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

181–190 of 232 posts

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#181

Post by progval »

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 love that the two replies to this comment are: "this definition matches no technology in existence" and "So, like my coffee maker?"

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#182

Post by egorfine »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #90
egorfine wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else I could possibly do if complying is not technically possible?

well certainly not geoblock a lot of your customers maybe your situation is different, but if we geoblocked all of california we'd go out of business within a year

Yeah I am with you here, but what else is to be done if legislation is passed that is impossible to comply with? Like in UK.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#183

Post by TiredOfLife »

hodgesrm wrote: post #4

What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?

Same way you currently protect your IP from being vacuumed up and used by humans

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#184

Post by terminalshort »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #93
ronsor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather not pay OpenAI either. I'll stick with my open-weights models, and I rather anachronistic rent-seeking not kill those. You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it.

All of them are trained on copyrighted data. Why is it okay for a model to serve up paraphrased books but verbatim copies from the Pirate Bay are illegal? I don’t deny the utility of LLMs. But copyright law was meant to protect authors from this kind of exploitation. Imagine instead of “magical AGI knowledge compression”, instead these LLM providers just did a search over their “borrowed” corpus and then performed a…

> Why is it okay for a model to serve up paraphrased books

Because that is, and always has been, legal.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#185

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #130
ndriscoll wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but society has no reason to grant monopolies on 50 year old publications (e.g. textbooks or news articles written or songs recorded prior to 1975), and the changes that were made to copyright law to extend it into multiple generations were actual rent-seeking. i.e. manipulating public policy to transfer wealth from others to you rather than creating wealth. Going with the original 28 year compromise from a time…

It’s far more recent works that AI companies care about. They can’t copy 50 year old python, JavaScript, etc code because it simply doesn’t exist. There’s some 50 year old C code, but it’s no longer idiomatic and so it goes. Utility of older works drop off as science marches on and culture changes. The real secret of long copyright terms is they just don’t matter much. Steamboat Willy entered the public domain and fo…

Ostensibly copyright is there to increase economic incentives to make things it protects, and like you said, we can massively cut it down without affecting much there. So focusing on economic viability, set it to something like 15 years for code and 20-30 for everything else. Require registration for everything and source escrow for code and digital art to be granted copyright. That would give a wealth of code to train on already even without people who would be fine freely giving it away. There's also government code as a relatively large public domain source for recent material.

Like I said science has mostly been stolen, and has no business being copyrighted at all. The output of publicly funded research should immediately be public domain.

Anyway this is beside the point that model creation is wealth creation, and so by definition not rent-seeking. Lobbying for a government granted monopoly (e.g. copyright) is rent-seeking.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#186

Post by [deleted] »

jefftk wrote: post #133
DrewADesign wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The .com economy is a new business paradigm: the rules have changed.” - pioneers in wrongness 25 years ago. Oft copied, but never vindicated.

That's a weird example, because they were vindicated. The .com economy really did massively change the way business is done. They just (fatally, for most of the companies) overestimated how quickly the change would happen.

[deleted]

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#187

Post by array_key_first »

bloodyplonker22 wrote: post #25
hodgesrm wrote: post #4

What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?

It solves a very real real world problem: putting more money into the hands of government officials.

This is, like, the stupidest and most inefficient way for a government to make money.

I know it's fun and all to circle jerk about how greedy those darn bureaucrats are - but we're all aware they control the budget, right? They could just raise taxes.

I don't think they're fining companies... sigh... 10,000 dollars as some sort of sneaky "haha gotcha!" scam they're running.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#188

Post by array_key_first »

cogman10 wrote: post #46
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #3

I found this website with the actual bill text along with annotations [0]. The section 22757.12. seems to contain the actual details of what they mean by "transparency". [0] https://sb53.info/

> “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. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this definition covers basically all automation of any kind. Like, a dumb lawnmower responds to the…

These type of comments are so annoying.

"Everything is the same as everything" as an argumentative tactic and mindset is just incredibly intellectually lazy.

As soon as anyone tries to do anything about anything, ever, anywhere, people like you come out of the wood work and go "well what about this perfectly normal thing? Is that illegal now too???"

Why bother making bombs illegal? I mean, I think stairs kill more people yearly har har har! What, now it's illegal to have a two story house?

Also, elephant in the room: lawnmowers absolutely fucking do contain warning and research on their safety. If you develop a lawnmower, YES you have to research it's safety. YES that's perfectly reasonable. NO that's not an undue burden. And YES everyone is already doing that.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#190

Post by KurSix »

hodgesrm wrote: post #4

What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?

In a way, it assumes the training has already happened and focuses on what comes after
Post reply on HN