EU · binding regulation
EU AI Act
EU-AIA-2024
Treatment of Compute-Threshold Reporting
governsArt. 52 + Annex XIII (10²⁵ FLOP presumption)
Primary source: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
Comparative jurisdictional memo · Compute-Threshold Reporting
EU AI Act vs UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper)
Verdict: asymmetricDownload PDF
UK · policy statement
UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper)
UK-WHITEPAPER-2023
Treatment of Compute-Threshold Reporting
silentVoluntary AISI testing instead; no statutory reporting
Primary source: CP 815 (2023)
What this comparison shows
On the topic of Compute-Threshold Reporting, EU AI Act is classified as governs and UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper) as silent. The editorial verdict is asymmetric. One regime addresses the topic explicitly while the other covers it only implicitly or not at all; this is a likely site of regulatory arbitrage and a candidate for comparative-law follow-up.
Contested question: Are compute thresholds (10²⁵ FLOPs EU, 10²⁶ FLOPs US) a defensible proxy for governance-relevant capability, given algorithmic-efficiency improvements? Field is split.
Bibliography
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — EU AI Act.
- CP 815 (2023) — UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper).
- Policy Window — Compute-Threshold Reporting (cross-jurisdiction topic article with full 26-instrument coverage matrix).