Well, I mean, the alternative is for a US-based process to be put into place, followed (or led) by an EU process. The premise of my comment is that no matter who hosts the process, China isn't going to comply, so it really just comes down to the US and Europe.

And the US isn't going to comply either. Just like it never recognized the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In that respect it's at least as bad as China.

What?

There are over 190 nations in the UN. Even if we assume a chunk have no credible claim whatsoever, that’s still well over a hundred.

There are not in fact 100 nations that will seriously contend for frontier models.

You need to re-read the comment chain. Nobody claimed so many nations would contend for frontier models.

I’m talking about training data, and so is the parent.

The only jurisdictions where training data is going to matter are in the US, Europe, and China. I think we're just talking past each other. My subtextual point is that none of this is ever going to happen.

This really makes no sense, as if half the words in the reply were garbled.

e.g. How is whether the training data from this or that jurisdiction “matter”, or not, even relevant to my comment?

I haven’t even thought of any specific “matter” enough threshold to evaluate that.

There are legal matters and ethical matters being discussed. Legally, it does not matter. Ethically, it does.