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

281–290 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#281

Post by telotortium »

0_____0 wrote: post #145
LeroyRaz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the whole country (28%). To me, that implies they have some issue of governance. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy... To be fair in the comparison, the literacy statistics for the whole of the US are pretty shocking from a European perspective.

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…

Did you go to school in Oakland or Central Valley? That’s where most of the illiterate children are going to school. I’ve never heard of a Chinese student in the US growing up illiterate, even if their parents don’t know English at all.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#282

Post by theptip »

akira2501 wrote: post #40
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.

> seems incredibly naïve and foolish. We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. > were the same naysayers Now who's being snide and dismissive? Do you want to argue the point or are you just interested in tossing ad hominem attacks around?

If a malicious model exhilarates its weights to a Chinese datacenter, how do you turn that off?

How do you turn off Llama-Omega if it turns out that it can be prompt-hacked into a malicious agent?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#283

Post by kortilla »

t-3 wrote: post #168
kortilla wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 US has no official language. There are fluency requirements for the naturalized citizenship test, but those can be waived with 20 years of permanent residency. Citizens are under no obligation to be efficient for the sake of the government.

Yes, there is no official language. There is also no official rule that you shouldn’t be an asshole to everyone you interact with.

It’s still easy to be a shitty member of a community without breaking any laws. I would never move to a country permanently regardless of official language status if I couldn’t speak the language required to ask where something is in the grocery store.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#284

Post by lucubratory »

gdiamos wrote: post #279
lucubratory wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why not tell us? Or point out what is actually false? You rebutted the points that the flop limit will not actually limit anyone by saying that gpt4 is out of reach of startups. Is OpenAI a startup? Is Anthropic? Is Grok? Is Perplexity? Is SSI? You ignored the counter points that advanced technology exponentially raises flop limits and changes costs. You said that the flop limit can be raised over time. So startups s…

You have confused me with someone else.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#285

Post by kortilla »

peter422 wrote: post #166
kortilla wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is success in your metric? are you just counting GDP of companies that happen to be located there? If so, that has very little relationship to how well the state is being run. It’s very easy to make arguments that they are successful in spite of a terribly run state government and are being protected by federal laws keeping the loonies in check (interstate commerce clause, etc).

So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point. Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.

> So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point.

No, I’m saying people who think the state is successful because of its state government and not because it’s a part of the US are out of touch. If California wasn’t part of the US, Silicon Valley would be a shadow of itself or wouldn’t exist at all.

It thrives on being the tech Mecca for the youth of the entire US to go to school there and get jobs there. If there were immigration barriers there, there would be significant incentive to just go to something in the US (nyc, Chicago, Miami, wherever). California had a massive GDP because that’s where US citizens are congregating to do business, not because California is good at making businesses go. Remove spigot of brain drain from the rest of country and cali would be fucked.

Secondarily, Silicon Valley wouldn’t have started at all without the funnel of money from the fed military, NASA, etc. But that’s not worth dwelling on if the scenario is California leaving now.

My overall point is that California has immense success due to reasons far outside of the control of its state government. The state has done very little to help the tech industry apart from maybe the ban on non-competes. When people start to credit the large GDP to the government, that’s some super scary shit that leads to ideas that will quickly kill the golden goose.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#286

Post by deredede »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #187
deredede wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised at the claim that intentionally giving someone AIDS would be decriminalized, so I looked it up. The AIDS bill you seem to refer to (SB 239) lowers penalties from a felony to a misdemeanor (so it is still a crime), bringing it in line with other sexually transmitted diseases. The argument is that we now have good enough treatment for HIV that there is no reason for the punishment to be harsher than for…

"Undetectable means untranstmitable" is NOT the same as "cured" in the way that many STDs can be. I am not okay with being forced onto drugs for the rest of my life to prevent a disease which is normally a horribly painful death sentence. Herpes is so ubiquitous that much of the population (as I recall on the orders of 30-40%) has it and doesn't know it, so it's a special exception HIV/AIDS to this day is still somet…

> Bug givers (the evil version of a bug chaser) deserve felonies.

I agree; I think that knowingly transmitting any communicable disease deserves a felony, but I don't think that HIV deserves to be singled out when all other such diseases are a misdemeanor. Hepatitis and herpes (oral herpes is very common; genital herpes much less so) are also known to cause mental issues and to increase suicide risk, if that's your criterion.

(Poppers are recreational drugs, I'm not aware of any link with AIDS except that they were thought to be a possible cause in the '80s. Were you thinking of prep?)

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#287

Post by Maken »

gdiamos wrote: post #219
worstspotgain wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was just one quasi-monopoly it would have probably supported the bill. As it is, the market leaders have the competition from each other to worry about. Getting rid of open models wouldn't let them raise their prices much.

Claude, SSI, Grok, GPT, Llama, … Should we crown one the king? Or perhaps it is better to let them compete? Perhaps advanced AI capability will motivate advanced AI safety capability?

What are the economic incentives for AI safety?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#288

Post by RockRobotRock »

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.

No snark, but what's wrong with the DMCA? From what I understand it, they took the idea that it's infeasible for a site to take full liability for user-generated copyright infringement (so they granted them safe harbor), but that they will be liable if they ignore take down notices.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#289

Post by concordDance »

Terr_ wrote: post #85
tbrownaw wrote: post #18

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can…

Sounds like legislation that mis-indentifies the root issue as "somehow maybe the computer is too smart" as opposed to, say, "humans and corporations should be liable for using the tool to do evil."

The former is a potentially extremely serious issue, just not one we're likely to hit in the very near future.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#290

Post by h0l0cube »

badsandwitch wrote: post #276

The race for true AI is on and the fruits are the economic marginalization of humanity. No game theoretic actor in the running will shy away from the race. Anyone who claims they will for the 'good of humanity' is lying or was never a contender. This is information technology we are talking about, it's virtually the exact opposite of nuclear weapons. Refining uranium vs. manufacturing multi purpose silicon and guzzli…

> This race may even be the answer to the Fermi paradox

The mostly unchallenged popular notion that fleshy human intelligence will still be running the show 100s – let alone 1000s – of years from now is very naive. We're nearing the end of the human supremacy, though most of us won't live to see that end.

Post reply on HN