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

251–260 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#251

Post by jart »

ravenstine wrote: post #196
dehrmann wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure of Newsom is actually wise enough or if his presidential ambitions moderate his policies.

It could be presidential ambitions, though I suspect his recent policies have been merely a way of not giving conservatives more ammo leading up to the 2024 election. The way he's been behaving recently is in stark contrast to pretty much everything he's done during and before his governorship. I don't think it's because he's suddenly any wiser.

Newsom was a successful entrepreneur in the 1990s who built wineries. That alone would make him popular with conservative voters nationwide. What did Newsom do before that you thought would alienate them? Being pro-gay and pro-drug before it was cool? Come on. The way I see it, if Newsom was nuts enough to run for president, then he could unite left and right in a way that has not happened in a very long time.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#252

Post by hannasm »

zamadatix wrote: post #46
whimsicalism wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This snide dismissiveness around “sci-fi” scenarios, while capabilities continue to grow, seems incredibly naïve and foolish. Many of you saying stuff like this were the same naysayers who have been terribly wrong about scaling for the last 6-8 years or people who only started paying attention in the last two years.

I don't think GP is dismissing the scenarios themselves, rather espousing their belief these answers will do nothing to prevent said scenarios from eventually occuring anyways. It's like if we invented nukes but found out they were made out of having a lot of telephones instead of something exotic like refining radioactive elements a certain way. Sure - you can still try to restrict telephone sales... but one way or…

If you think a solution to bad behavior is a law declaring punishment for such behavior you are a fool.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#253

Post by svat »

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…

Here's a post by the computer scientist Scott Aaronson on his blog, in support: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8269 -- it links to some earlier explainers, has some pro-con arguments, and further discussion in the comments.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#254

Post by ketzo »

leogao wrote: post #218
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…

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...

This was a great post, thanks.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#255

Post by caseyy »

bunabhucan wrote: post #243
caseyy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, public…

I'm pretty sure there's a few hundred fusion wmds in silos a few hours north of me, we've had this kind of weapon since 1952.

Nice fact check, thank you. I didn’t know H-bombs used fusion but it makes complete sense. Hydrogen is not exactly the heaviest of elements :)

Well then, for my example, imagine a different future discovery that could be abused. Let’s say biological robots or a some new source of useful energy that is misused. Warring humans find ways to corrupt many scientific achievements for evil.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#256

Post by ls612 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #32
atemerev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on, the entire bill was against open source models, it’s pure business. “AI safety”, at least of the X-risk variety, is a non-issue.

> “AI safety”, at least of the X-risk variety, is a non-issue. i have no earthly idea why people feel so confident making statements like this. at current rate of progress, you should have absolutely massive error bars for what capabilities will like in 3,5,10 years.

Nuclear weapons, at least in the quantities they are currently stockpiled, are not an existential risk even for industrial civilization, nevermind the human species. To claim that in 10 years AI will be more dangerous and consequential than the weapons that ushered in the Atomic Age is quite a leap.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#257

Post by Dylan16807 »

drivers99 wrote: post #245
Dylan16807 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "not be able" they don't mean legally, they mean GPS-based enforcement.

Rental scooters have speed limiters. My class-1 pedal assist electric bike has a speed limit on the assistance. Car deaths are over 40,000 in the US per year. Why can't they be limited?

I said GPS for a reason. Tying it to fine-grained map lookups is so much more fragile and dangerous than a fixed speed limit.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#258

Post by dredmorbius »

guywithahat wrote: post #246
dang wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you change it? The WSJ article already contains his reasoning, plus a lot of other interesting content from major players

WSJ's paywall, particularly against Archive Today, has been hardening markedly of late.

I'm repeatedly seeing A.T. links posted which read "you have been blocked" or similar. Sometimes those resolve later, sometimes not.

HN's policy is that paywalls are permissible where workarounds exist. WSJ is getting close to disabling those workarounds.

The NYTimes similarly tightened its paywall policy a few years ago. A consequence was that its prevalence on the HN front page fell to ~25% of its prior value, with no change in HN policies (as reported by dang), just member voting patterns.

Given the difficulty in encouraging people to read articles before posting shallow-take comments, this is a significant problem for HN, and the increased reliance of media sites on paywalls is taking its toll on general discussion.

There are literally hundreds of news sites, and many thousands if individual sites, submitted to HN and making the front page annually. It would cost a fortune, not merely a small one, to subscribe to all of these.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#259

Post by shiroiushi »

worstspotgain wrote: post #223
shiroiushi wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_Hea…

"Questionable" is a very charitable term to use here, especially for the DSHEA which basically just legalizes snake-oil scams.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#260

Post by lucubratory »

gdiamos wrote: post #209
llamaimperative wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It's troubling that you are saying things about the bill which are false, and then speculating on the motives of someone just pointing out that what you are saying is false.
Post reply on HN