The pretraining paradigm is breaking. AI regulation isn't ready.

The regulatory architecture taking shape around frontier AI rests on a bet that may already be losing. Nearly every major framework — the EU AI Act, US export controls on advanced chips, the UK’s promised frontier AI bill — targets the scale of pretraining as the primary choke point for capability growth. But as Nicholas Caputo argues in a paper published on arXiv in January 2025, that assumption is eroding. If the pretraining paradigm ends while AI progress continues through other pathways, the new legal order will become misaligned with the technology it aims to govern.

Caputo, a researcher at the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, lays out the problem plainly. Current regulation assumes that increasing model scale through pretraining is the path to more advanced capabilities. This assumption shapes core mechanisms: the EU AI Act’s 10^25 FLOPs threshold for triggering GPAI obligations, US export controls on microchips, and enforcement strategies that track compute and energy as proxies for capability. The pretraining paradigm has been useful for regulators because it creates conditions of relative transparency, predictability, and centralization. Scaling requires massive, traceable resources. Scaling laws roughly predict what a given run will produce. Governments can focus on a small number of well-resourced companies.

That picture is changing. Caputo cites reporting that leading frontier AI companies have struggled to build the next generation of models through further scaling pretraining. Ilya Sutskever and other leading researchers argue that scaling pretraining is hitting a wall imposed by the limited supply of good training data. Even if the data wall has not been hit yet, the exponential demands of scaling mean resource constraints will begin to bite in the coming years. At the same time, frontier capabilities continue to improve. OpenAI’s o-series reasoning models, released in late 2024, achieved better benchmark scores through inference-time computation rather than larger pretraining runs.

The decoupling of scaling pretraining and capabilities improvements is the central regulatory problem. If the pretraining paradigm ends but rapid AI progress endures, the laws being worked out around the globe will lose their effectiveness just as risk from new development pathways intensifies. Caputo introduces the concept of the “pretraining frontier” — the capabilities ceiling on scaling pretraining alone imposed by current resource constraints. Moving beyond that frontier will require alternative approaches: inference-time reasoning, algorithmic innovations, synthetic data, or architectural changes. Each of these pathways is harder to monitor, harder to predict, and open to a wider range of actors than massive pretraining runs.

This creates a structural mismatch. The EU AI Act’s compute threshold, for example, was designed to capture the most capable models at the point of training. But a model that gains its capabilities primarily through inference-time computation could fall below that threshold while still posing significant risks. Export controls on advanced training chips may miss the systems that matter most if inference hardware becomes the binding constraint. The regulatory field becomes more diffuse, with more actors pursuing diverse approaches and new risks emerging.

Caputo’s analysis is not a critique of regulation itself. He is clear that the pretraining paradigm allowed regulation to be relatively focused and light-touch, targeting well-resourced companies rather than users. Those virtues should be replicated in the new capabilities paradigm. The question is how.

The paper offers several paths forward. First, increasing transparency. Regulators need better visibility into what models can actually do, not just how they were trained. This means mandatory evaluations of deployed capabilities, not just compute thresholds. Second, monitoring new inputs. If pretraining compute becomes a less reliable proxy, regulators should track data quality and sourcing, inference compute, and algorithmic innovation. Third, enhancing regulatory capacity. Caputo argues that governments need technical expertise to evaluate systems built on unfamiliar architectures and to understand what kinds of capability gains are possible through reasoning or other post-training methods.

These recommendations are concrete but underspecified. Caputo acknowledges that more work is needed to flesh out which paths to take. The paper is an essay, not a legislative blueprint. Its value is in naming the problem clearly and early, before the current regulatory frameworks are fully locked in.

The timing matters. The EU AI Act’s GPAI provisions come into force this summer. The Trump administration rescinded Executive Order 14110 and may put forward its own approach. The UK government has promised to pass a frontier AI bill this year. China may promulgate its own comprehensive AI law. These processes are happening now, and they are being designed around an assumption that may no longer hold.

The most striking implication is for export controls. The US strategy of restricting access to advanced training chips assumes that cutting off compute is the most effective way to slow frontier AI development in adversary states. If capability gains can be achieved through inference-time computation or algorithmic improvements that do not require the same hardware, that strategy loses force. Caputo does not explore this in detail, but the logic follows directly from his analysis. Export controls on training hardware may need to be supplemented or replaced by controls on inference hardware, or by mechanisms that target knowledge and algorithms rather than physical inputs.

For AI builders, the paper carries a different message. The regulatory uncertainty created by the paradigm shift is not a reason to ignore governance. It is a reason to engage with it. Companies that are developing reasoning models, synthetic data pipelines, or alternative architectures should expect scrutiny to shift from how they train to what they deploy. Transparency about capabilities, not just inputs, will become the regulatory currency. The companies that build that transparency into their development processes early will have an advantage over those that treat it as an afterthought.

Caputo’s closing observation is worth holding onto. The pretraining paradigm has allowed regulation to be relatively focused and light-touch. Those virtues should be replicated in the new capabilities paradigm. The challenge is that the new paradigm is more complex, with more actors, more pathways, and more uncertainty. Regulators will need to be more agile, more technically informed, and more willing to update their frameworks as the technology evolves. The alternative is a regulatory regime that is either ineffective or overbearing — or both, depending on the jurisdiction.

The paper is a warning, not a solution. But it is a warning grounded in a specific, testable claim: the pretraining paradigm is breaking, and the laws being written today will not survive the break. That claim deserves attention from every policymaker drafting frontier AI rules in 2025 and 2026.