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

Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#441

Post by rhizome »

cbozeman wrote: post #424
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Blog you've never heard of? Right. That checks out. There's a certain sect of the far right that is easily convinced by one guy saying "The media is lying to you! This is what's really happening!" followed by the most insane shit you've read in your life. They love to rant about the Deep State.

When people say, "The Deep State", what they really mean is, "unelected lifelong government employees who can create regulations that have the force of law". And that is a problem. Congress makes laws, not government agencies like the FDA, EPA, USDA, etc. We've seen a near-total abdication of responsibility from Congress on highly charged matters that'll piss off someone , somewhere in their constituency, because the…

Congress makes laws, not government agencies like the FDA, EPA, USDA, etc.

What are some examples of laws created by unelected people?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#442

Post by fwip »

pbreit wrote: post #421
worstspotgain wrote: post #52

Excellent move by Newsom. We have a very active legislature, but it's been extremely bandwagon-y in recent years. I support much of Wiener's agenda, particularly his housing policy, but this bill was way off the mark. It was basically a torpedo against open models. Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or about open models in general. Its supporters were the also-rans like Musk [1]…

Bills that could kill major new industries need to be reactive, if at all. This was a terrible bill. Thank you, Governor.

If the new industry is inherently unsafe, it is better to be proactive.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#443

Post by datavirtue »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #61
datavirtue wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future survival of humanity involves creating machines that have all of our knowledge and which can replicate themselves. We can't leave the planet but our robot children can. I just wish that I could see what they become.

Sounds like the exact opposite plot of Wall-E.

I might watch that now. That scientist that created all the robots in Mega Man keeps coming to mind. People are going to have to make the decision to build these things to be self-sufficient.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#445

Post by drcode »

curious_cat_163 wrote: post #444

For those supporting this legislation: Would you like to share the specific harms to the public that this bill sought to address and prevent?

we'll probably create artificial superintelligence in the next few years

when that happens, it likely will not go well for humans

the specific harm is "human extinction"

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#446

Post by drcode »

alkonaut wrote: post #296

The immediate danger of large AI models isn't that they'll turn the earth to paperclips it's that we'll create fraud as a service and have a society where nothing can be trusted. I'd be all for a law (however clumsy) that made image, audio or video content produced by models with over X parameters to be marked with metadata saying it's AI generated. Creating models that don't tag their output as such would be banned.…

turning the earth into paperclips is not gonna happen immediately, so we can safely ignore that risk

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#447

Post by iluvcommunism »

ldbooth wrote: post #391
inferiorhuman wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newsom vetoed the bill as a nod to his donors plain and simple. Same reason he just signed a bill allowing a specific customers at a single venue to be served alcohol later than 2 AM. Same reason he carved out a minimum wage exemption for Panera. Same reason he signed a bill to carve out a junk fee exemption specifically for restaurants. He's just planning for a post-governor career.

Same reason the governor appointed public utility commission has allowed PG&E to raise rates 4 times in a single year without legitimate oversight. Yea unfortunately all roads point to his donors with this smooth talker, cost of living be damned.

On the east coast we don’t need the government to control electricity prices. And our electricity is cheaper. Go figure.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#448

Post by yarg »

hiatus wrote: post #408
yarg wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could only shut it down if there's a choke point accessible without electronic intervention, and you'd need to reach it without electronic intervention, and do so without communicating your intent. You'll be dead before you reach the plug.

Then bomb it. Or did the AI take over the fighter jets too?

> Whatever you're trying to stop will already have root-kitted your systems (and quite possibly have replicated) by the time you realise that it's even beginning to become a problem.

There's a good chance that you won't know where it is - if you even did to begin with (which particular AI even went rogue?).

> Or did the AI take over the fighter jets too?

Dunno - how secure are the systems?

But it's almost certainly fucking with the GPS.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#450

Post by burningChrome »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #375
dragonwriter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excellent move by Newsom. [...] It was basically a torpedo against open models. He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely. > Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or a…

Newsom vetoed the bill as a nod to his donors plain and simple. Same reason he just signed a bill allowing a specific customers at a single venue to be served alcohol later than 2 AM. Same reason he carved out a minimum wage exemption for Panera. Same reason he signed a bill to carve out a junk fee exemption specifically for restaurants. He's just planning for a post-governor career.

>> He's just planning for a post-governor career.

After this year, many democrats are as well - which is why Harris had such a hard time finding a VP and took Walz who was like the last kid you pick on your dodgeball team.

The presidential race in 2028 for the Democrats is going to have one of the deepest benches for talent I've seen in a long time. Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure.

But I agree, Newsom has been making some decisions lately that seem to indicate he's trying to clean up his image and look more "moderate" for the coming election cycles.

Post reply on HN