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

391–400 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#391

Post by ldbooth »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #375
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…

Newsom vetoed the bill as a nod to his donors plain and simple. Same reason he just signed a bill allowing a specific customers at a single venue to be served alcohol later than 2 AM. Same reason he carved out a minimum wage exemption for Panera. Same reason he signed a bill to carve out a junk fee exemption specifically for restaurants. He's just planning for a post-governor career.

Same reason the governor appointed public utility commission has allowed PG&E to raise rates 4 times in a single year without legitimate oversight. Yea unfortunately all roads point to his donors with this smooth talker, cost of living be damned.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#392

Post by diggan »

anon291 wrote: post #367
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.…

> Creating models that don't tag their output as such would be banned. This is just silly. Anyone would be able to disable this tagging in an open model.

>> Creating models that don't tag their output as such would be banned.

> This is just silly. Anyone would be able to disable this tagging in an open model.

And we'd end up with people who thinks that any text that isn't tagged as "#MadeByLLM" as made by a human, which obviously wouldn't be great.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#393

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#394

Post by bcrosby95 »

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's funny that it has Fox news as center to me. I watched them back when Obama was president a couple times and some of the shows would play Nazi videos while talking about him. Nevermind birtherism.

I haven't watched them in over a decade, but I assume they haven't gotten any better.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#395

Post by whimsicalism »

Chathamization wrote: post #364
whimsicalism wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The AI doomsday folk had an even worse track record over the past decade. There was supposed to be mass unemployment of truck drivers years ago. According to CCP Grey's Human's Need Not Apply[1] from 10 years ago, the robot Baxter was supposed to take over many low skilled jobs (Baxter was continued in 2018 after it failed to achieve commercial success). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

I do not count CGP grey or other viral youtubers among the segment of people I was counting as bullish about the scaling hypothesis. I’m talking about actual academics like Ilya, Hinton, etc.

Regardless, I just read the transcript for that video and he doesn’t give any timeline so it seems premature to crow that he was wrong.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#396

Post by whimsicalism »

atemerev wrote: post #305
whimsicalism wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.

Sure, but we should heavily focus on doing it safely.

We already can build machines using similar techniques that are superhuman in narrow capabilities like chess and as good as the best humans in some narrow disciplines of math. I think it is not unreasonable to expect we will generalize.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#397

Post by whimsicalism »

ls612 wrote: post #256
whimsicalism wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.

Nuclear weapons, at least in the quantities they are currently stockpiled, are not an existential risk even for industrial civilization, nevermind the human species. To claim that in 10 years AI will be more dangerous and consequential than the weapons that ushered in the Atomic Age is quite a leap.

Viruses are just sequences of RNA/DNA and we are already showing that transformers have extreme proficiency in sequence modeling.

In 10 years we have gone from AlexNet to GPT2 to GPT o1. If future capabilities make it so any semi-state actor with a lab can build a deadly virus (and this is only one of MANY possible and easily plausible scenarios) then we have already likely equaled potential destruction of the atomic age. And that’s just the stuff I can anticipate.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#398

Post by diggan »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #394
pc86 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's funny that it has Fox news as center to me. I watched them back when Obama was president a couple times and some of the shows would play Nazi videos while talking about him. Nevermind birtherism. I haven't watched them in over a decade, but I assume they haven't gotten any better.

They currently lists Fox News as (US) "Right" as far as I can tell: https://ground.news/interest/fox-news_a44aba

> Average Bias Rating: Right

I guess it's possible they don't have a 100% coverage of all the local Fox News stations, and some of them been incorrectly labeled.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#399

Post by tensor »

theptip wrote: post #282
akira2501 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seems incredibly naïve and foolish. We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. > were the same naysayers Now who's being snide and dismissive? Do you want to argue the point or are you just interested in tossing ad hominem attacks around?

If a malicious model exhilarates its weights to a Chinese datacenter, how do you turn that off? How do you turn off Llama-Omega if it turns out that it can be prompt-hacked into a malicious agent?

1. If the weights somehow are obtained by a foreign power, you can't do anything, just like every other technology ever.

2. If it turns into a malicious agent you just hit the "off switch", or, more likely just stop the software, like you turn off your word processor.

Post reply on HN