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

101–110 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#101

Post by deredede »

gotoeleven wrote: post #22
x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #8

Given what Scott Wiener did with restaurant fees, it's hard to trust his judgement on any legislation. He clearly prioritizes monied interests over the general populace.

This guy is a menace. Among his other recent bills are ones to require cars not be able to go more than 10mph over the speed limit (watered down to just making a terrible noise when they do) and to decriminalize intentionally giving someone AIDs. I know this sounds like hyperbole.. how could this guy keep getting elected?? But its not, it's california!

I was surprised at the claim that intentionally giving someone AIDS would be decriminalized, so I looked it up. The AIDS bill you seem to refer to (SB 239) lowers penalties from a felony to a misdemeanor (so it is still a crime), bringing it in line with other sexually transmitted diseases. The argument is that we now have good enough treatment for HIV that there is no reason for the punishment to be harsher than for exposing someone to hepatitis or herpes, which I think is sound.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#102

Post by jart »

jimjimjim wrote: post #68
choppaface wrote: post #31

The Apple Intelligence demos showed Apple is likely planning to use on-device models for ad targeting, and Google / Facebook will certainly respond. Small LLMs will help move unwanted computation onto user devices in order to circumvent existing data and privacy laws. And they will likely be much more effective since they’ll have more access and more data. This use case is just getting started, hence SB 1047 is so sh…

Thank you. For some reason I hadn't thought of the advertising angle with local LLMs but you are right! For example, why is Microsoft hell-bent on pushing Recall onto windows? Answer: targeted advertising.

Why is it wrong to show someone ads that are relevant to their interests? Local AI is a win-win, since tech companies get targeted ads, and your data stays private.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#104

Post by Dylan16807 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #57
gotoeleven wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is a menace. Among his other recent bills are ones to require cars not be able to go more than 10mph over the speed limit (watered down to just making a terrible noise when they do) and to decriminalize intentionally giving someone AIDs. I know this sounds like hyperbole.. how could this guy keep getting elected?? But its not, it's california!

Technically you can't go over 5mph of the speed limit. And that's only because of radar accuracy. Of course no one cares until you get a bored cop one day. And with free way traffic you're lucky to hit half the speed limit.

By "not be able" they don't mean legally, they mean GPS-based enforcement.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#105

Post by wrsh07 »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #66
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]…

why would Google, Microsoft and OpenAI oppose a torpedo against open models? Aren't they positioned to benefit the most?

I would note that Facebook and Google were opposed to eg gdpr although it gave them a larger share of the pie.

When framed like that: why be opposed, it hurts your competition? The answer is something like: it shrinks the pie or reduces the growth rate, and that's bad (for them and others)

The economics of this bill aren't clear to me (how large of a fine would Google/Microsoft pay in expectation within the next ten years?), but they maybe also aren't clear to Google/Microsoft (and that alone could be a reason to oppose)

Many of the ai safety crowd were very supportive, and I would recommend reading Zvi's writing on it if you want their take

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#106

Post by SonOfLilit »

benreesman wrote: post #90
SonOfLilit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would Google, Microsoft and OpenAI oppose a torpedo against open models? Aren't they positioned to benefit the most?

Some laws are just bad . When the API-mediated/closed-weights companies agree with the open-weight/operator-aligned community that a law is bad, it’s probably got to be pretty awful. That said, though my mind might be playing tricks on me, I seem to recall the big labs being in favor at one time. There are a number of related threads linked, but I’ll personally highlight Jeremy Howard’s open letter as IMHO the best-a…

> The definition of “covered model” within the bill is extremely broad, potentially encompassing a wide range of open-source models that pose minimal risk.

Who are these wide range of >$100mm open source models he's thinking of? And who are the impacted small businesses that would be scared to train them (at a cost of >$100mm) without paying for legal counsel?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#107

Post by worstspotgain »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #100
worstspotgain wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was just one quasi-monopoly it would have probably supported the bill. As it is, the market leaders have the competition from each other to worry about. Getting rid of open models wouldn't let them raise their prices much.

So if it's not them, who is the hidden commercial interest sponsoring an attack on open source models that cost >$100mm to train? Or does Wiener just genuinely hate megabudget open source? Or is it an accidental attack, aimed at something else? At what?

Like I said, supporters included wary copyright holders and the bottom-market also-rans like Musk. If your model is barely holding up against Llama, what's the point of staying in.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#108

Post by marshray »

derektank wrote: post #99
marshray wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting analogy. Nukes are a far more primitive technology (i.e., enrichment requires only more basic industrial capabilities) than AI hardware, yet they are probably the best example of tech limitations via international agreements. But the algorithms are mostly public knowledge, datacenters are no secret, and the chips aren't even made in the US. I don't see what leverage California has to regulate AI b…

>So it seems like the only thing such a bill would achieve is to incentivize AI research to avoid California. Which, incidentally, would be pretty bad from a climate change perspective since many of the alternative locations for datacenters have a worse mix of renewables/nuclear to fossil fuels in their electricity generation. ~60% of VA's electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels (of which 1/12th is still c…

Electric power crosses state lines, very little loss.

It's looking like cooling water may be more of a limiting factor. Yet, even this can be greatly reduced when electric power is cheap enough.

Solar power is already "cheaper than free" in many places and times. If the initial winner-take-all training race ever slows down, perhaps training can be scheduled for energy cost-optimal times and places.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#109

Post by tbrownaw »

marshray wrote: post #65
zamadatix wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think GP is dismissing the scenarios themselves, rather espousing their belief these answers will do nothing to prevent said scenarios from eventually occuring anyways. It's like if we invented nukes but found out they were made out of having a lot of telephones instead of something exotic like refining radioactive elements a certain way. Sure - you can still try to restrict telephone sales... but one way or…

It's an interesting analogy. Nukes are a far more primitive technology (i.e., enrichment requires only more basic industrial capabilities) than AI hardware, yet they are probably the best example of tech limitations via international agreements. But the algorithms are mostly public knowledge, datacenters are no secret, and the chips aren't even made in the US. I don't see what leverage California has to regulate AI b…

> Nukes are a far more primitive technology (i.e., enrichment requires only more basic industrial capabilities) than AI hardware, yet they are probably the best example of tech limitations via international agreements.

And direct sabotage, eg Stuxnet.

And outright assassination eg https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55128970

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#110

Post by SonOfLilit »

worstspotgain wrote: post #107
SonOfLilit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if it's not them, who is the hidden commercial interest sponsoring an attack on open source models that cost >$100mm to train? Or does Wiener just genuinely hate megabudget open source? Or is it an accidental attack, aimed at something else? At what?

Like I said, supporters included wary copyright holders and the bottom-market also-rans like Musk. If your model is barely holding up against Llama, what's the point of staying in.

And two of the three godfathers of AI, and all of the AI notkillaboutism crowd.

Actually, wait, if Grok is losing to GPT, why would Musk care about Llama more than Altman? Llama hurts his competitor...

Post reply on HN