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

311–320 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#311

Post by jandrewrogers »

aagha wrote: post #198
tightbookkeeper wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the success is in spite of the governance rather than because of it. The golden age of California was a long time ago.

LOL. California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.

California is the most populous state in the US, larger than most European countries, it would be surprising if it didn't have a large GDP regardless of its economy. On a per capita basis, less populous tech-heavy States like Washington and Massachusetts have even higher GDP.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#312

Post by raverbashing »

dragonwriter wrote: post #115
worstspotgain wrote: post #52

Excellent move by Newsom. We have a very active legislature, but it's been extremely bandwagon-y in recent years. I support much of Wiener's agenda, particularly his housing policy, but this bill was way off the mark. It was basically a torpedo against open models. Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or about open models in general. Its supporters were the also-rans like Musk [1]…

> Excellent move by Newsom. [...] It was basically a torpedo against open models. He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely. > Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or a…

Anthropic was championing a lot of FUD in the AI area

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#313

Post by FeepingCreature »

worstspotgain wrote: post #121
dragonwriter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excellent move by Newsom. [...] It was basically a torpedo against open models. He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely. > Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or a…

> He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely. Well, we'll see what passes again and when. By then there'll be more kittens out of the bag too. > Anthropic was a major advocate for it. I don't know about bei…

> I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.

This seems a curious dichotomy. Can we at least consider the possibility that they mean the words they say or is that off the table?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#315

Post by skywhopper »

Sad. The real threat of AI is not that it will become an unstoppable superintelligence without appropriate regulation (if we reach that point, which we are nowhere close to, and probably not even on the right track) the superintelligence, by definition, will be able to evade any regulation or control we attempt.

Rather, the threat of AI is that we will dedicate so many resources—money, power, human effort—to chasing the ludicrous fantasies of professional snake-oil salesmen, while ignoring the need to address actual problems with real, known solutions that are easily within each given a fraction of the resources currently being consumed by the dumpster-fire pit of “AI”.

Unfortunately the Governor of California is a huge part of the problem here, misdirecting scarce state resources into sure-to-fail “public partnerships” with VC-funded scams, forcing public servants to add one more set of time-wasting nonsense to the pile of bullshit they have to navigate around just to do their actual job.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#316

Post by raxxorraxor »

datavirtue wrote: post #36
SonOfLilit wrote: post #13

A 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.

Mountains out of scrap, rivers out of oil and wide circuit plains. It will be absolutely beautiful.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#317

Post by kjkjadksj »

h0l0cube wrote: post #290
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.

To be fair fleshy human intelligence has hardly been running the show any more than a bear eating a salmon out of a river thus far. We’d like to consider we can control the world yet any data scientist will tell you what we actually control and understand is very little, or at best a sweeping oversimplification of this complex world.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#318

Post by tim333 »

I'm not sure AI risks are well enough understood to have good regulations for. With most risky industries you can actually quantify the risk a bit. Regarding:

> we cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public

Maybe but you can wait for minor problems or big near misses before legislating it all up.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#319

Post by xpe »

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…

> Anyone who claims they will for the 'good of humanity' is lying or was never a contender.

An overreach.

Some people and organizations are more aligned with humanity’s well being and survival than others.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#320

Post by arder »

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.…

I think the most acheivable way of having some verification of AI images is simply for the AI generators to store finger prints of every image they generate. That way if you ever want to know you can go back to Meta or whoever and say "Hey, here's this image, do you think it came from you". There's already technology for that sort of thing in the world (content ID from youtube, CSAM detection etc.).

It's obviously not perfect, but could help and doesn't have the enormous side effects of trying to lock down all image generation.

Post reply on HN