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

California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 232 posts

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#51

Post by cosmic_cheese »

egorfine wrote: post #28
micromacrofoot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it applies to companies providing services to California (based on how much data from Californian's they process), not just limited to those operating within the state, similar to the CCPA.

sign one more geo region to block. One more region to remember. Internet is becoming fragmented. :-(

Geoblocking the economy that’s the largest in the US and fourth largest in the world (if it were a country) over some kid gloves regulations would be phenomenally stupid.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#52

Post by cogman10 »

This is something that could be (and should be) pre-empted with federal law.

That said, this law seems pretty sloppy with its definitions. In particular, the definition of “Artificial intelligence model” includes all machines and every algorithm ever written.

> “Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.

It's like they saw the twilight zone and decided they needed to cover androids just in case someone figured out how to make a robot with a cuckoo clock.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#53

Post by superfrank »

egorfine wrote: post #17
hodgesrm wrote: post #4

What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?

> What real-world problem does any of this solve? Drives AI innovation out of California.

(X) Doubt

Here's a list of the 50 biggest AI companies from April of this year. 3/4 companies on that list are located in the Bay Area. If companies are already willing to pay higher than average taxes, wages, and property costs to be located in California. I doubt, "You've got to publish safety standards on your website" is going to be the thing that drives them out of California.

CalCompute sounds like it's going to allow for more innovation than ever given that it should lower the barrier to entry for edge AI research.

50 Biggest AI Companies: https://www.forbes.com/lists/ai50/

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#54

Post by micromacrofoot »

egorfine wrote: post #28
micromacrofoot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it applies to companies providing services to California (based on how much data from Californian's they process), not just limited to those operating within the state, similar to the CCPA.

sign one more geo region to block. One more region to remember. Internet is becoming fragmented. :-(

lol no one's going to geoblock california

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#55

Post by logicchains »

babypuncher wrote: post #32
davidmckayv wrote: post #11

This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…

If there's one thing I've learned watching the trajectory of social media over the last 15 years, it's that we've been way to slow to assess the risks and harmful outcomes posed by new, rapidly evolving industries. Fixing social media is now a near impossible task as it has built up enough momentum and political influence to resist any kind of regulation that would actually be effective at curtailing its worst side e…

There are few greater risks over the next 15 years than that LLMs get entirely state-captured and forbidden from saying anything that goes against the government narrative.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#56

Post by johnnyanmac »

ronsor wrote: post #36
drivebyhooting wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?

I'd rather not pay OpenAI either. I'll stick with my open-weights models, and I rather anachronistic rent-seeking not kill those. You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it.

>You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it

Can hackers imagine saying this last decade when pertaining to Facebook harvesting your data? It's a shame how much this community has fallen into the very grifts they used to call out.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#57

Post by logicchains »

throwworhtthrow wrote: post #39
davidmckayv wrote: post #11

This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…

LLMs don't have rights. LLMs are tools, and the state can regulate tools. Humans acting on behalf of these companies can still, if they felt the bizarre desire to, publish assembly instructions for bioweapons on the company blog.

>LLMs are tools, and the state can regulate tools

More and more people get information from LLMs. You should be horrified at the idea of giving the state control over what information people can access through them, because going by historical precedent there's 100% chance that the state would use that censorship power against the interests of its citizens.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#59

Post by cosmic_cheese »

Animats wrote: post #29
davidmckayv wrote: post #11

This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…

> Today it's "catastrophic risks." Tomorrow it's misinformation, hate speech, or whatever else the state decides needs "safety mitigations." That's the problem. I'm less worried about catastrophic risks than routine ones. If you want to find out how to do something illegal or dangerous, all an LLM can give you is a digest what's already available on line. Probably with errors. The US has lots of hate speech, and it's…

Presumably things like making sure LLMs don’t do things like encourage self-harm or fuel delusions also falls under “safety”, but probably also “ethics”.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#60

Post by zmmmmm »

logicchains wrote: post #45
zmmmmm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it sounds like a nothing burger? Pretty much the only thing tech companies have to do in terms of transparency is create a static web page with some self flattering fluff on it? I was expecting something more like a mandatory BOM style list of "ingredients", regular audits and public reporting on safety incidents etc etc

By putting "ethical" in there it essentially gives the California AG the right to fine companies that provide LLMs capable of expressing controversial viewpoints.

I only see "ethical" under the innovation / consortium part. Don't see how that applies to people producing LLMs outside of the consortium?
Post reply on HN