The Apple Intelligence demos showed Apple is likely planning to use on-device models for ad targeting, and Google / Facebook will certainly respond. Small LLMs will help move unwanted computation onto user devices in order to circumvent existing data and privacy laws. And they will likely be much more effective since they’ll have more access and more data. This use case is just getting started, hence SB 1047 is so short-sighted. Smaller LLMs have dangers of their own.
Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
31–40 of 514 posts
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#32A bill laying the groundwork to ensure the future survival of humanity by making companies on the frontier of AGI research responsible for damages or deaths caused by their models, was vetoed because it doesn't stifle competition with the big players enough and because we don't want companies to be scared of letting future models capable of massive hacks or creating mass casualty events handle their customer support.…
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.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#33https://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.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#34Given 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!
[dead]
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#35Is part of the issue the concern that runaway ai computing would just happen outside of california?
There's another important county election in Sonoma happening about CAFOs where part of the issue is that you may get environmental progress locally, but just end up exporting the issue to another state with lax rules: https://www.kqed.org/news/12006460/the-sonoma-ballot-measure...
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#36A bill laying the groundwork to ensure the future survival of humanity by making companies on the frontier of AGI research responsible for damages or deaths caused by their models, was vetoed because it doesn't stifle competition with the big players enough and because we don't want companies to be scared of letting future models capable of massive hacks or creating mass casualty events handle their customer support.…
The future survival of humanity involves creating machines that have all of our knowledge and which can replicate themselves. We can't leave the planet but our robot children can. I just wish that I could see what they become.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#37https://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.
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.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
[dead]
who could've predicted this?
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about current LLMs, it's about future, much more advanced models, that are capable of serious hacking or other mass-casualty-causing activities. o-1 and AlphaProof are proofs of concept for agentic models. Imagine them as GPT-1. The GPT-4 equivalent might be a scary technology to let roam the internet. It would have no effect on current models.
It looks like it would cover an ordinary chatbot than can answer "how do I $THING" questions, where $THING is both very bad and is also beyond what a normal person could dig up with a search engine. It's not based on any assumptions about the future models having any capabilities beyond providing information to a user.
everyone in the safety space has realized that it is much easier to get legislators/the public to care if you say that it will be “bad actors using the AI for mass damage” as opposed to “AI does damage on its own” which triggers people’s “that’s sci-fi and i’m ignoring it” reflex.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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?