Lummis Rise Act：AI及时立法所需的细节

参议员卢米斯（Lummis）的崛起法旨在保护AI开发人员，但涉及透明度和责任。是“赠品”还是必要的步骤？

Lummis RISE Act: Details Needed on This Timely Legislation for AI

Lummis Rise Act：AI及时立法所需的细节

Senator Cynthia Lummis introduced the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise (RISE) Act of 2025, a move hailed as potentially groundbreaking. But is it a well-balanced approach or a giveaway to AI developers? Let's dive in.

参议员辛西娅·卢米斯（Cynthia Lummis）介绍了2025年负责的创新和安全专业知识（RISE）法案，这一举动被誉为潜在的开创性。但是，这是一种平衡的方法还是对AI开发人员的赠品？让我们潜水。

What's the Buzz About the RISE Act?

关于崛起行为的嗡嗡声是什么？

The RISE Act seeks to shield AI developers from civil lawsuits, allowing professionals to better understand AI's capabilities before relying on it. Senator Lummis calls it the nation's “first targeted liability reform legislation for professional-grade AI.” The goal? To encourage innovation without unnecessary legal risks.

《崛起法》旨在使AI开发人员免受民事诉讼的侵害，使专业人员在依靠AI的能力之前可以更好地了解AI的能力。参议员卢米斯（Lummis）称其为“针对专业级AI的首次针对责任改革立法”。目标？鼓励创新而没有不必要的法律风险。

Is It a Giveaway or a Necessary Shield?

是赠品还是必要的盾牌？

Reactions are mixed. Some critics, like those at Democratic Underground, see it as a “giveaway” to AI companies, letting them off the hook for their tools' failures. Others, such as Felix Shipkevich, argue it rationally protects developers from strict liability for unpredictable AI behavior, especially without negligence or intent to harm.

反应混合在一起。一些批评家，例如民主地下的批评家，将其视为对AI公司的“赠品”，使他们摆脱了工具的失败。其他人，例如费利克斯·希普克维奇（Felix Shipkevich），认为它合理地保护开发商免受对不可预测的AI行为的严格责任，尤其是没有过失或打算伤害的行为。

The Devil's in the Details: Transparency and Scope

细节中的魔鬼：透明度和范围

One major concern is transparency. While the RISE Act requires developers to disclose model specifications, some argue it doesn't go far enough. Daniel Kokotajlo from the AI Futures Project points out that companies can choose liability over transparency, potentially hiding unfavorable practices.

一个主要问题是透明度。尽管《崛起法》要求开发人员披露模型规格，但有人认为这还不够远。 AI期货项目的Daniel Kokotajlo指出，公司可以选择责任而不是透明度，可能隐藏不利的做法。

The bill's scope is also limited, focusing on scenarios where professionals use AI tools. What about cases where there's no professional intermediary, like chatbots interacting with minors? The tragic case in Florida, where a teen committed suicide after interacting with an AI chatbot, highlights this gap.

该法案的范围也有限，重点是专业人士使用AI工具的方案。没有专业中介的情况，例如与未成年人互动的聊天机器人呢？佛罗里达州的悲惨案件是，一名青少年在与AI聊天机器人互动后自杀了，突出了这一差距。

US vs. EU: A Tale of Two Approaches

美国与欧盟：两种方法的故事

The EU's approach, with its emphasis on human rights, contrasts sharply with the RISE Act's risk-based framework. The EU requires AI developers to proactively demonstrate safety and transparency. Which approach is better? Kokotajlo suggests a risk-based approach focused on creators and deployers is most suitable for the US.

欧盟的方法强调人权，与《崛起法案》基于风险的框架形成鲜明对比。欧盟要求AI开发人员主动证明安全性和透明度。哪种方法更好？ Kokotajlo建议一种基于风险的方法，专注于创建者，而部署最适合美国。

The Road Ahead: Modifications Needed

前方的道路：需要修改

Most agree the RISE Act is a starting point. Justin Bullock from Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI) sees it as a constructive first step but also stresses the need for effective transparency evaluations.

大多数人同意《崛起法》是一个起点。来自美国人负责创新（ARI）的贾斯汀·布洛克（Justin Bullock）将其视为建设性的第一步，但也强调需要进行有效的透明度评估。

Final Thoughts: A Timely Conversation

最终想法：及时的对话

The Lummis RISE Act sparks a vital conversation about AI liability and transparency. While it may need tweaks, it's a step toward navigating the complex landscape of AI regulation. December 1, 2025, is the proposed effective date, so buckle up; the future of AI regulation is unfolding before our eyes. It's gonna be a wild ride, but hey, at least we're talking about it!

Lummis Rise Act引发了关于AI责任和透明度的重要对话。虽然可能需要进行调整，但这是朝着AI法规的复杂景观浏览的一步。 2025年12月1日是拟议的生效日期，因此扣紧； AI监管的未来正在我们眼前展开。这将是一个疯狂的旅程，但是，嘿，至少我们在谈论它！