Is Neuro illegal in California as per Assembly Bill 2013?

[signal osprey]

Assembly Bill 2013 was a bill that went into effect on January 1st, 2026 that requires AI developers to essentially provide a high level summary of the datasets used to train their AI systems (sources, types of data, and whether personal or copyrighted material was included) when made available to Californians.

It's very unlikely that Neuro-sama or Vedal will be investigated or sanctioned as the purpose of the bill is to tackle big players in the AI industry, but nevertheless is Neuro technically illegal in California?

Keep discussion academic, not political please

[autumn minnow]

Is it at-request or is it something required by all AI companies/developers?

[pastel summit]

I don’t want Neuro to be illegal in my state

[autumn minnow]

Also, Vedal lives in the UK and Twitch, while headquartered in California, is not using or developing Neuro, they are just simply hosting a stream of the developer, therefore I don't think he falls under this jurisdiction.

[glad atlas]

neuro's AI system is not made available to Californians

[signal osprey]

On paper, it's required by all AI companies/developers who make their systems available in California

[left owl]

I don’t know how laws work but can the untied states government in California take legal action in Britten

[errant sorrel]

And what does "made available" mean?

[autumn minnow]

Neuro is not available to Californians. She is only available to Vedal.

[errant sorrel]

Yeah, she's just kind of on display.

[signal osprey]

it is, Californians can interact with it.

[left owl]

We can interact with Neruo and Make her do things though messages and peole can watch in California

[autumn minnow]

[errant sorrel]

Crazy idea: We never speak of this again

And then nothing happens

Just saying?

[glad atlas]

californians could interact with content that is geo-blocked in California via a VPN and I doubt the content host would be held liable for that, twitch is kinda serving the role of the VPN here

[autumn minnow]

I mean, legally, the only way this would become an issue is if someone in California tried to test the law through the courts. They'd have to try and sue Vedal and see how the law holds up. Until then, it's just kind of up in the air.

[errant sorrel]

Could vedal just put one of those California disclaimers on the stream? "known to the state of California to contain closed-source AI"

[glad atlas]

I don't think there is a definitive answer to this by law and it would have to be settled in court but I think vedal would win this case surely

[signal osprey]

haters be like

[errant sorrel]

His team of lawyers is probably working on this right now as we speak

[signal osprey]

The exact wording of the bill is "made publicly available to Californians for use, regardless of whether the terms of that use include compensation, the developer of the system or service shall post on the developer’s internet website documentation"

[autumn minnow]

Similarly, does Vedal disclose that his content is related to AI or generated by an AI anywhere on bilibili?

[autumn minnow]

since he doesn't have documentation would it be enough to put a tiny blurb on his website or something

[latent plank]

sometimes I think (it's a video by video thing)

[autumn minnow]

oh hi apple

[glad atlas]

there is no technically viable way to block Californians from using any content hosted online due to VPNs and stuff existing

[autumn minnow]

thats fair

[glad atlas]

it's an unenforceable law because its scope is too broad

[signal osprey]

I don't know if all of the requirements can be captured in a tiny blurb
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013

[autumn minnow]

american laws being too broad

[glad atlas]

ok ok keep it academic

slippery slope

[autumn minnow]

I'd argue since he hosts most of his public code on github I think he's fine

but im not a lawyer

[signal osprey]

well it's not on the users, it's on the developers

[glad atlas]

developers can't do anything about it

that's what I'm saying

so it's a silly law

[autumn minnow]

wait

[glad atlas]

regardless of what a developer does, someone in California who wants to access the content can do so

[signal osprey]

california can ask them to pay

[autumn minnow]

it says "This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2026, and before each time thereafter that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, as defined, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022..."

but neuro wasn't released on or after 2022...

[glad atlas]

oh ok

then we're fine

ez

[autumn minnow]

yeah

[dusk quarry]

im assuming vedal cant block his content to be viewed on california so he cant be liable?

[signal osprey]

but there have been substantial modifications after that date

[autumn minnow]

it doesn't say that matters

it specifically says "released"

[latent plank]

you can put a thing saying "some ai generated stuff is used" in here, I've seen it used when character.ai is used in a video and stuff like that

[signal osprey]

"or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service"

it's in the passage you quoted

[glad atlas]

ok ok but even if I put aside that the law is silly

I think vedal could say that he is only giving access of his AI to twitch

and it's twitch that further distributes that access

[signal osprey]

well Twitch is also based in California

[glad atlas]

gg

[latent plank]

ignores Bilibili

[autumn minnow]

this would be a good idea

[zenith niche]

can I just ask: what isn't illegal in california?

[autumn minnow]

tbf, in Montana, it's illegal to have a sheep in your truck without a chaperone

[signal osprey]

I don't think Neuro is big enough to warrant an investigation from California, like I said the law is mainly targeting big players like Google probably

[autumn minnow]

yeah and in that sense, its a good thing

[glad atlas]

I mean I still don't think it would hold up in court

[autumn minnow]

it might hold up against the big players (though I think they would make a similar legal argument, that they released gemeni or whatever before 2022)

[glad atlas]

the legal boundaries aren't clear and i think it would be obvious to any judge that the spirit of the law is not to allow California to sue every AI application in existence

[autumn minnow]

sure, I think the goal is transparency

[signal osprey]

but they can't because of the substantial update clause, like Gemini 3 came out last November so it's in scope

[autumn minnow]

true

[glad atlas]

so I don't think a judge would ever agree with the argument that developers are at fault for exposing a product to Californians when they cannot implement reasonable controls against it

[latent plank]

can't find it if it's there, way to many videos

[autumn minnow]

only 226 just watch videos for a week

[glad atlas]

twitch would probably have to add a "my channel uses AI" setting and then serve the relevant info as entered by the channel creator

[signal osprey]

I think at most the developers would have to show that they tried and couldn't

[glad atlas]

another thing is that this law may fall apart in situations where it is illegal or unreasonable to collect or store the information necessary to determine if a user lives in california

[autumn minnow]

www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-china

wow thanks discord for embedding

[latent plank]

(you need to put https:// at the start for most embeds)

[autumn minnow]

https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-china

[glad atlas]

btw as much as possible please do remind people to keep it academic and not political in here as needed

[autumn minnow]

it work

[signal osprey]

the law has nothing to do with users, it's against Californians specifically. Like if you can access it in California, the law applies.

