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

301–310 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#301

Post by dgellow »

labster wrote: post #216
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear. Just keep getting reelected, since no one expects you to accomplish anything. People in the rest of the country push "term limits" as the solution to everything. I always point out that we've had them in CA for 20 years. It just means that they run for a different office after they're termed out. Or become lobbyists.

We should do the same thing in software engineering. After 4 years in web dev, you have to switch to something else like embedded systems or DBA. Or be forced to become a highly paid consultant.

> After 4 years in web dev, you have to switch to something else like embedded systems or DBA

Unironically, that would be awesome

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#302

Post by alkonaut »

worldsayshi wrote: post #299
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.)

No I don't think technical means will work fully either. But the thing about these regulations is that you can basically cover the 99% case by just thinking about the 5 largest players in the field, be it regulation for social media, AI or whatever. It doesn't matter that the law has loopholes or that some players aren't affected at all. Regulation that helps somewhat in a large majority of cases is massive.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#303

Post by dgellow »

GistNoesis wrote: post #278

So I've this code, it's called ShoggothDb, it's less than a megabyte of definitions. The principle is easy, it's fully deterministic. Code as Data, Data as Code. When you start the program, it joins the swarm : it starts by grabbing a torrent, and train a model on it in a distributed fashion, and publish the results as a torrent. Then with the trained model, it generates new data, (think of it like alpha-go playing n…

There is no new law

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#304

Post by raxxorraxor »

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…

That is a very bad law. People and especially corporations in favor of it should be under scrutiny for trying to corner a market for themselves.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#305

Post by atemerev »

whimsicalism wrote: post #32
atemerev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure we will be able to build something smarter than ourselves, but I sure hope for it. It is becoming increasingly obvious that we as civilization are not that smart, and there are strict limits of what we can achieve with our biology, and it would be great if at least our creations could surpass these limits.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#306

Post by jandrewrogers »

shiroiushi wrote: post #215
toephu2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state gove…

>It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state government. Can you point to any place in the world that has an "awesome efficiently run" government?

We don't need to look at other countries, just look at other States. California is quite poorly run by the standards of other States. I'm a California native but I've lived in and worked with many other States. You don't realize how appallingly bad California government is until you have to work with their counterparts in other States.

It isn't a red versus blue thing, even grift-y one-party States like Washington are plainly better run than California.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#307

Post by fifilura »

fat_cantor wrote: post #293
gdiamos wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"AI defense corps"

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#308

Post by kanwisher »

jart wrote: post #251
ravenstine wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be presidential ambitions, though I suspect his recent policies have been merely a way of not giving conservatives more ammo leading up to the 2024 election. The way he's been behaving recently is in stark contrast to pretty much everything he's done during and before his governorship. I don't think it's because he's suddenly any wiser.

Newsom was a successful entrepreneur in the 1990s who built wineries. That alone would make him popular with conservative voters nationwide. What did Newsom do before that you thought would alienate them? Being pro-gay and pro-drug before it was cool? Come on. The way I see it, if Newsom was nuts enough to run for president, then he could unite left and right in a way that has not happened in a very long time.

No one even slightly right would vote for him, he is the poster child of the homeless industrial complex, being anti business and generally promoting social policies only the most fringe left wingers are excited about

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#309

Post by OJFord »

> gov.ca.gov

Ah, I think now I know why Canada's government website is canada.ca (which I remember thinking was a bit odd or more like a tourism site when looking a while ago, vs. say gov.uk or gov.au).

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#310

Post by [deleted] »

pj_mukh wrote: post #225
llamaimperative wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spent $100MM+ on training.

Or used a model someone open sourced after spending $100M+ on its training? Like if I’m a startup reliant on open-source models I realize I don’t need liability and extra safety precautions but I didn’t hear any guarantees that this wouldn't turn off Meta from releasing their models to me if my business was in California? I never heard any clarifications from the Pro groups about that

[deleted]
Post reply on HN