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

151–160 of 232 posts

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#151

Post by hopelite »

serf wrote: post #116
thereisnospork wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which documents? Which are comprehensively listed where? With what indemnification for a good faith effort?

that's a ridiculous stance to take, and you could take it all day -- regulations change on the net daily , it's a full time job being totally compliant, that's why people make money (..or attempt to..) while doing it.

That is just one of the issues, administrative bloat and drag; not even to mention that it is very likely that those kinds of administrative burdens are what crushes innovation and, more importantly to the established players, competition. It is why it is known that the established large players often encourage administrative hurdles and red tape because they are established and in many cases they can just pass on the cost of administrative burdens to the consumer.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#152

Post by piperswe »

tadfisher wrote: post #73
parineum wrote: post #47

> 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…

I'm in disagreement with others here: this definition matches no technology in existence, because AIs can't "infer" anything from their input. Likewise, we can't really prove humans can either.

The term for using an ML model is "inference" - perhaps it's not the same definition of the word as you're thinking, but it's a commonly used definition.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#153

Post by baconbrand »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #117
HPMOR wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no bubble. Your priors are not serving you well here.

Historically speaking, people saying "history won't repeat this time, it's different" have a pretty bad track record. Do we remember what the definition of "insanity" is?

This seems different to me than other hype bubbles because “the human intelligence/magical worker replacement machine isn’t in that guy’s box or the other guy’s box or even the last version of my box but it surely is in this box now that I have here for you for a price...” is just about infinitely repackageble and resellable to an infinite (?) contingent of old gullible men with access to functionally infinite money. Not sure if that’s lack of imagination or education on my part or what.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#154

Post by tzs »

zer0zzz wrote: post #81

I scrolled this entire thread and still can’t figure out what effect this might have on the ai industry. Everyone’s takes feel excessively either politically motivated knee jerk or nihilistic.

It looks like it largely codifies things that most of the large AI companies are already doing. It encourages them to keep doing those things, and when other AI companies get large they will have to do them too. It adds some reporting requirements if you AI does something that kills too many people or causes too much monetary damage.

The link to the annotated bill text that dang added near the top of the page [1] is pretty useful, especially if you click the blue underlined parts which expand to annotations explaining how some of the things in it came about.

That link also has a good summary and FAQs.

[1] https://sb53.info/index

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#155

Post by kbenson »

iinnPP wrote: post #30
tadfisher wrote: post #9

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…

If I had a requirement to either do something I didn't want to do or pay a nickel, I'd just fake doing what needed to be done and wait for the regulatory body to fine me 28 years later after I exhausted my appeal chain. Luckily, inflation turned the nickel into a penny, now defunct, and I rely on the ability to pay debts in legal currency to use another 39 years of appeals.

And if later on someone proposes more aggressive action if you don't do that action, they now have a record of all the times you've failed to do that thing which they can point to about how the current level of penalties are not sufficient.

That said, the penalty is not just $10k. It's $10k for an unknowing violation, or $100k for a knowing violation that "does not create a material risk of death, serious physical injury, or a catastrophic risk" or a unknowing violation that does cause that, and $10m for if you knowingly violate it and it does cause risk of death or serious physical injury, etc.

I imagine the legal framework and small penalty if you fail to actually publish something can play into the knowing/unknowing state if they investigate you as well.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#156

Post by kbenson »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #50
tadfisher wrote: post #9

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.

There's a graduated penalty structure based on how problematic it is. It goes from $10k to $100k and then $10m, depending on whether you're in violation knowingly or unknowingly and whether there's a risk of death or serious physical harm, etc.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#157

Post by xpe »

srj wrote: post #38

Reading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety" industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.

The commenter’s profile indicates they work for a major AI development companies — where being against AI regulation aligns nicely with one’s paycheck. See also the the scare quotes around AI safety.

We all have heard the dogma: regulation kills innovation. As if unbridled innovation is all that people and society care about.

I wonder if the commenter above has ever worked in an industry where a safety culture matters. Once you have, you see the world a little bit differently.

Large chunks of Silicon Valley have little idea about safety: not in automotive, not in medicine, not for people, and certainly not for longer-term risks.

So forgive us for not trusting AI labs to have good incentives.

When regulation isn’t as efficient as we’d like, that is a problem. But you have to factor what happens if we don’t have any regulation. Also, don’t forget to call out every instance of insider corruption, kickback deals, any industry collusion.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#158

Post by johnnyanmac »

mlyle wrote: post #147
Forgeties79 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a bubble doesn’t mean the industry entirely implodes and goes away forever or otherwise doesn’t change things. It’s often a phase.

I think a bubble implies that the industry was overvalued compared to its long term fundamental value. Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble. The internet and tech sector has grown to dominate the global economy. What happened was more of a cyclical correction, or a dip and rebound.

>Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble.

That's exactly what a bubble is. You blow too fast and you get nothing but soap. You blow slow, controlled breaths balancing speed and accuracy and you get a big, sustainable bubble.

No one's saying you can't blow a new bubble, just that this current one isn't long for this world. It's just that the way investments work is that the first bubble popping will scare off a lot of the biggest investors who just want a quick turnaround.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#159

Post by tadfisher »

davidmckayv wrote: post #141
tadfisher wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that HN's guidelines ask me not to do this, but it's hard to answer point-by-point when there are so many. > You have to actually know or intend the criminal use. > If a company knowingly provides a service to facilitate imminent lawless action, that's already illegal. And if I tell an AI chatbot that I'm intending to commit a crime, and somehow it assists me in doing so, the company behind that service should…

You're conflating individual criminal liability with mandated prior restraint. If someone tells a chatbot they're going to commit a crime and the AI helps them, prosecute under existing law. But the company doesn't have knowledge of every individual interaction. That's not how the knowledge requirement works. You can't bootstrap individual criminal use into "the company should have known someone might use this for cr…

> You can't bootstrap individual criminal use into "the company should have known someone might use this for crimes, therefore they must filter everything."

Lucky for me, I am not. The company already has knowledge of each and every prompt and response, because I have read the EULAs of every tool I use. But that's beside the point.

Prior restraint is only unconstitutional if it is restraining protected speech. Thus far, you have not answered the question of whether AI output is speech at all, but have assumed prior restraint to be illegal in and of itself. We know this is not true because of the exceptions you already mentioned, but let me throw in another example: the many broadcast stations regulated by the FCC, who are currently barred from "news distortion" according to criteria defined by (checks notes) the government.

Post reply on HN