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

261–270 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#261

Post by Matheus28 »

dang wrote: post #248
slater wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And maybe also make new lines in the comment box translate to new lines in the resulting comment...? :D

That's actually a really good point. I've never looked into that, I just took it for granted that to get a line break on HN you need two consecutive newline chars. I guess the thing to do would be to look at all (well, lots of) comments that have single newlines and see what would break if they were rendered as actual newlines.

Could be applied to all comments made after a certain future date. That way nothing in the past is poorly formatted

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#263

Post by comp_throw7 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #77
comp_throw7 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size That's nowhere in the bill, but plenty of people have been confused into thinking this by the bill's opponents.

Three of the four options of what an "artifical intelligence safety incident" is defined as require that the weights be kept secret. One is quite explicit, the others are just impossible to prevent if the weights are available: > (2) Theft, misappropriation, malicious use, inadvertent release, unauthorized access, or escape of the model weights of a covered model or covered model derivative. > (3) The critical failur…

It is not illegal for a model developer to train a model that is involved in an "artifical intelligence safety incident".

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#264

Post by arduanika »

dragonwriter wrote: post #115
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]…

> Excellent move by Newsom. [...] It was basically a torpedo against open models. He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely. > Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or a…

He's a politician, and his stated reason for the veto is not necessarily his real reason for the veto.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#265

Post by stego-tech »

benreesman wrote: post #90
SonOfLilit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would Google, Microsoft and OpenAI oppose a torpedo against open models? Aren't they positioned to benefit the most?

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…

> 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.

I’d be careful with that cognitive bias, because obviously companies dumping poison into water sources are going to be opposed to laws that would prohibit them from dumping poison into water sources.

Always consider the broader narrative in addition to the specific narratives of the players involved. Personally, I’m on the side of the fence that’s grumpy Newsom vetoed it, because it stymies the larger discussion about regulations on AI in general (not just LLMs) in the classic trap of “any law that isn’t absolutely perfect and addresses all known and unknown problems is automatically bad” often used to kill desperately needed reforms or regulations, regardless of industry. Instead of being able to build on the momentum of passed legislation and improve on it elsewhere, we now have to deal with the giant cudgel from the industry and its supporters of “even CA vetoed it so why are you still fighting against it?”

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#267

Post by unit149 »

Much like UAW, a union for industrial machinists and academics, this bill has united VCs and members of the agrarian farming community. Establishing an entity under the guise of the Board of Frontier Models parallels efforts at Jekyll Island under Wilsonian idealism. Technological Keynesianism is on the horizon. These are birth pangs - its first gasps.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#268

Post by tzs »

dredmorbius wrote: post #258
guywithahat wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conseq…

> 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.

No one has the time to read all of them, so it doesn't really matter if it would also be unaffordable.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#269

Post by marshray »

bunabhucan wrote: post #240
marshray wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just don't see 10% remaining a big deal while solar continues its exponential cost reduction. Solar does not consume fuel, so when local supply exceeds local demand the cost of incremental production drops to approximately zero. Nobody's undercutting zero, even with 10% losses.

IMO, this is what 'winning' looks like.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#270

Post by jodleif »

arduanika wrote: post #264
dragonwriter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excellent move by Newsom. [...] It was basically a torpedo against open models. He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely. > Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or a…

He's a politician, and his stated reason for the veto is not necessarily his real reason for the veto.

Makes perfect sense since his elected based on public positions
Post reply on HN