> The problem this year is the same as last year: it’s practically impossible to comply with this law. The bill demands information that often does not exist, and cannot realistically be obtained.

> Its definition of “developer” extends to anyone who makes a generative AI model available to Californians.

I get that this would burden up-and-coming companies that want to train new models, but in general I don't think it's a bad thing that a company needs to know where the material they train their model comes from, and know its copyright status, and if it's actually an impossible problem then maybe the whole system is unworkable. Assuming that model training isn't fundamentally considered fair use, how else can you approach this problem?