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

101–110 of 201 posts

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

#101

Post by verdverm »

exe34 wrote: post #78
verdverm wrote: post #23

(f) “Covered model” means an artificial intelligence model that meets either of the following criteria: (1) The artificial intelligence model was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. (2) The artificial intelligence model was trained using a quantity of computing power sufficiently large that it could reasonably be expected to have similar or greater perf…

In a way this could be what gives us AGI that runs in your pocket. If there's an upper limit on what can be used, then human ingenuity will be funnelled towards whatever does fit in. Of course, this is only in the USA. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc will still be free to persue the technology.

See f.2 which essentially says that if you can reach the same capability with fewer calculations, then you are still covered by this bill

It essentially creates 2 thresholds

1. number of math operations

2. 2024 benchmark results

100% agreement this will hurt CA and others, especially nefarious, will ignore it

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

#102

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

maybe I don’t believe lawmakers understand where we are going long-term with this stuff.

Wait, you're saying that a bunch of legislators who believe the Earth is 6000 years old may not have a valid perspective on complex technical matters? No. Say it isn't so.

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

#103

Post by simonw »

> Instead of regulating the development of AI models, the focus should be on regulating their applications, particularly those that pose high risks to public safety and security. Regulate the use of AI in high-risk areas such as healthcare, criminal justice, and critical infrastructure, where the potential for harm is greatest, would ensure accountability for harmful use, whilst allowing for the continued advancement of AI technology.

I really like this proposed model. Are there good arguments against this?

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

#104

Post by sanxiyn »

sgift wrote: post #90
sanxiyn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Best practices will say things like "you should test it". While we are ignorant, there are just many reasonable things to do. Human biology is not completely understood, but that does not mean medical checklists are useless.

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

#105

Post by phkahler »

humansareok1 wrote: post #54
changoplatanero wrote: post #5

I’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

Bro given that the cost of frontier models is already at or past $100M I think that boat has already sailed. Unless you have a completely cracked team that can raise like $1B upfront you have no chance at competing.

Costs are coming down significantly every year.

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

#106

Post by Dig1t »

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.

>until that covered model is the subject of a limited duty exemption.

The second half of that sentence clarifies. It's not that you have to be able to shut down the model, everyone knows it's trivial to turn off a computer. It's that the government can force you to shut down your program until such time as they give you regulatory approval to turn it back on again.

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

#107

Post by mattnewton »

sanxiyn wrote: post #37

I disagree on "Focus on Usage, Not Development". > Regulate the use of AI in high-risk areas such as healthcare, criminal justice, and critical infrastructure, where the potential for harm is greatest This suggests, for example, image generation should be unregulated, but potential for harm of deepfake is great. In general, regulation needs to be feasible to implement, and even if it is ideal to regulate use not deve…

It’s generally not possible for California state legislature to regulate deepfakes; closing the metaphorical doors now doesn’t make sense as the metaphorical horses weren’t even contained in their barn to begin with. (I’d argue it’s not desirable for the US to try regulating the creation of these tools rather than their use at a federal level either but that’s another discussion)

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

#109

Post by hollerith »

echelon wrote: post #100
sanxiyn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'v…

>Nobody has been killed by AI

Some of us worry that billions of people will be killed by AI in the future -- possibly without anything that you or the average decision-maker might regard as a warning. (They're likely to be killed all at the same time.)

I.e., it is more like a large asteroid slamming into the Earth than a stream of deaths over time such as produced by the deployment in society of the automobile (except that the asteroid does not have the capability of noticing that it's first plan failed to kill a group of human over there, then to devise a second plan for killing those).

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

#110

Post by someonehere »

vm wrote: post #8

Since it’s not mentioned in the blog: >On February 7, 2024, Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 1047 (SB-1047) – known as the Known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (the Act) – into the California State Legislature. Aiming to regulate the development and use of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, the Act mandates developers to make certain safety det…

He’ll push to safeguard people from AI but not safeguard people from fentanyl dealers. Got it.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/fentanyl-dealers-in-...

Post reply on HN