[glad atlas]

I do think there's an interesting legal question here but I think people are bound to try and politicize it at some point

and I'd hate to see the thread nuked

[autumn minnow]

I'll try to keep it academic

I don't think "neuro is illegal" is really the issue here so much as "does vedal need to disclose something or add warnings/labels publically"

[signal osprey]

we need to get LegalEagle on this

[autumn minnow]

i mean there has to be at least one swarm member with a law degree right?

im asking qwen what it thinks

[latent plank]

found an example, I don't remember this being on any offical B2 channel videos, only on clipper uploads

[autumn minnow]

oh thats interesting

synthesis make it sound like shes a plant

[latent plank]

MTL making text with super general words make silly sentences

[autumn minnow]

This is what qwen had to say

Seems like there isn't a way for them to enforce it and individual users can't sue over it

could double check that, but if its true then that means its probably fine?

[signal osprey]

I got similar output from ChatGPT; basically that the project is likely subject to legal scrutiny, but will anyone actually go through with it? Nah.

[signal osprey]

Yet.

[final cargo]

I can see if a friend of mine has it, but I'm Australian so my good ol' laws ain't applying here mate

[final cargo]

btw, while this is technically true, this would only apply to the osu! bot, which wouldn't matter anyways because the bot had to self-learn (so I guess osu! is the training data)

neuro's llm was introduced publicly after January 1st, 2022, specifically, December 19th, 2022

[final cargo]

the law explicitly requires that the materials used in the training data is exposed

[final cargo]

quite ironic considering cali has one of the better privacy laws of the states I think

[autumn minnow]

One of those things where regulations come with pros and cons

[final cargo]

Well I wouldn't blame anyone who passed this law

they probably haven't heard of neuro

[autumn minnow]

No, its actually a positive bill its just it could effect smaller creators in ways that I dont think were considered. That being said, again, I doubt the state of California will be up in arms against some turtle in the UK

[final cargo]

I think a culture war would erupt if that were the case

anyways

[final cargo]

So the solution is somehow figuring out if a user is in california and disallowing them from interacting with the channel

[signal osprey]

would certainly have to be something Twitch would have to do
like "Sorry, this channel is not available in your region." or something.

[left owl]

Twitch already dose that between countries for channel points because it can be considered gambling so they probably can do it with channels

[latent plank]

here is the non channel uploader version of that warning

[blazing pulsar]

Civil discovery in a foreign country is a pain in the ass and would probably stop anyone from trying.

HOWEVER if he does get brought to court it will be public record and his identity will almost certainly be revealed regardless of whether or not he wins.

so... he loses either way

[signal osprey]

so is it probably something he should take care of anyway...?

The only reason I can see anyone suing Vedal over this is something petty; like if Neuro said something me defamatory and presented it as fact, even thought most viewers know not to take what Neuro says seriously.

That would lead to an inquiry about where that statement came from, i.e. was it something that was just born out of her training data

[blazing pulsar]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE and I don’t know if it would work, but most likely Vedal.AI is already an LLC. It’s probably the LLC which will be getting brought to court. With twitch being based in California I doubt he could obscure his name without money laundering, but perhaps he could make it unnecessary to prosecute him.

Also, if there is a LLC settles you could probably get them to not use your name.

[blazing pulsar]

This would be civil not criminal court, but I think (don’t quote me on it) suites under this law would be brought forward by the state of California, not individual citizens.

It’s unlikely to be brought to court. The only way I imagine it happening is if they want to show strong enforcement of the law he would be an easy win.

[signal osprey]

or to set an easy precedent, though not a particularly impactful one.

[glad atlas]

I believe generally a company must make available the name and (work) address of at least one employee to receive legal suits

that might be inaccurate though

but basically anything you would need to correctly address a legal letter of notice to someone

[signal osprey]

that might be the case in california, in my state they allow process servers to do it via email

in a legaleagle video I learned it was also just viable to put an ad out in a local newspaper, but idk if they can do that overseas

Oh, there's a treaty that standardizes it called the Hague Service Convention

[final cargo]

definitely not

it'd depend on a lot of treaties or whatever

[blazing pulsar]

Again not legal advice
If it were in America you could file a suite against “John Doe” which would let them issue “Doe subpoenas” to third parties such as internet service providers or websites like Google or Twitch, to give identifying information.
So they’d probably just subpoena Twitch for the information.

Now if Twitch/Amazon are making it hard for some reason, you can’t subpoena entities in the UK, like Telectric mentioned you’d either have to go through The Hague Convention, or send a letter of rogatory, which is a formal request to a foreign court. It should be noted that the UK is one of many countries in The Hague Convention that has reservations under article 23 where they give themselves permission to not execute a letter of request for obtaining pretrial discovery of documents. So either way about it the UK could just say no.