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

111–120 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#111

Post by jquery »

zzrzzr wrote: post #34
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!

[dead]

These "activists" will go nowhere, because it's not coming from a well meaning place of wanting to stop fraudsters, but insists that all trans women are frauds and consistently misgenders them across the entire website.

I wouldn't take anything they said seriously. Also I clicked two of those links and found no allegations of rape, just a few ciswomen who didn't want to be around transwomen. I have a suggestion, how about don't commit a crime that sends you to a woman's prison?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#112

Post by yarg »

akira2501 wrote: post #40
whimsicalism wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This snide dismissiveness around “sci-fi” scenarios, while capabilities continue to grow, seems incredibly naïve and foolish. Many of you saying stuff like this were the same naysayers who have been terribly wrong about scaling for the last 6-8 years or people who only started paying attention in the last two years.

> seems incredibly naïve and foolish. We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. > were the same naysayers Now who's being snide and dismissive? Do you want to argue the point or are you just interested in tossing ad hominem attacks around?

Someone never watched the Terminator series.

In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off.

There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad.

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.

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.

Yes, that's all highly highly improbable - but you seem to believe that you can just turn off the Genie, when he's already seen you coming and is having none of it.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#113

Post by jimjimjim »

jart wrote: post #102
jimjimjim wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what have "their interests" got to do with what is on the computer screen?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

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]…

> 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 about open models in general.

OpenAI (along with Google and Meta) led the institutional opposition to the bill, Anthropic was a major advocate for it.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#117

Post by thinkingtoilet »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #81

This is no way to run a state. The Democrat-dominated legislature passes everything that comes before it (and rejects anything that the GOP touches, in committee) and then the Governor needs to veto the looniest 20% of them to keep us from falling into total chaos. This AI bill was far from the worst one. "Vote out the legislators!" but for who... the Republican party? And we don't even get a choice on the general ba…

If California was it's own country, it would be one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#118

Post by handfuloflight »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #98
handfuloflight wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Newsom believe that an AI model can do this damage autonomously or does he understand it must be wielded and overseen by humans to do so? In that case, how much of an enabler is an AI to meet the destructive ends, when, if the humans can use AI to conduct the damage, they can surely do it without the AI as well. The potential for destruction exists either way but is the concern that AI makes this more accessible…

“Critical harm” does not include any of the following: (A) Harms caused or materially enabled by information that a covered model or covered model derivative outputs if the information is otherwise reasonably publicly accessible by an ordinary person from sources other than a covered model or covered model derivative. The bogeyman is not these models, it's future agentic autonomous ones, if and when they can hack maj…

Ah, thank you, skipped over that part.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#119

Post by dragonwriter »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #117
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #81

This is no way to run a state. The Democrat-dominated legislature passes everything that comes before it (and rejects anything that the GOP touches, in committee) and then the Governor needs to veto the looniest 20% of them to keep us from falling into total chaos. This AI bill was far from the worst one. "Vote out the legislators!" but for who... the Republican party? And we don't even get a choice on the general ba…

If California was it's own country, it would be one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric.

[flagged]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#120

Post by shortrounddev2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #119
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If California was it's own country, it would be one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric.

[flagged]

I'd much rather be poor in California than poor in mississippi
Post reply on HN