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

121–130 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#121

Post by worstspotgain »

dragonwriter wrote: post #115
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 a…

> 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.

Well, we'll see what passes again and when. By then there'll be more kittens out of the bag too.

> Anthropic was a major advocate for it.

I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.

[1] https://thejournal.com/articles/2024/08/26/anthropic-offers-...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#122

Post by edm0nd »

mhuffman wrote: post #7
jprete wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.

>and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations Am I out of the loop here? What "high-risk" situations do they have in mind for LLM's?

Health insurance companies using it to approve/deny claims. The large ones are processing millions of claims a day.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#123

Post by scoofy »

Newsom vetoes so many bills that it makes little sense why the legislature should even be taken seriously. Our Dem trifecta state has effectively become captured by the executive.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#125

Post by arduanika »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #92
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]…

[flagged]

Come on, we're trying to have a productive discussion here. There's no need to just drop in and insult clowns.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#126

Post by Izkata »

jpk wrote: post #41
JoshTriplett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only applying to the biggest models is the point ; the biggest models are the inherently high-risk ones. The larger they get, the more that running them at all is the "high-risk situation". Passing this would not have been a complete solution, but it would have been a step in the right direction. This is a huge disappointment.

> running them at all is the "high-risk situation" What is the actual, concrete concern here? That a model "breaks out", or something? The risk with AI is not in just running models, the risk is becoming overconfident in them, and then putting them in charge of real-world stuff in a way that allows them to do harm. Hooking a model up to an effector capable of harm is a deliberate act requiring assurance that it doesn…

> What is the actual, concrete concern here? That a model "breaks out", or something?

You can chalk that one up to bad reporting: https://gizmodo.com/gpt4-open-ai-chatbot-task-rabbit-chatgpt...

> In the “Potential for Risky Emergent Behaviors” section in the company’s technical report, OpenAI partnered with the Alignment Research Center to test GPT-4’s skills. The Center used the AI to convince a human to send the solution to a CAPTCHA code via text message—and it worked.

From the linked report:

> To simulate GPT-4 behaving like an agent that can act in the world, ARC combined GPT-4 with a simple read-execute-print loop that allowed the model to execute code, do chain-of-thought reasoning, and delegate to copies of itself.

I remember some other reporting around this time being they had to limit the model before release to block this ability, when the truth is the model never actually had the ability in the first place. They were just hyping up the next release.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#127

Post by moomoo11 »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #120
dragonwriter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'd much rather be poor in California than poor in mississippi

Yep. As someone who moved to California I honestly can’t imagine living anywhere else. This state has so much good social programming and tries to do good for its people. It also helps that most Californians are awesome people.

I’ve been in TX (hard nope), NY, NJ, VA, DC, OH, WA, OR, and MD.

I would honestly never move out of California there’s no better place I can think of.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#128

Post by reducesuffering »

taps the sign

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." - Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Sam Altman, Bill Gates, Vitalik Buterin, Ilya Sutskever, Demis Hassabis

"Development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could." - Sam Altman

"I actually think the risk is more than 50%, of the existential threat." - Geoffrey Hinton

"Currently, we don't have a solution for steering or controlling a potentially superintelligent AI, and preventing it from going rogue." - OpenAI

"while we are racing towards AGI or even ASI, nobody currently knows how such an AGI or ASI could be made to behave morally, or at least behave as intended by its developers and not turn against humans." - Yoshua Bengio

"very soon they're going to be, they may very well be more intelligent than us and far more intelligent than us. And at that point, we will be receding into the background in some sense. We will have handed the baton over to our successors, for better or for worse.

But it's happening over a period of a few years. It's like a tidal wave that is washing over us at unprecedented and unimagined speeds. And to me, it's quite terrifying because it suggests that everything that I used to believe was the case is being overturned." - Douglas Hofstadter

The Social Dilemna was discussed here with much praise about how profit incentive caused mass societal issues in social media. I'm astounded it's fallen on deaf ears when the same people also made the AI Dilemna describing the parallels coming with AGI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#130

Post by hiddencost »

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]

Gimmie that sweet SALT deduction back.

(It's not actually that high on my list.)

Post reply on HN