[flagged]
Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
21–30 of 514 posts
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#22Given what Scott Wiener did with restaurant fees, it's hard to trust his judgement on any legislation. He clearly prioritizes monied interests over the general populace.
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!
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#23Earlier 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?
That concept does not appear to be part of the bill, and was only mentioned in the quote from the governor.
Presumably someone somewhere has a variety of proposed definitions, but I don't see any mention of any particular ones.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#24[flagged]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#25https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can…
[deleted]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
It's not about current LLMs, it's about future, much more advanced models, that are capable of serious hacking or other mass-casualty-causing activities. o-1 and AlphaProof are proofs of concept for agentic models. Imagine them as GPT-1. The GPT-4 equivalent might be a scary technology to let roam the internet. It would have no effect on current models.
It looks like it would cover an ordinary chatbot than can answer "how do I $THING" questions, where $THING is both very bad and is also beyond what a normal person could dig up with a search engine.
It's not based on any assumptions about the future models having any capabilities beyond providing information to a user.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#27[deleted]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#28Given what Scott Wiener did with restaurant fees, it's hard to trust his judgement on any legislation. He clearly prioritizes monied interests over the general populace.
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!
Scott Wiener is literally a demon in human form.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#29https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can…
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 the courts:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repea...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-...
(Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. Weiner has a long history of horrendously bad judgment and self-aggrandizement via legislation. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you are on, or what you think of "AI safety", you should want more thoughtful representation than this.)
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#30Perhaps worried that draconian restriction on new technology is not gonna help bring Silicon Valley back to preeminence.
Unfortunately he also veto'd AB3048 which allowed consumers a direct way to opt-out of data sharing.
https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...