Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

answer.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 201 posts

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#61

Post by kranke155 »

observationist wrote: post #50
kranke155 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll hear about it in 10 years in an article about "why did open source Ai die? ... once blossoming along closed source AI, open source AI disappeared after XXYYZ AI ACT. Turns out, Senator X and Senator Y were both in the pocket of closed source AI (and ended up in cushy jobs in Microsoft and Xai, not a coincidence) ... "

Regardless of your perspective on Musk, X AI is currently producing open source AI with permissive licensing, and seems very likely to continue open source releases in the near future. https://github.com/xai-org Microsoft, Amazon, OpenAI, others are driving regulatory capture behind the scenes. The usual suspects are dropping all sorts of money on establishing control and rent seeking - actual open source AI with end…

My bad, I only used them as an example. I was unaware they were doing open source work.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#62

Post by airstrike »

shkkmo wrote: post #9
iptq wrote: post #2

This entire article feels like it was written by ChatGPT. For instance, it continuously makes vague claims about the value of open source without even citing the original bill.

This is going to become one the the site no-nos. What does this assertion add to the discussion? Is there any argument that serves as refutation?

Raising awareness so others too can flag TFA

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#63

Post by failTide »

bee_rider wrote: post #32
narrator wrote: post #3

The politicians are gunning extremely hard for open source AI. It's crazy. "Soros argued that synergy like that between corporate and government AI projects creates a more potent threat than was posed by Cold War–era autocrats, many of whom spurned corporate innovation. “The combination of repressive regimes with IT monopolies endows those regimes with a built-in advantage over open societies,” Soros said. “They pose…

I don’t really understand the long term plan, or maybe I don’t believe lawmakers understand where we are going long-term with this stuff. We’re still in the very early days. Unless the academic community really drops the ball, in 5 or so years they’ll be training models around the quality of the current state of the art on professors’ research clusters (probably not just at R1 universities). I’d be shocked if, in the…

> A typical American might read hundreds of books over the course of their life

Probably only if you count books like green eggs and ham.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#64

Post by codexb »

dbish wrote: post #16

Which 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 Aus…

What states have good weather year round, already have large urban centers, and better laws and taxes than California? That's basically what it amounts to. That's why cities in Texas and Florida are growing. Seattle has terrible weather. Washington gets cold and their large cities are mismanaged to the point that they're undesirable to live in for well-off families.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#65

Post by titanomachy »

drcode wrote: post #59
ubj wrote: post #34

> The creator of a model can not ensure that a model is never used to do something harmful – any more so that the developer of a web browser, calculator, or word processor could. Placing liability on the creators of general purpose tools like these mean that, in practice, such tools can not be created at all, except by big businesses with well funded legal teams. This matches my thoughts on why this is ultimately a b…

Your argument is meaningless if you don't specify what threshold there should be for harm Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral

> Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral

nuclear warheads?

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#66

Post by 65a »

drcode wrote: post #59
ubj wrote: post #34

> The creator of a model can not ensure that a model is never used to do something harmful – any more so that the developer of a web browser, calculator, or word processor could. Placing liability on the creators of general purpose tools like these mean that, in practice, such tools can not be created at all, except by big businesses with well funded legal teams. This matches my thoughts on why this is ultimately a b…

Your argument is meaningless if you don't specify what threshold there should be for harm Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral

Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome. It is already illegal in California to produce your own nuclear weapon. Instead of outlawing books, because they allow research into building giant gundam robots, just outlaw giant gundam robots.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#67

Post by drcode »

titanomachy wrote: post #65
drcode wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is meaningless if you don't specify what threshold there should be for harm Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral

> Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral nuclear warheads ?

Part of my open source Mars terraforming plan

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#68

Post by bee_rider »

qzx_pierri wrote: post #21
brutal_chaos_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is called regulatory capture, which could definitely be happening here.

Politics are depressing :/ Has the tech industry always been so cutthroat, or is this a new trend? Maybe I just didn't hear about tech companies lobbying for power in the past?

No, the tech market is totally nice, not a bunch of cut-throat thieves who’ll backstab and steal from each other at the drop of a hat.

— Posted from my Xerox

The roots of the tech sector are PC (the libertarian dream of basically zero-cost startups), telecoms (playground of monopolies and regulatory capture), and ad guys who’s main trick is outrunning society’s ability to understand their business model.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#69

Post by sanxiyn »

huevosabio wrote: post #56

Unbelievable. I like Scott Wiener for his housing policies but this bill is rampant overstepping from the government. Ironically, it will have the same effect as the NIMBY system he has fought for so long. Some nuggets... --- So we are only allowed to train what they allow us: This bill would require that a developer, before initiating training of a nonderivative covered model, comply with various requirements, inclu…

> including implementing the capability to promptly enact a full shutdown

So you need to be able to turn it off. It should be easy? Still it seems to be a good thing to make sure you can turn it off.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#70

Post by ninjagoo »

carterschonwald wrote: post #7

The 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.

This is not very far off from Llama3 training. 400 TFLOPS per GPU [1] and 6.4M GPU hours [2] puts Llama3 70B at 9.2*10^24 (so 10^25) floating point ops.

[1] https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-3/

[2] https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3-70B-Instruct

Post reply on HN