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

331–340 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#331

Post by benreesman »

stego-tech wrote: post #265
benreesman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws are just bad . When the API-mediated/closed-weights companies agree with the open-weight/operator-aligned community that a law is bad, it’s probably got to be pretty awful. That said, though my mind might be playing tricks on me, I seem to recall the big labs being in favor at one time. There are a number of related threads linked, but I’ll personally highlight Jeremy Howard’s open letter as IMHO the best-a…

> When the API-mediated/closed-weights companies agree with the open-weight/operator-aligned community that a law is bad, it’s probably got to be pretty awful. I’d be careful with that cognitive bias, because obviously companies dumping poison into water sources are going to be opposed to laws that would prohibit them from dumping poison into water sources. Always consider the broader narrative in addition to the spe…

I’d advise anyone to conduct their career under the assumption that all data was public.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#332

Post by dandanua »

water9 wrote: post #193

I’m so sick of people Restricting freedoms and access to knowledge in the name safety. Tyranny always comes in the form of it’s for your own good/safety

Sure, why we just not let everyone to build nukes and use them on anyone they don't like? Knowledge is the power. The BEST power you can get.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#333

Post by theptip »

gdiamos wrote: post #87
llamaimperative wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spent $100MM+ on training.

Advanced technology will drop the cost of training. The flop targets in that bill would be like saying “640KB of memory is all we will ever need” and outlawing anything more. Imagine what other countries would have done to us if we allowed a monopoly like that on memory in 1980.

If the danger is coming from the amount of compute invested, then cost of compute is irrelevant.

A much better objection to static FLOP thresholds is that as data quality and algorithms increase, you can do a lot more with fewer FLOPs / parameters.

But let’s be clear about these objections - they are saying that FLOP thresholds are going to miss some harms, not that they are too strict.

The rest is arguing about exactly where the FLOP thresholds should be. (And of course these limits can be revised as we learn more.)

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#334

Post by worstspotgain »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #313
worstspotgain wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Just two spitballing conjectures, not meant to be a dichotomy. If you have first-hand knowledge please contribute.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#335

Post by londons_explore »

While I agree with this decision, I don't want any governance decisions to be made by one bloke.

Why do we have such a system? Why isn't it a vote of many governors? Preferably a secret vote so voters can't be forced to vote along party lines...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#336

Post by weebull »

LarsDu88 wrote: post #150

Terrible piece of legislation. Glad the governor took it down. This is what regulatory capture looks like. Someone commoditized your product, so you make it illegal for them to continue making your stuff free. Might as well make Linux illegal so everyone is forced to use Microsoft and Apple.

I suspect this was vetoed more for reasons of not wanting to handicap California in the "AI race" than anything else.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#338

Post by llamaimperative »

Vetch wrote: post #214
llamaimperative wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why there are two thresholds.

Cost per FLOP continues to drop on an exponential trend (and what bit flops do we mean?). Leaving aside more effective training methodologies and how that muddies everything by allowing superior to GPT4 perf using less training flops, it also means one of the thresholds soon will not make sense. With the other threshold, it creates a disincentive for models like llama-405B+, in effect enshrining an even wider gap bet…

Both thresholds have a system to be adjusted.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#339

Post by llamaimperative »

pas wrote: post #322
Vetch wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost per FLOP continues to drop on an exponential trend (and what bit flops do we mean?). Leaving aside more effective training methodologies and how that muddies everything by allowing superior to GPT4 perf using less training flops, it also means one of the thresholds soon will not make sense. With the other threshold, it creates a disincentive for models like llama-405B+, in effect enshrining an even wider gap bet…

Why? Llama is not generated by some guy in a shed. And even if it were, if said guy has such amount of compute, then it's time to use some of it to describe the model's safety profile. If it makes sense for Meta to release models, it would have made sense even with the requirement. (After all the whole point of the proposed regulation is to get some better sense of those closed models.)

Also the bill was amended NOT to extend liability to derivative models that the training company doesn’t have effective control over.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#340

Post by llamaimperative »

gdiamos wrote: post #209
llamaimperative wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be crazy if the bill had a built-in mechanism to regularly reassess both the cost and FLOP thresholds… which it does. Inversely to your sarcastic “understanding” about politicians’ stupidity, I can’t understand how tech people seem incapable or unwilling to actually read the legislation they have such strong opinions about.

[flagged]

I’m a person who’s interested in arguments based on reality. Frankly I don’t have a solid opinion on the bill in any particular direction.
Post reply on HN