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

341–350 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#341

Post by llamaimperative »

gdiamos wrote: post #194
gdiamos wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“But the big guys are struggling getting past 100KB, so ‘think of the small guys’ doesn’t make sense when the limit is 640KB.” How do people on a computer technology forum ignore the 10,000x improvement in computers over 30 years due to advances in computer technology? I could understand why politicians don’t get it. I should think that computer systems companies would be up in arms over SB 1047 in the same way they…

If your goal is to lift the limit, why put it in? We periodically raise flop limits in export control law. The intention is still to limit China and Iran. Would any computer industry accept a government mandated limit on perf? Should NVIDIA accept a limit on flops? Should Pure accept a limit on TBs? Should Samsung accept a limit on HBM bandwidth? Should Arista accept a limit on link bandwidth? I don’t think that ther…

Wait sorry, are you under the impression that regulated entities get to “accept” which regulations society imposes on them? Big if true!

Your delusions and lack of nuance shown in this very thread are exactly why people want to regulate this field.

If developers of nuclear technology were making similar arguments, I bet they’d have attracted even more aggressive regulatory attention. Justifiably, too, since people who speak this way can't possibly be trusted to de-risk their own behavior effectively.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#342

Post by ants_everywhere »

jodleif wrote: post #270
arduanika wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a politician, and his stated reason for the veto is not necessarily his real reason for the veto.

Makes perfect sense since his elected based on public positions

This is the ideal, but it's often false in meaningful ways. In several US elections, for example, we've seen audio leaked of politicians promising policies to their donors that would be embarrassing if widely publicly known by the electorate.

This suggests that politicians and donors sometimes collude to deliberately misrepresent their views to the public in order to secure election.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#343

Post by llamaimperative »

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

The bill was amended for training companies to have no liability for derivative models they don’t have control over.

There’s no new disincentive to open sourcing models produced by this bill, AFAICT.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#344

Post by karaterobot »

> Safety protocols must be adopted. Proactive guardrails should be implemented, and severe consequences for bad actors must be clear and enforceable.

Here, here. But this vague, passive voiced, hand-wavey statement that isn't even a promise does not exactly inspire me with a ton of confidence. Considering he turned this bill down to protect business interests, I wonder what acceptable legislation would look like, from his perspective. Looking forward to hearing about about it very soon, and I'm confident it'll be specific, actionable, responsible, and effective.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#345

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #37
akira2501 wrote: post #33

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#346

Post by notepad0x90 »

Gonna swim against the current on this one.

This is why we can't have nice things, too many tech people support Newsom on vetoing this. The nightmare of corporate surveillance and erosion of privacy we have to endure every day is a result of such sentiment and short sighted attempt at self-preservation.

"It's vague" yeah, that's the point, the industry is allowed leeway to come up with standards of what is and isn't safe. They can establish a neutral committee to continually assess the boundaries of what is and isn't safe, as technology evolves. Do you expect legislators to define specifics and keep themselves updated with the latest happening in tech? Would it be better if the government established departments that police AI usage? This was the sweetest deal the industry could have gotten.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#347

Post by stego-tech »

benreesman wrote: post #331
stego-tech wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As a wise SysAdmin once told me when I was struggling with my tone in writing: “assume what you’re writing will be read aloud in Court someday.”

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#348

Post by jnaz343 »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #342
jodleif wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes perfect sense since his elected based on public positions

This is the ideal, but it's often false in meaningful ways. In several US elections, for example, we've seen audio leaked of politicians promising policies to their donors that would be embarrassing if widely publicly known by the electorate. This suggests that politicians and donors sometimes collude to deliberately misrepresent their views to the public in order to secure election.

Sometimes? lol

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#349

Post by rebolek »

hannasm wrote: post #252
zamadatix wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think GP is dismissing the scenarios themselves, rather espousing their belief these answers will do nothing to prevent said scenarios from eventually occuring anyways. It's like if we invented nukes but found out they were made out of having a lot of telephones instead of something exotic like refining radioactive elements a certain way. Sure - you can still try to restrict telephone sales... but one way or…

If you think a solution to bad behavior is a law declaring punishment for such behavior you are a fool.

Murder is a bad behavior. Am I a fool to think there should be laws against murder?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#350

Post by jnaz343 »

gdiamos wrote: post #219
worstspotgain wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was just one quasi-monopoly it would have probably supported the bill. As it is, the market leaders have the competition from each other to worry about. Getting rid of open models wouldn't let them raise their prices much.

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?

You think they want to compete? None of them want to compete. They want to be a protected monopoly.
Post reply on HN