Live data from Hacker News

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

answer.ai

81–90 of 201 posts

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

#81

While this article makes some valid points, it basically just ignores the reasons why the law is being passed, that is the potential for open-models to enable bio-attacks, cyberattacks, election manipulation, automated personalised scams, and who knows what else. One might question why that is. Perhaps it's the case that Jeremy has an excellent response to these points which he has somehow neglected to raise. Or perh…

You imagine some extremist could somehow use llama version 11 to print viruses from his printer ?

LLMs are not intelligent, they predict text based on what it was trained, if it could somehow build new viruses, weapons then it means the internet has MANY such information so the LLC could predict something useful, so maybe those websites, scientific papers , blog posts need to be deleted because some extremist group or state sponsored group can use them directly plus Natural Intelligence plus good laboratories.

But tell me how can I make my next LLM so it would help on say fighting biologic weapons, creating vaccines but refusing to make evil stuff keeping in mind that jailbreaking is always possible (scientifically proven)

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

#82
post #71
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand this law does not mandate you to ensure anything. It requires you to follow best practices (to be determined), report safety incidents, etc. You are not even liable for safety incidents, you just need to report them, although it may be embarrassing. Overall, it seems highly reasonable.

> requires you to follow best practices (to be determined) Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. (Of which there will be abundant good uses. Many of which we've yet…

That's like saying we should punish when bridge collapses, before that any bridge should be able to be built. You can argue that, but not many will agree.

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

#83
This is our sign to start boycotting OpenAI - they're behind the lobbying of this.

Instead of writing your senator who is owned by OpenAI - just throw away your `OPENAI_API_KEY` and use one of the many open models like mistral or llama3.

  ollama run mistral
It's very easy to get started, right in your Terminal.

And there are cloud providers like https://replicate.com/ and https://lightning.ai/ that will let you use your LLM via an API key just like you did with OpenAI if you need that.

You don't need OpenAI - nobody does.

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

#85
post #20

This 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-...

I think Zvi is missing some critical points about the bill. For example:

>Before initiating the commercial, public, or widespread use of a covered model that is not subject to a positive safety determination, limited duty exemption, a developer of the nonderivative version of the covered model shall do all of the following:

>(1) Implement reasonable safeguards and requirements to do all of the following:

>(B) Prevent an individual from being able to use the model to create a derivative model that was used to cause a critical harm.

This is simply impossible. If you give me model weights, I can surely fine-tune them into doing a covered harm (e.g. provide instructions for the creation of chemical or biological weapons). This requirement is unsatisfiable, and you're not allowed to release a covered model without satisfying it.

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

#86
post #64
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.

That’s definitely a part of the issue, just hard to see ai startups able to thrive there if things like this go through.

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Scott Wiener Congressional Exploratory Cmte received $8,600 from OpenAI. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/openai/summary?id=D00008425...

It's impressive how affordable politicians are. You've got a company valued at $80 billion and you can get legislation put forward to kneecap your primary competition for a the price of a 2009 Honda Accord with 150,000 miles on the odometer? What great value for money!

Politicians at prices so low we're practically GIVING them away !

(pace Crazy Eddie)

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

#88
post #75
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

> Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols No, actually you don’t. This is just a slippery slope that suggests that any of these examples are even remotely comparable to AI. There is room for nuance and it’s easy to spot the outlier among bioagent research, nuclear warheads, human cloning, and generative…

Unfortunately, I think you will see this differently in a few years, that AI is not an outlier (In the fortunate case where were there were enough "close calls" that we're still around to reflect on this question)

I hope I'm wrong

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

#89
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 ?

Most explosives are used for construction. That's where Nobel Prize came from.

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

#90
post #82
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requires you to follow best practices (to be determined) Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. (Of which there will be abundant good uses. Many of which we've yet…

That's like saying we should punish when bridge collapses, before that any bridge should be able to be built. You can argue that, but not many will agree.

Because we know how to build bridges so that they don't collapse. The laws of physics that govern bridge-building are well known. The equivalent for AI systems? Not really.
Post reply on HN