers whose models are accessible in the state to clearly explain which dataset sources were used to train models, when the data was collected, if the collection is ongoing, and whether the datasets include any data protected by copyrights, trademarks, or patents. Disclosures would also clarify whether companies licensed or purchased training data and whether the training data included any personal information. It would also help consumers assess how much synthetic data was used to train the model, which could serve as a measure of quality.
>
>However, this information is precisely what makes xAI valuable, with its intensive data sourcing supposedly setting it apart from its biggest rivals, xAI argued. Allowing enforcement could be “economically devastating” to xAI, Musk’s company argued, effectively reducing “the value of xAI’s trade secrets to zero,” xAI’s complaint said. Further, xAI insisted, these disclosures “cannot possibly be helpful to consumers” while supposedly posing a real risk of gutting the entire AI industry.
>
>…
>
>However, in an order issued on Wednesday, US District Judge Jesus Bernal said that xAI failed to show that California’s law, which took effect in January, required the company to reveal any trade secrets.
>
>xAI’s biggest problem was being too vague about the harms it faced if the law was not halted, the judge said. Instead of explaining why the disclosures could directly harm xAI, the company offered only “a variety of general allegations about the importance of datasets in developing AI models and why they are kept secret,” Bernal wrote, describing X as trading in “frequent abstractions and hypotheticals.”
>
>He denied xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction while supporting the government’s interest in helping the public assess how the latest AI models were trained.
>
>The lawsuit will continue, but xAI will have to comply with California’s law in the meantime.
>
>…
>
>On the Fifth Amendment claim, the judge said it’s not that training data could never be considered a trade secret. It’s just that xAI “has not identified any dataset or approach to cleaning and using datasets that is distinct from its competitors in a manner warranting trade secret protection.”
>
>“It is not lost on the Court the important role of datasets in AI training and development, and that, hypothetically, datasets and details about them could be trade secrets,” Bernal wrote. But xAI “has not alleged that it actually uses datasets that are unique, that it has meaningfully larger or smaller datasets than competitors, or that it cleans its datasets in unique ways.”
>
>…
>
>The same goes for First Amendment arguments. xAI failed to show that the law improperly “forces developers to publicly disclose their data sources in an attempt to identify what California deems to be ‘data riddled with implicit and explicit biases,’” Bernal wrote.
>
>…
>
>Perhaps most frustrating for xAI as it continues to fight to block the law, Bernal also disputed that the public had no interest in the training data disclosures.
>
>“It strains credulity to essentially suggest that no consumer is capable of making a useful evaluation of Plaintiff’s AI models by reviewing information about the datasets used to train them and that therefore there is no substantial government interest advanced by this disclosure statute,” Bernal wrote.
>
>He noted that the law simply requires companies to alert the public about information that can feasibly be used to weigh whether they want to use one model over another.
>
>…
>
>Moving forward, xAI seems to face an uphill battle to win this fight. It will need to gather more evidence to demonstrate that its datasets or cleaning methods are sufficiently unique to be considered trade secrets that give the company a competitive edge.
>
>It will also likely have to deepen its arguments that consumers don’t care about disclosures and that the government has not explored less burdensome alternatives that could “achieve the goal of transparency for consumers,” Bernal suggested.

As this (and likely other) lawsuit(s) continue to wind through the courts, it remains to be seen whether any of these kinds of objections will succeed, or whether the law will largely hold firm. If the latter, then it will be interesting to see if other states follow suit.

Nevada and Texas will be getting a lot of these jobs I bet

Hmmm, lets shave with Occam’s Razor:

Does Elon want to keep xAI’s data sources secret because they are so much better at finding training materials than other AI companies?

Or does Elon want to keep xAI’s data sources secret because many of them are copyright infringing or illegal, like the DOGE Social Security dataset that got copied by his henchmen?

Look we stole proprietary data fair and square. Make us pay for that data now will devastate the company financially. – Musk probably

It’s basically the old „we’re rich so the law doesn’t apply to us“ argument. Imagine a regular joe schmo making this argument in court. I guess Musk would download a car.