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

221–230 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#221

Post by dangus »

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…

It’s easy to disagree when you aren’t looking the grass that’s not so green on the other side.

California is run amazingly well compared to a significant number of states.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#222

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#223

Post by worstspotgain »

shiroiushi wrote: post #211
benreesman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws are just bad . When the API-mediated/closed-weights companies agree with the open-weight/operator-aligned community that a law is bad, it’s probably got to be pretty awful. That said, though my mind might be playing tricks on me, I seem to recall the big labs being in favor at one time. There are a number of related threads linked, but I’ll personally highlight Jeremy Howard’s open letter as IMHO the best-a…

It's too bad companies big and small didn't come together and successfully oppose the passage of the DMCA.

There were a lot of questionable Federal laws that made it through in the 90s, such as DOMA [1], PRWORA [2], IIRIRA [3], and perhaps the most maddening to me, DSHEA [4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wo...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#224

Post by richrichie »

I am disappointed that there are no climate change regulations on AI models. Large scale ML businesses are massive carbon emitters, not counting the whimsical training of NNs by every other IT person. This needs to be regulated.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#225

Post by pj_mukh »

llamaimperative wrote: post #82
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.

If you spent $100MM+ on training.

Or used a model someone open sourced after spending $100M+ on its training?

Like if I’m a startup reliant on open-source models I realize I don’t need liability and extra safety precautions but I didn’t hear any guarantees that this wouldn't turn off Meta from releasing their models to me if my business was in California?

I never heard any clarifications from the Pro groups about that

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#226

Post by dangus »

labster wrote: post #206
toephu2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Pre-Trump Republicans had no problem absurdly mismanaging Kansas’ coffers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

I think the Republican Party’s positive reputation for handling the economy and running an efficient government is entirely unearned.

Closing down major parts of the government entirely (as Project 2025 proposes), making taxation more regressive, and offering fewer social services isn’t “efficiency.”

I don’t know if you know this but you’re already in the center-right party. The actual problem is that there’s no left of center party, as well as the general need for a number of aspects of our democracy to be reformed (like how it really doesn’t allow for more than two parties to exist, or how out of control campaign finance rules have become).

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#227

Post by ketzo »

dang wrote: post #207
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...)

I’m sure people have asked this before, but would HN ever add a little more rich-text? Even just bullet points and indents might be nice.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#228

Post by dangus »

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.

Whining about the national popular vote every 4 years is literally an encouragement of increased actual democracy.

Scrapping the electoral college would be one of the most lower case d democratic things this country could do.

“Whining” is all you can do when you don’t have the statehouse votes to pass an constitutional amendment.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#230

Post by dangitman »

worstspotgain wrote: post #52

Excellent move by Newsom. We have a very active legislature, but it's been extremely bandwagon-y in recent years. I support much of Wiener's agenda, particularly his housing policy, but this bill was way off the mark. It was basically a torpedo against open models. Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or about open models in general. Its supporters were the also-rans like Musk [1]…

[dead]
Post reply on HN