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

411–420 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#411

Post by Lonestar1440 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #381
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't write "Democrat Party", I wrote "Democrat-Dominated". I am a registered Democrat. The broader partisan group I belong to are "Democrats" even if the organization formally calls itself the "Democratic party".

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#413

Post by Chathamization »

whimsicalism wrote: post #395
Chathamization wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

If you watch the video he's clearly saying this was was something that was already happening. Keep in mind it was made 10 years ago, and in it he says "this isn't science fiction; the robots are here right now." When bringing up the 25% unemployment rate he says "just the stuff we talked about today, the stuff that already works, can push us over that number pretty soon."

Baxter being able to do everything a worker can for a fraction of the price definitely wasn't true.

Here's what he said about self-driving cars. Again, this was 2014: "Self driving cars aren't the future - they're here and they work."

"The transportation industry in the united states employs about 3 million people. Extrapolating worldwide, that's something like 70 million jobs at a minimum. These jobs are over."

> I’m talking about actual academics like Ilya, Hinton, etc.

Which of Hinton's statements are you claiming were dismissed by people here but were later proven to be correct?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#414

Post by hot_gril »

cornercasechase wrote: post #386
richwater wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's a win for American industry, same as a politician would say when a new factory opens or something. I don't know a less offensive way to put it.

He didn't remotely say the combative stuff I would say, that it is partially a zero-sum game where we should stay ahead of the curve.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#416

Post by HumblyTossed »

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.

I think if you look at the actual news reporting on Fox News, it could be closer to center. But when you factor in their opinion "reporting" it's very clearly heavily right-leaning. Problem is, most of their viewership can't tell the difference.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#417

Post by bradhilton »

I'm glad he vetoed the bill, but his rationale is worrisome. Even if he's just trying to placate SB 1047 proponents, they will try to exact concessions from him in future sessions. I'll take this brief reprieve, but it's still a large concern for me.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#418

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

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…

> - Blog you've never heard of? Right.

That checks out.

There's a certain sect of the far right that is easily convinced by one guy saying "The media is lying to you! This is what's really happening!" followed by the most insane shit you've read in your life.

They love to rant about the Deep State.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#419

Post by dialup_sounds »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #409
diggan wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nah, it's just the UI being awkward. The prominent tabs at the top just change the AI summary, while there is a much more subtle set of tabs beneath where it (currently) says "63 articles" that filter the sources.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#420

Post by RIMR »

bradhilton wrote: post #417

I'm glad he vetoed the bill, but his rationale is worrisome. Even if he's just trying to placate SB 1047 proponents, they will try to exact concessions from him in future sessions. I'll take this brief reprieve, but it's still a large concern for me.

What specifically do you find worrisome about his rationale? It mostly seems like he's asking for evidence-based policy that views AI as a potential risk regardless of the funding or size of the model, because this doesn't actually correlate with any actual evidence of risk.

I can't tell what direction your disagreement goes. Are you worried that he still feels that AI needs to be regulated at all, or do you think that AI needs to be regulated regardless of empirical evidence of harm?

Post reply on HN