The DOI matches its Crossref record.
What’s Missing from the EU AI Act
Abstract
The AI Act negotiators may still have been recovering from the political deal that was struck during the night of December 8 to 9 when two days later Mistral AI, the French startup, open sourced its potent new large language model, Mixtral 8x7B. Though much smaller in size, it rivals and even surpasses GPT 3.5 on many benchmarks thanks to a cunning architecture combining eight different expert models. While a notable technical feat, this new release epitomizes the most pressing challenges in AI policy today, and starkly highlights the gaps left unaddressed by the AI Act: mandatory basic AI safety standards; the conundrum of open-source models; the environmental impact of AI; and the need to accompany the AI Act with far more substantial public investment in AI.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the PLD and the AIA are misaligned as the former requires evidence disclosure for all AI systems, whereas the AIA proposal mandates record-keeping obligations only for high-risk systems (Article 12, AIA) [13].”
From Generative AI in EU law: Liability, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity (2024) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Generative AI in EU law: Liability, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity
Novelli, C., Casolari, F., Hacker, P., Spedicato, G., & Floridi, L. (2024) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106066 · Cited by 124
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hacker, P.
- Publisher
- Front Matter
- Published
- 2023-12-13
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What’s Missing from the EU AI Act. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.59704/3f4921d4a3fbeeee
- The paper
- Hacker, P. (2023). What’s Missing from the EU AI Act. https://doi.org/10.59704/3f4921d4a3fbeeee
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
