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

401–410 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#401

Post by xixixao »

karaterobot wrote: post #344

> 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, fro…

I find the statement quite well measured. He’s not giving a solution, that’s not easy, but is specifically calling out evidence-based measures. The statement calls out both the need to regulate, and the need to innovate. The issue is not black and white and neither is the statement.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#403

Post by wseqyrku »

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.

When you're a politician and have a business hobby

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#404

Post by parineum »

marshray wrote: post #269
bunabhucan wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the average. It's bought and sold on a spot market. If you try to sell CA power in AZ and the losses are 10% then SRP or TEP or whoever can undercut your price with local power/lower losses.

I just don't see 10% remaining a big deal while solar continues its exponential cost reduction. Solar does not consume fuel, so when local supply exceeds local demand the cost of incremental production drops to approximately zero. Nobody's undercutting zero, even with 10% losses. IMO, this is what 'winning' looks like.

The cost of solar as a 24hr power supply must include the cost of storage for the 16+ hours that it's not at peak power. It also needs to overproduce by 3x to meet that demand.

Solar provides cheap power only when it's producing.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#405

Post by hiatus »

yarg wrote: post #112
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?

Someone never watched the Terminator series. In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off. There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad. Whatever you're trying to stop will already have root-kitted your systems (and quite possibly have replicated) by the time you rea…

> In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off.

> There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad.

Just unplug the thing.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#406

Post by yarg »

hiatus wrote: post #405
yarg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone never watched the Terminator series. In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off. There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad. Whatever you're trying to stop will already have root-kitted your systems (and quite possibly have replicated) by the time you rea…

> In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off. > There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad. Just unplug the thing.

> You could only shut it down if there's a choke point accessible without electronic intervention, and you'd need to reach it without electronic intervention, and do so without communicating your intent.

You'll be dead before you reach the plug.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#407

Post by [deleted] »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #106
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…

> The definition of “covered model” within the bill is extremely broad, potentially encompassing a wide range of open-source models that pose minimal risk. Who are these wide range of >$100mm open source models he's thinking of? And who are the impacted small businesses that would be scared to train them (at a cost of >$100mm) without paying for legal counsel?

[deleted]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#408

Post by hiatus »

yarg wrote: post #406
hiatus wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off. > There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad. Just unplug the thing.

> You could only shut it down if there's a choke point accessible without electronic intervention, and you'd need to reach it without electronic intervention, and do so without communicating your intent. You'll be dead before you reach the plug.

Then bomb it. Or did the AI take over the fighter jets too?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#409

Post by bcrosby95 »

diggan wrote: post #398
bcrosby95 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, my mistake. I looked at the other link (https://ground.news/article/newsom-vetoes-bill-for-stricter-...) and Fox News was in the grey, or "center" section. I assume they're doing some extra analysis to put them there for this specific subject?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#410

Post by kloop »

llamaimperative wrote: post #341
gdiamos wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

[dead]
Post reply on HN