https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/californias-gavin-newsom-vetoes-...
Thanks! The WSJ article was the submitted URL, but I've changed it to the governor's statement now. Interested readers will probably want to look at both.
Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
231–240 of 514 posts
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Newsom believe that an AI model can do this damage autonomously or does he understand it must be wielded and overseen by humans to do so? In that case, how much of an enabler is an AI to meet the destructive ends, when, if the humans can use AI to conduct the damage, they can surely do it without the AI as well. The potential for destruction exists either way but is the concern that AI makes this more accessible…
“Critical harm” does not include any of the following: (A) Harms caused or materially enabled by information that a covered model or covered model derivative outputs if the information is otherwise reasonably publicly accessible by an ordinary person from sources other than a covered model or covered model derivative. The bogeyman is not these models, it's future agentic autonomous ones, if and when they can hack maj…
I am not convinced the text means what you say it means.
All knowledge (publicly available and not) and all tools (AI or not) can be used by people in material ways to commit the aforementioned atrocities, but only the models producing novel knowledge would be at risk. I hope you can see how this law would stifle AI advancement. The boundary between what's acceptable and not would be drawn at generating novel, publicly unavailable information; not at information that could be used to harm - because all information can be used that way.
What if AI solves fusion and countries around the world start building fusion weapons of mass destruction? What if it solves personalized gene therapy and armed forces worldwide develop weapons that selectively kill their wartime foes? Should we not have split the atom just because that power was co-opted for evil means, or should we have not done the contraception research just because the third Reich used it for sterilization in their war crimes? This bill would work towards making AI never invent any of the novel things, simply out of fear that they will be corrupted by people as they have been in history. It would only slow research and whenever the (slower) research makes its discoveries, they would still get corrupted. In other words, there would be no change in human propensity to hurt others with knowledge, simply less knowledge.
Besides, the text is not "very very clear" on AI if and when it hacks major infrastructure or builds nukes. If it was "very very clear" on that, that is what it would say :) - "an AI model is prohibited to be the decision-making agent, solely instigating critical harm to humans". But what the text says is different.
I agree that AI harms to people and humanity need to be minimized but this bill is a miss rather than a hit and the veto is good news. We know AI alignment is needed. Other bills will come.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. As someone who moved to California I honestly can’t imagine living anywhere else. This state has so much good social programming and tries to do good for its people. It also helps that most Californians are awesome people. I’ve been in TX (hard nope), NY, NJ, VA, DC, OH, WA, OR, and MD. I would honestly never move out of California there’s no better place I can think of.
how would you rank the states you have lived in by those metrics(social programming + doing good for the people)?
[deleted]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#234Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#235Based.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#236Not today, regulatory capture. Not today.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#237Curious 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…
I looked into the question of what counts as reasonable care and wrote up my conclusions here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kBg5eoXvLxQYyxD6R/my-takes-o...
Thank you! Your post was really helpful in aiding my understanding, so I greatly appreciate it.
Also, while reading your article I also fell onto https://www.brookings.edu/articles/misrepresentations-of-cal... while trying to understand some terms, and that also gave some really good info, e.g. the difference between a "reasonable assurance" language that was dropped from an earlier version of the bill and replaced with "reasonable care".
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
who could've predicted this?
The law was passed knowing it would make bigots uncomfortable. That's an intended effect, if not a primary one, at least a secondary one.
What a strange comment. I wonder if there was any consideration for the women locked up and powerless in the matter, or was the point really just to "show those bigots"?
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#239Given 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!
I don’t follow politics closely and don’t live in CA, but is he really that bad? I had a look on Wikipedia for some other bills he worked on that seem to me positive:
* wanted to decriminalize psychoactive drugs (lsd/dmt/mdma etc)
* wanted to allow alcohol sales till 4am
* a bill about removing parking minimums for new constructions close to public transit
Though I agree the car one seems ridiculous, and on first glance downright dangerous.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transmission losses aren't negligible without investment in costly infrastructure like HVDC connections. It's always more efficient to site electricity generation as close to generation as feasibly possible.
Electric power transmission loss is less than 5%: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/flow-graphs/electricity... 14.26 Net generation 0.67 "Transmission and delivery losses and unaccounted for" It's just a tiny fraction of the losses resulting from burning fuel to heat water to produce steam to drive a turbine to yield electric power.
That's the average. It's bought and sold on a spot market. If you try to sell CA power in AZ and the losses are 10% then SRP or TEP or whoever can undercut your price with local power/lower losses.