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

291–300 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#291

Post by concordDance »

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…

> The race is on and you better commit to a faction that may deliver.

How does that help?

The giant does not care whether the ant he steps on worships him or not. Regardless of the autonomy or not of the AI, why should the controllers help you?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#292

Post by concordDance »

handfuloflight wrote: post #72
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…

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…

> 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?

AI models might not be able to, but an AI system that uses a powerful model might be able to cause damage (including extinction of humanity in the more distant future) unintended and unforeseen by its creators.

The more complex and unpredictable the system the harder it is to properly oversee.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#293

Post by fat_cantor »

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?

It's an interesting thought that as AI advances, and becomes more capable of human destruction, programmers, bots and politicians will work together to create safety for a large quantity of humans

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#294

Post by teekert »

akira2501 wrote: post #33
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…

> and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters Audits cannot prove anything and they offer no value when planning for the future. They're purely a retrospective tool that offers insights into potential risk factors. > and can be turned off. I really wish legislators would operate inside reality instead of a Star Trek episode.

The best episodes are where the model can't be turned off anymore ;)

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#295

Post by shiroiushi »

RockRobotRock wrote: post #288
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.

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.

The biggest problem with it, AFAICT, is that it allows anyone who claims to hold a copyright to maliciously take down material they don't like by filing a DMCA notice. Companies receiving these notices have to follow a process to reinstate material that was falsely claimed, so many times they don't bother. There's no mechanism to punish companies that abuse this.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#296

Post by alkonaut »

The immediate danger of large AI models isn't that they'll turn the earth to paperclips it's that we'll create fraud as a service and have a society where nothing can be trusted. I'd be all for a law (however clumsy) that made image, audio or video content produced by models with over X parameters to be marked with metadata saying it's AI generated. Creating models that don't tag their output as such would be banned. So far nothing strange about the law. The obvious problem with the law is that you need to require even screenshotting an image AI and reposting it online without the made-with-ai metadata to be outlawed. And that would be an absolute mess to enforce, at least for images.

But most importantly: whatever we do in this space has to be made on the assumption that we can't really influence what "bad actors" do. Yes being responsible means leaving money on the table. So money has to be left on the table, for - erm - less responsible nations to pick up. That's just a fact.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#297

Post by worstspotgain »

RockRobotRock wrote: post #288
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.

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.

Among other things, quoth the EFF:

"Thanks to fair use, you have a legal right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment. But thanks to Section 1201, you do not have the right to break any digital locks that might prevent you from engaging in that fair use. And this, in turn, has had a host of unintended consequences, such as impeding the right to repair."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/what-really-does-and-d...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#298

Post by RockRobotRock »

worstspotgain wrote: post #297
RockRobotRock wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Among other things, quoth the EFF: "Thanks to fair use, you have a legal right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment. But thanks to Section 1201, you do not have the right to break any digital locks that might prevent you from engaging in that fair use. And this, in turn, has had a host of unintended consequences, such as impeding the right to repair." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/what-re…

forgot about the anti-circumvention clause ;(((

that's the worst

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#299

Post by worldsayshi »

alkonaut wrote: post #296

The immediate danger of large AI models isn't that they'll turn the earth to paperclips it's that we'll create fraud as a service and have a society where nothing can be trusted. I'd be all for a law (however clumsy) that made image, audio or video content produced by models with over X parameters to be marked with metadata saying it's AI generated. Creating models that don't tag their output as such would be banned.…

Any law that tries to categorize non-trustworthy content seems doomed to fail. We need to find better ways to communicate trustworthiness, not the other way around. (And I'm not sure adding more laws can help here.)

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#300

Post by dandanua »

"By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 - at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good."

The amount of idiots who can't read and cheer the veto as a win against "the regulatory capture" is astounding.

Post reply on HN