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

161–170 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#161

Post by gdiamos »

llamaimperative wrote: post #91
gdiamos wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advanced technology will drop the cost of training. The flop targets in that bill would be like saying “640KB of memory is all we will ever need” and outlawing anything more. Imagine what other countries would have done to us if we allowed a monopoly like that on memory in 1980.

No, there are two thresholds and BOTH must be met. One of those is $100MM in training costs. The other is measured in FLOPs but is already larger than GPT-4, so the “think of the small guys!” argument doesn’t make much sense.

Cost as a perf metric is meaningless and the history of computer benchmarks has repeatedly proven this point.

There is a reason why we report time (speedup) in spec instead of $$

The price you pay depends on who you are and who is giving it to you.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#163

Post by johnnyanmac »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #104
johnnyanmac wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'd think they'd learn from the streetlight cameras that it's just a waste of budget and resources 99% of the time to worry about petty things like that. It will still work on the same logic and the bias always tends to skew from profiling (so lawsuit waiting to happen unless we are funding properly trained personell.

I'm not against the law per se, I just don't think it'd be any more effective than the other tech we have or had.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#164

Post by rootusrootus »

LeroyRaz wrote: post #141
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.

The state has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the whole country (28%). To me, that implies they have some issue of governance. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy... To be fair in the comparison, the literacy statistics for the whole of the US are pretty shocking from a European perspective.

Maybe there is something missing from your analysis? By most metrics the US compares quite favorably to Europe. When you see something that seems like an outlier, perhaps turn down the arrogance and try to understand what you might be overlooking.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#165

Post by dmix »

tightbookkeeper wrote: post #157
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.

In this case the success is in spite of the governance rather than because of it. The golden age of California was a long time ago.

California was extremely successful for quite some time. They benefited from a large population boom and lots of industry developed or moved there. And surprisingly they were a republican state from 1952 -> 1988.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#166

Post by peter422 »

kortilla wrote: post #154
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.

What is success in your metric? are you just counting GDP of companies that happen to be located there? If so, that has very little relationship to how well the state is being run. It’s very easy to make arguments that they are successful in spite of a terribly run state government and are being protected by federal laws keeping the loonies in check (interstate commerce clause, etc).

So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point.

Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#167

Post by rootusrootus »

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…

The subtle rebranding of Democratic party to democrat party is a pretty strong tell for highly partisan perspective. How does California compare with similarly large Republican-dominated states? Anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of really bad legislation originating from any legislature that has no meaningful opposition.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#168

Post by t-3 »

kortilla wrote: post #156
0_____0 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data you're showing doesn't appear to differentiate between "Can read English" and "Can read in some language ". Big immigrant population, same with New York. Having grown up in California I can tell you that there aren't 28% of kids coming out of public school who can't read anything. Edit to add: my own hometown had a lot of people who couldn't speak English. Lots of elderly mothers of Chinese immigrants whose…

Not being able to read English in the US is bad though. It makes you a very inefficient citizen even though you can get by. Being literate in Chinese and not being able to read or even speak English is far worse than an illiterate person that can speak English in day to day interactions.

The US has no official language. There are fluency requirements for the naturalized citizenship test, but those can be waived with 20 years of permanent residency. Citizens are under no obligation to be efficient for the sake of the government.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#169

Post by hbarka »

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.

High speed trains would do even more for California and would be the envy of the rest of the country.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#170

Post by SonOfLilit »

wslh wrote: post #155
CSMastermind wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bill included language that required the creators of models to have various "safety" features that would severely restrict their development. It required audits and other regulatory hurdles to build the models at all.

All that means that the barriers for entry for startups skyrocket.

Startups that spend >$100mm on one training run...
Post reply on HN