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

381–390 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#381

Post by rootusrootus »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #210
rootusrootus wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtle rebranding of Democratic party to democrat party is a pretty strong tell for highly partisan perspective. How does California compare with similarly large Republican-dominated states? Anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of really bad legislation originating from any legislature that has no meaningful opposition.

I'm a pretty pedantic person, but even I just use one or the other at random. I don't think it's a good idea to read into things like this.

I will allow that there are going to be some innocent mixups. But the 'democrat party' epithet dates back almost a century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

If you care about the perception of what you write, this is one of those things that will quickly steer your audience one way or the other. It has become so consistent that I would personally try not to get it wrong lest it distract from the point I'm trying to express.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#383

Post by pc86 »

diggan wrote: post #380

For very interested readers, here is a meta-collection of articles from left, center and right about the story: https://ground.news/article/newsom-vetoes-bill-for-stricter-... And a short bias comparison: > The left discusses Newsom's veto as a victory for Silicon Valley, concentrating on the economic implications and backing from tech giants. > The center highlights the broader societal ramifications, addressing cri…

Ground.News (no affiliation) is great for anyone interested in getting actual news and comparing biases. I particularly like that if you have an account they will show you news stories you're missing based on your typical reading patterns.

I do wish the partisan categorization was a bit more nuanced/intentional. It basically boils down to:

- Major national news outlet? Left.

- Local affiliate of major national news outlet? Center.

- Blog you've never heard of? Right.

There are certainly exceptions but that heuristic will be right 90% of the time.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#384

Post by EasyMark »

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]…

Yes they definitely need to slow their roll and sit back and listen to both sides of this instead of those who think AGI will happen in a year or two and the T1000s are coming for them. I think LLM have a bright future, especially as more hardware is build specifically for them. The market can fix most of the problems and when it becomes evident we’re heading in the wrong direction or monopolies and abuses occur, that’s when the government needs to step in, no based some broad speculation from from the fringe of either side.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#385

Post by tr3ntg »

This is a little annoying. He vetoes the bill, agrees with the intention, paints the "solution" as improper, suggests there is some other solution that is better, doesn't entirely describe that solution with any detail, and encourages future legislation that is "more right."

I'm exhausted already.

I can't think of a less efficient way to go about this.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#386

Post by cornercasechase »

richwater wrote: post #382
cornercasechase wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a bad bill but your gross nationalism is even worse. 1 step forward, 10 steps back.

> gross nationalism How on earth did you get that from the original posters comment?

“Win for America” is gross nationalism. Zero sum thinking with combative implications.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#387

Post by [deleted] »

tr3ntg wrote: post #385

This is a little annoying. He vetoes the bill, agrees with the intention, paints the "solution" as improper, suggests there is some other solution that is better, doesn't entirely describe that solution with any detail, and encourages future legislation that is "more right." I'm exhausted already. I can't think of a less efficient way to go about this.

[deleted]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#388

Post by richwater »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #17
jprete wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.

Only applying to the biggest models is the point ; the biggest models are the inherently high-risk ones. The larger they get, the more that running them at all is the "high-risk situation". Passing this would not have been a complete solution, but it would have been a step in the right direction. This is a huge disappointment.

> The larger they get, the more that running them at all is the "high-risk situation".

Absolutely no evidence to support this position.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#389

Post by diggan »

pc86 wrote: post #383
diggan wrote: post #380

For very interested readers, here is a meta-collection of articles from left, center and right about the story: https://ground.news/article/newsom-vetoes-bill-for-stricter-... And a short bias comparison: > The left discusses Newsom's veto as a victory for Silicon Valley, concentrating on the economic implications and backing from tech giants. > The center highlights the broader societal ramifications, addressing cri…

Ground.News (no affiliation) is great for anyone interested in getting actual news and comparing biases. I particularly like that if you have an account they will show you news stories you're missing based on your typical reading patterns. I do wish the partisan categorization was a bit more nuanced/intentional. It basically boils down to: - Major national news outlet? Left. - Local affiliate of major national news o…

It is truly great, and cheap too (30 USD/year or something). Not affiliated either, just a happy user.

Yeah, it could be a bit better. As a non-American, the biases are also very off from how left/center/right looks in my own country, but at least it tries to cover different angles which I tried to do manually before.

They can also be a bit slow at linking different stories together, sometimes it takes multiple days for same headlines to be merged into one story.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#390

Post by EasyMark »

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.

It’s also what makes companies realize there are 49 other states, and nearly a couple hundred companies. California has a rare zeitgeist of tech and universities, but nothing that can’t be reproduced elsewhere with enough dollars and promises
Post reply on HN