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

181–190 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#181

Post by oceanplexian »

hbarka wrote: post #169
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.

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

Like most things, the facts bear out the exact opposite. The CA HSR has been such a complete failure that it’s probably set back rail a decade or more. The only saving grace is Florida’s privatized high speed rail, otherwise it would be a completely failed industry.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#182

Post by mmmore »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71

Curious if anyone can point to some resources that summarize the pros/cons arguments of this legislation. Reading this article, my first thought is that I definitely agree it sounds impossibly vague for a piece of legislation - "reasonable care" and "unreasonable risk" sound like things that could be endlessly litigated. At the same time, > Computer scientists Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, who developed much of…

The concern is that near future systems will be much more capable than current systems, and by the time they arrive, it may be too late to react. Many people from the large frontier AI companies believe that world-changing AGI is 5 years or less away; see Situational Awareness by Aschbrenner, for example. There's also a parallel concern that AIs could make terrorism easier[1].

Yoshua Bengio has written in detail about his views on AI safety recently[2][3][4]. He seems to put less weight on human level AI being very soon, but says superhuman intelligence is plausible in 5-20 years and says:

> Faced with that uncertainty, the magnitude of the risk of catastrophes or worse, extinction, and the fact that we did not anticipate the rapid progress in AI capabilities of recent years, agnostic prudence seems to me to be a much wiser path.

Hinton also has a detailed lecture he's been giving recently about the loss of control risk.

In general, proponents see this as narrowly tailored bill to somewhat address the worst case worries about loss of control and misuse.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/28/ai_senate_bioweapon/

[2] https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/05/22/how-rogue-ais-may-arise/

[3] https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...

[4] https://yoshuabengio.org/2024/07/09/reasoning-through-argume...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#183

Post by wslh »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #170
wslh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

There are startups and startups, the ones that you read on media are just a fraction of the worldwide reality.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#184

Post by gdiamos »

llamaimperative wrote: post #174
gdiamos wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to me when we get to llama 15

What?

“But the big guys are struggling getting past 100KB, so ‘think of the small guys’ doesn’t make sense when the limit is 640KB.”

How do people on a computer technology forum ignore the 10,000x improvement in computers over 30 years due to advances in computer technology?

I could understand why politicians don’t get it.

I should think that computer systems companies would be up in arms over SB 1047 in the same way they would be if the government was thinking of putting a cap on hard drives bigger than 1 TB.

It puts a cap on flops. Isn’t the biggest company in the world in the business of selling flops?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#185

Post by [deleted] »

Eisenstein wrote: post #152
hydrox24 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any others reading this, the _illiteracy_ rate is 23.1% in California according to the parent's source. This is indeed the highest illiteracy rate in the US thought. Having said that, I would have thought this was partially a measure of migration. Perhaps illegal migration?

The "medium to high English literacy skills" is the part that is important. If you can read and write Chinese and Spanish and French and Portuguese and Esperanto at a high level, but not English at a medium to high level, you are 'illiterate' in this stat.

[deleted]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#186

Post by timr »

GolfPopper wrote: post #70
timr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next election. The man cannot be trusted with power -- this is far from the first ridiculous law he has championed. Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by t…

Anthony Weiner is a disgraced New York Democratic politician who does not appear to have re-entered politics after his release from prison a few years ago. You mentioned his name twice in your post, so it doesn't seem to be an accident that you mentioned him, yet his name does not seem to appear anywhere in your links. I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to…

Yes, it was a mistake. I obviously meant the Weiner responsible for the legislation I cited. But you clearly know that.

> I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it.

Really? The message is unchanged, so it seems like something you could deduce.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#187

Post by Der_Einzige »

deredede wrote: post #101
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!

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…

"Undetectable means untranstmitable" is NOT the same as "cured" in the way that many STDs can be. I am not okay with being forced onto drugs for the rest of my life to prevent a disease which is normally a horribly painful death sentence. Herpes is so ubiquitous that much of the population (as I recall on the orders of 30-40%) has it and doesn't know it, so it's a special exception

HIV/AIDS to this day is still something that people commit suicide over, despite how good your local gay male community is at trying to convince you that everything is okay and that "DoxyPep and Poppers is normal".

Bug givers (the evil version of a bug chaser) deserve felonies.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#188

Post by LeroyRaz »

rootusrootus wrote: post #164
LeroyRaz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know what your source for "by most metrics" is?

As I understand it, the US is abysmal by many metrics (and also exceptional by others). E.g., murder rated and prison rates are exceptionally high in the US compared to Europe. Homelessness rates are exceptionally high in the US compared to Europe. Startup rates are (I believe) exceptionally high in the US compared to Europe.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#189

Post by llamaimperative »

gdiamos wrote: post #184
llamaimperative wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

“But the big guys are struggling getting past 100KB, so ‘think of the small guys’ doesn’t make sense when the limit is 640KB.” How do people on a computer technology forum ignore the 10,000x improvement in computers over 30 years due to advances in computer technology? I could understand why politicians don’t get it. I should think that computer systems companies would be up in arms over SB 1047 in the same way they…

It would be crazy if the bill had a built-in mechanism to regularly reassess both the cost and FLOP thresholds… which it does.

Inversely to your sarcastic “understanding” about politicians’ stupidity, I can’t understand how tech people seem incapable or unwilling to actually read the legislation they have such strong opinions about.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#190

Post by crazygringo »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71

Curious if anyone can point to some resources that summarize the pros/cons arguments of this legislation. Reading this article, my first thought is that I definitely agree it sounds impossibly vague for a piece of legislation - "reasonable care" and "unreasonable risk" sound like things that could be endlessly litigated. At the same time, > Computer scientists Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, who developed much of…

> impossibly vague for a piece of legislation - "reasonable care" and "unreasonable risk" sound like things that could be endlessly litigated.

Nope, that's entirely standard legal stuff. Tort law deals exactly with those kinds of things, for instance. Yes it can certainly wind up in litigation, but the entire point is that if there's a gray area, a company should make sure it's operating entirely within the OK area -- or know it's taking a legal gamble if it tries to push the envelope.

But it's generally pretty easy to stay in the clear if you establish common-sense processes around these things, with a clear paper trail and decisions approved by lawyers.

Now the legislation can be bad for lots of other reasons, but "reasonable care" and "unreasonable risk" are not problematic.

Post reply on HN