mmmmmmm regulatory capture, wouldn't be america without it - nothing says freedom and open markets like sawing off the rungs from the bottom of the ladder after you've already climbed to the top
SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
11–20 of 201 posts
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#12I’m worried that regulations like these will create a lock in effect that benefits existing leading AI companies and makes it impossible for new entrants
[deleted]
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#13The law seems to only care about models that take at least 10^26 floating point ops or models that achieve comparable benchmark performance. This is a truly absurd number! I’m ok with organizations with that sort of compute capacity being subject to regulatory oversight and reporting and liability.
With algorithmic improvements and new hardware, achieving comparable performance to 10^26 flops may not be so absurd anymore.
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#14I’m worried that regulations like these will create a lock in effect that benefits existing leading AI companies and makes it impossible for new entrants
Some might argue that's the intended purpose.
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#15I’m worried that regulations like these will create a lock in effect that benefits existing leading AI companies and makes it impossible for new entrants
That is called regulatory capture, which could definitely be happening here.
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#16Which states would you speculate will be best long term for AI startups? I would’ve guessed California but it’s looking more important to pick a state less likely to get over their skis with regulation. Washington doesn’t seem yet to be doing this, and no state tax with lots of AI engineers/researchers in Seattle/redmond which is why I’m here. Texas probably won’t add regulations and has similar pros if you’re in Austin. Anywhere else looking like it will crop up if California regulates away the industry?
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#17There is no such thing as AI safety. AI is far too dangerous. The only thing that exists with regard to AI is "distracting the population so they think AI benefits them" or "AI is too amusing so I don't want to think about the consequences".
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#18The law seems to only care about models that take at least 10^26 floating point ops or models that achieve comparable benchmark performance. This is a truly absurd number! I’m ok with organizations with that sort of compute capacity being subject to regulatory oversight and reporting and liability.
If you’re not being serious, I appreciate your sarcasm. If you are, this may be one of the worst things I have ever read. It’s fucking math people. Math. It will not create some scary golem. It will create marginally better chatbots. You are arguing for totalitarian control over computing to line Microsoft’s pockets. Shame. Shame shame shame shame shame.
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#19SB-1047 has real "stay in your lane" energy. Senator Weiner knows a lot about housing policy and if he spends 100% of his legislative efforts on housing policy people will celebrate that. He knows nothing whatsoever about computer science, and should just step away from the keyboard to avoid the temptation to legislate the impossible.
[deleted]
Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety
#20This is a very, very bad article that reeks of LLM-generation. If you want to actually understand this bill, read Zvi's analysis:
https://thezvi.substack.com/p/on-the-proposed-california-sb-...