61–70 of 232 posts
> For purposes of this chapter: > (a) “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. I was curious how California was going to define AI since it's basically a marketing term as of now. Seems l…
So, if violation is "unknowning" (I assume this means unintentional) and creates a material risk, then there is no penalty?
Also, penalties listed are upper bounds only (penalty will not exceed $X), and not lower bounds. $0 fine fulfills "not exceeding $10m" rule.
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. :-(
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…
AIs do not have freedom of speech, and even if they did, it is entirely within the bounds of the Constitution to mitigate this freedom as we already do for humans. Governments currently define unprotected speech as a going concern.
But there's a contradiction hidden in your argument: requiring companies to _filter_ the output of AI models is a prior restraint on their speech, implying the companies do not have control over their own "speech" as produced by the models. This is absurd on its face; just as the argument that the output of my random Markov chain text generator is protected speech because I host the generator online.
There are reasonable arguments to make about censoring AI models, but freedom of speech ain't it, because their output doesn't quack like "speech".
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…
What is surprising, however, is the timing. Newsom vetoed the previous verison of this bill. Him signing it after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, when there is so much conversation around the importance of free speech, is odd. It reminds me of this recent article:
Everyone’s a Free-Speech Hypocrite by Greg Lukianoff, the president and chief executive of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/opinion/consequence-cultu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Copied from the end of the page: What the law does: SB 53 establishes new requirements for frontier AI developers creating stronger: Transparency: Requires large frontier developers to publicly publish a framework on its website describing how the company has incorporated national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. Innovation: Establishes a new co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem it solves is providing any sort of baseline framework for lawmakers and the legal system to even discuss AI and its impacts based on actual data instead of feels. That's why so much of it is about requiring tech companies to publish safety plans, transparency reports and incidents, and why the penalty for noncompliance is only $10,000. A comprehensive AI regulatory action is way too premature at this stag…
>and why the penalty for noncompliance is only $10,000. Think they were off by an order of magnitude for this fine. The PR for reporting anything bad on AI is probably worth more than the fine for non-compliance. 100k would at least start to dent the bumper.