Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 232 posts

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#31

Post by ryandrake »

toxicdevil wrote: post #2

Copied from the end of the page: What the law does: SB 53 establishes new requirements for frontier AI developers creating stronger: Transparency: Requires large frontier developers to publicly publish a framework on its website describing how the company has incorporated national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. Innovation: Establishes a new co…

So the significant regulatory hurdle for companies that this SB introduces is... "You have to write a doc." Please tell me there's actual meat here.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#32

Post by babypuncher »

davidmckayv wrote: post #11

This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…

If there's one thing I've learned watching the trajectory of social media over the last 15 years, it's that we've been way to slow to assess the risks and harmful outcomes posed by new, rapidly evolving industries.

Fixing social media is now a near impossible task as it has built up enough momentum and political influence to resist any kind of regulation that would actually be effective at curtailing its worst side effects.

I hope we don't make the same mistakes with generative AI

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#33

Post by drivebyhooting »

andy99 wrote: post #20
hodgesrm wrote: post #4

What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?

Your rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some kind of wealth redistribution to the loudest complainers.

I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI.

As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#34

Post by freedomben »

podgietaru wrote: post #23
hodgesrm wrote: post #4

What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?

Protection for whistleblowers - which might expose nefarious actions

I think protection for whistleblowers both in AI and in general is a good thing, but ... do we really need a special carveout for AI whistleblowers? Do we not already have protections for them, or is it insufficient? And if we don't have them already, why not pass general protections instead of something so hyper-specific?

(not directing these questions at you specifically, though if you know I'd certainly love to hear your thoughts)

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#35

Post by andy99 »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #33
andy99 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some kind of wealth redistribution to the loudest complainers.

I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?

> I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI.

So would I. You've just demonstrated one of the many reasons that any kind of LLM tax that redistributes money to supposedly aggrieved "creators" is a bad idea.

While by no means the only argument or even one of the top ones, if an author has a clearly differentiated product from LLM generated content (which all good authors do) why should they also get compensated because of the existence of LLMs? The whole thing is just "someone is making money in a way I didn't think about, not fair!"

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#36

Post by ronsor »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #33
andy99 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some kind of wealth redistribution to the loudest complainers.

I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?

I'd rather not pay OpenAI either. I'll stick with my open-weights models, and I rather anachronistic rent-seeking not kill those.

You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#39

Post by throwworhtthrow »

davidmckayv wrote: post #11

This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…

LLMs don't have rights. LLMs are tools, and the state can regulate tools. Humans acting on behalf of these companies can still, if they felt the bizarre desire to, publish assembly instructions for bioweapons on the company blog.

Re: California governor signs AI transparency bill into law

#40

Post by logicchains »

josefritzishere wrote: post #18
davidmckayv wrote: post #11

This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…

I've never thought censorship was a core concern of AI. It's just regurgitating from an LLM. I vehemently oppose censorship but who cares about AI? I just dont see the use-case.

Censorship of AI has a huge use-case: people get information from AI, and censorship allows the censors to control which information people can access through the AI.
Post reply on HN