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

91–100 of 201 posts

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

#91

Post by echelon »

realce wrote: post #79
echelon wrote: 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…

> Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. Where is the ban here?

Some highlights from the text of the bill [1],

> Other relief as the court deems appropriate, including monetary damages damages, including punitive damages, to persons aggrieved aggrieved, punitive damages, and an order for the full shutdown of a covered model.

> A civil penalty in an amount not exceeding 10 percent of the cost, excluding labor cost, to develop the covered model for a first violation and in an amount not exceeding 30 percent of the cost, excluding labor cost, to develop the covered model for any subsequent violation.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

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

#92

Post by sgift »

drcode wrote: post #67
titanomachy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Part of my open source Mars terraforming plan

Back to the good old plowshare, yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare

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

#93

Post by jpollock »

sanxiyn wrote: post #69
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.

People saying “no, you can’t do that” is why open source software exists.

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

#94

Post by CamperBob2 »

drcode wrote: post #88
samtho wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Unfortunately, I think

Maybe wait until you're sure before holding guns to peoples' heads.

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

#95

Post by ninjagoo »

This is worrisome for open source - this isn't some far off future limit. Llama3 training at 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.

Llama3-400B might be well past this threshold.

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

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

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

#96

Post by sanxiyn »

samtho wrote: post #75
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

> 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…

Clearly human cloning is the outlier. You know, innumerable twins exist.

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

#97

Post by DalasNoin »

samtho wrote: post #75
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

> 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…

Agree that artificial intelligence is an outlier. I think it is the technology with the greatest associated risk of all technologies humans have worked on.

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

#98

Post by drcode »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #94
drcode wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unfortunately, I think Maybe wait until you're sure before holding guns to peoples' heads.

we're talking about the mildest reporting requirements in bill SB-1047

(admittedly, I'm getting a bit motte-bailey here, but still)

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

#99

Post by nradov »

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 ?

See the history of "peaceful nuclear explosions". The USA and USSR used a few nuclear warheads for civil engineering purposes. It seems crazy now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion

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

#100

Post by echelon »

sanxiyn wrote: post #82
echelon wrote: 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.

Nobody has been killed by AI, unless you're arguing it impacts mental health [1].

A better-fitting analogy I'd make is that sex causes disease and other negative externalities, so we should pass laws that force people to be married and licensed in order to have sex.

In any case, this bill is the walking epitome of something a "nanny state" might produce.

[1] TikTok and Instagram have far more impact on this, and we've yet to do anything there. We seem to be of the opinion that this should be an individual responsibility.

Post reply on HN