This is a massive win for tech, startups, and America.
Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
11–20 of 514 posts
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.
>and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations Am I out of the loop here? What "high-risk" situations do they have in mind for LLM's?
My guess is anything involving direct human safety - medicine, defense, police... but who knows.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#13A bill laying the groundwork to ensure the future survival of humanity by making companies on the frontier of AGI research responsible for damages or deaths caused by their models, was vetoed because it doesn't stifle competition with the big players enough and because we don't want companies to be scared of letting future models capable of massive hacks or creating mass casualty events handle their customer support.
Today humanity scored a self-goal.
edit:
I'm guessing I'm getting downvoted because people don't think this is relevant to our reality. Well, it isn't. This bill shouldn't scare anyone releasing a GPT-4 level model:
> The bill he vetoed, SB 1047, would have required developers of large AI models to take “reasonable care” to ensure that their technology didn’t pose an “unreasonable risk of causing or materially enabling a critical harm.” It defined that harm as cyberattacks that cause at least $500 million in damages or mass casualties. Developers also would have needed to ensure their AI could be shut down by a human if it started behaving dangerously.
What's the risk? How could it possibly hack something causing $500m of damages or mass casualties?
If we somehow manage to build a future technology that _can_ do that, do you think it should be released?
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.
>and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations Am I out of the loop here? What "high-risk" situations do they have in mind for LLM's?
It's not about current LLMs, it's about future, much more advanced models, that are capable of serious hacking or other mass-casualty-causing activities.
o-1 and AlphaProof are proofs of concept for agentic models. Imagine them as GPT-1. The GPT-4 equivalent might be a scary technology to let roam the internet.
It would have no effect on current models.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.
>and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations Am I out of the loop here? What "high-risk" situations do they have in mind for LLM's?
Medical and legal industries are both trying to apply AI to their administrative practices.
It’s absolutely awful but they’re so horny for profits they’re trying anyways.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#16This is a massive win for tech, startups, and America.
[flagged]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#17Perhaps worried that draconian restriction on new technology is not gonna help bring Silicon Valley back to preeminence.
"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.
Only applying to the biggest models is the point; the biggest models are the inherently high-risk ones. The larger they get, the more that running them at all is the "high-risk situation".
Passing this would not have been a complete solution, but it would have been a step in the right direction. This is a huge disappointment.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#18https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694
So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can be turned off.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#19Also on The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/29/24232172/california-ai-sa...
[deleted]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#20A bill laying the groundwork to ensure the future survival of humanity by making companies on the frontier of AGI research responsible for damages or deaths caused by their models, was vetoed because it doesn't stifle competition with the big players enough and because we don't want companies to be scared of letting future models capable of massive hacks or creating mass casualty events handle their customer support.…
Oh come on, the entire bill was against open source models, it’s pure business. “AI safety”, at least of the X-risk variety, is a non-issue.