Thread by @opensauceAI

Wow. Congress just tabled a bill that would *actually* kill open-source. This is easily the most aggressive legislative action on AI—and it was proposed by the GOP senator who slammed @finkd for Llama.

Here's how it works, and why it's different to anything before it.

1. The bill would ban the import of AI "technology or intellectual property" developed in the PRC. Conceivably, that would include downloading @deepseek_ai R1 / V3 weights. Penalty: up to 20 years imprisonment.

Now, there's an ongoing debate about whether weights are IP, but technology is defined broadly to mean:

> any "information, in tangible or intangible form, necessary for the development...or use of an item" and
> any "software [or] component" to "function AI".

Weights are squarely in scope, and potentially fundamental research too.

2. The bill would also ban the export of AI to an "entity of concern". Export means transmission outside the US, or release to a foreign person in the US.

E.g. Releasing Llama 4. Penalty? Also 20 years for a willful violation.

3. Separately, the bill would prohibit any collaboration with, or transferring research to, an "entity of concern". But entity of concern doesn't just include government agencies or PRC companies...

It includes *any* college, university, or lab organized under PRC law—and any person working on their behalf. E.g. An undergrad RA working on a joint conference paper.

The penalty for violating this provision is civil—$1M for an individual, $100M for a company, plus 3x damages. But the bill also makes it an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes—meaning any noncitizens (e.g. CAN / FR / UK) involved in the "transfer" could be deported.

The bill follows calls from e.g. @committeeonccp, @DarioAmodei and @alexandr_wang for stronger export controls. I don't seriously believe any of them want this outcome, at least for intangible weights, research or data. But something has clearly got lost in translation.

Whether you are pro / anti / indifferent to open models and open research, this bill is terrible signaling. It's an assault on scientific research and open innovation, and it's unprecedented. Here's why:

A. Unlike nearly every legislative / regulatory effort before it, this bill makes no distinction based on risk. No FLOP, capability, or cost thresholds. No open-source exemption. No directive to an agency to determine thresholds. Everything touching AI is swept into scope.

B. It includes "import" too. Not a single bill or rulemaking to date has tried to prohibit the "import" of AI technology from the PRC. My view is this was motivated by fears over @deepseek_ai's chat UI, not models, but the bill would include weights, software, or data.

C. Because a developer cannot reasonably KYC everyone who downloads open weights, and since it's a near-certainty that open weights would be obtained by an "entity of concern" (i.e. an RA in their dorm room), this would be the end of open model releases.

D. As a reminder that tech politics aren't settled, even post-Trump: this bill is a GOP bill. It goes beyond anything pursued by Biden, the EU, or California. Here's my lay of the land—this bill's effects on AI research would blow earlier reforms out of the water.

Indeed, Trump left in place Biden's export controls for model weights (for now) while @DavidSacks finishes his review. It's TBD how export controls will develop in the coming months.

TLDR: I'm a big fan of @HawleyMO's Big Tech scrutiny, but this bill would do untold damage to the little guy. It would require a police state to enforce, set back US research, and promote a global reliance on PRC technology.

@HawleyMO You can find the bill here:

Decoupling from China? More likely: decoupling the rest of the world from the US.hawley.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…