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

201–210 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#201

Post by rootusrootus »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #180
anigbrowl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's such a long-running thing that it's hard to gauge whether it's deliberate or just loose usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

The party isn't doing much lately to encourage the actual democracy part of the name, other than whining about national popular vote every 4 years knowing full well that's now how that process works.

The Democratic Party has some warts, this is for sure, and they have a lot they could be doing to improve participation and input from the rank-and-file. However, attempting to subvert an election by any means possible is not yet one of those warts. This is emphatically not a case where "both sides suck equally."

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#202

Post by cma »

toephu2 wrote: post #136
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.

> but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state gove…

> The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector.

Tesla received billions in subsidies from CA as an example.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#203

Post by cma »

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 California tech industry will solve any concerns with this, we'll have Babelfish soon enough.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#204

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

crazygringo wrote: post #190
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 -…

> but "reasonable care" and "unreasonable risk" are not problematic.

Still strongly disagree, at least when it comes to AI legislation. Yes, I fully realize that there are "reasonableness" standards in lots of places of US jurisprudence, but when it comes to AI, given how new the tech is and how, perhaps more than any other recent technology, it is largely a "black box", meaning we don't really know how it works and we aren't really sure what its capabilities will ultimately be, I don't think anybody really knows what "reasonableness" means in this context.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#205

Post by tightbookkeeper »

aagha wrote: post #198
tightbookkeeper wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LOL. California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.

Yeah it’s incredibly beautiful. People wish they could live there. And many large companies were built there in prior decades. This contradicts my comment how?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#206

Post by labster »

toephu2 wrote: post #136
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.

> but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state gove…

I think California might have a better run government if it had an electable conservative party. The Republican Party is not that, being tied to the national Trump-Vance-Orbán axis. A center-right party could hold Democratic officers accountable but it’s not being offered and moderates gravitate to the electable Dem side. An independent California would largely fix that.

As a lifelong California Democrat, I realize that my party does not have all the answers. But the conservatives have all gone AWOL or gone batshit so we’re doing the best we can without the other half of the dialectic.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#207

Post by dang »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #55

I wondered if the article was over-dramatizing what risks were covered by the bill, so I read the text: (g) (1) “Critical harm” means any of the following harms caused or materially enabled by a covered model or covered model derivative: (A) The creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon in a manner that results in mass casualties. (B) Mass casualties or at least five hundred million d…

(I added newlines to your quote to match what looked like the intended formatting - I hope that's ok. Since HN doesn't do indentation I'm not sure it helps all that much...)

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#208

Post by stufffer »

rootusrootus wrote: post #201
jimmygrapes wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The party isn't doing much lately to encourage the actual democracy part of the name, other than whining about national popular vote every 4 years knowing full well that's now how that process works.

The Democratic Party has some warts, this is for sure, and they have a lot they could be doing to improve participation and input from the rank-and-file. However, attempting to subvert an election by any means possible is not yet one of those warts. This is emphatically not a case where "both sides suck equally."

>subvert an election by any means possible is not yet one of those warts

The Democrats are famous for trying to have 3rd party candidates stripped from ballots. Straining smaller campaigns under the cost of fighting off endless lawsuits.

Democrats invented the term lawfare.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#209

Post by gdiamos »

llamaimperative wrote: post #189
gdiamos wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

[flagged]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#210

Post by Lonestar1440 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #167
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.

I'm a pretty pedantic person, but even I just use one or the other at random. I don't think it's a good idea to read into things like this.
Post reply on HN