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

461–470 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#461

Post by toephu2 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #215
toephu2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state gove…

>It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state government. Can you point to any place in the world that has an "awesome efficiently run" government?

Singapore...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#462

Post by SonOfLilit »

caseyy wrote: post #232
SonOfLilit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Critical harm” does not include any of the following: (A) Harms caused or materially enabled by information that a covered model or covered model derivative outputs if the information is otherwise reasonably publicly accessible by an ordinary person from sources other than a covered model or covered model derivative. The bogeyman is not these models, it's future agentic autonomous ones, if and when they can hack maj…

I am not convinced the text means what you say it means. All knowledge (publicly available and not) and all tools (AI or not) can be used by people in material ways to commit the aforementioned atrocities, but only the models producing novel knowledge would be at risk. I hope you can see how this law would stifle AI advancement. The boundary between what's acceptable and not would be drawn at generating novel, public…

If a model were capable of novel WMD research, I would want it to stay out of reach for the general public! Wouldn't you?

After we split the atom, and saw how dangerous it was, we established some damn strong protections in place to prevent kids from building nukes in their backyards for giggles. If we ever build a physicist AI that is better than Einstein at WMD-relevant research, I sure as hell hope we don't just let the kids ask it how to build nukes or antimatter bombs or whatever. And this is exactly what this regulation is about.

> But what the text says is different.

Since "prohibited" is a word that carries specific consequences, and lawyers are all about consequences, legal texts usually phrase it something like "if a model does critical harm to humans, the human responsible for building and releasing the model will be culpable for the crime", which is a very good TL;DR of the relevant parts of the bill. Isn't it?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#463

Post by toephu2 »

cma wrote: post #202
toephu2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state gove…

> The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. Tesla received billions in subsidies from CA as an example.

Which it paid back in full + interest.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#464

Post by sshconnection »

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]…

Same. I am generally very politically aligned with him (esp housing and transit), but this one ain’t it.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#465

Post by SonOfLilit »

datavirtue wrote: post #326
SonOfLilit wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's future survival. Is it of humanity though? Kinda no by definition in your scenario. In general, depends at least if they share our values...

Values...values? Hopefully not, since they would be completely useless.

so say someone builds an unintelligent nanomachine that can survive extreme conditions and can turn any matter it encounters into more of it and launch them into space in random directions... is that "our children" that you would be happy to see replacing us?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#466

Post by pbreit »

fwip wrote: post #442
pbreit wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bills that could kill major new industries need to be reactive, if at all. This was a terrible bill. Thank you, Governor.

If the new industry is inherently unsafe, it is better to be proactive.

Even if I agreed in general I would not be sure about this case.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#467

Post by dangitman »

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.…

[dead]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#468

Post by dang »

freedomben wrote: post #360
dang wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone emailed and suggested it. I looked at the pdf and it seemed to be more substantive than the usual political statement, so I sort of trusted that it would be better. Also it's not paywalled. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41690454 remains pinned to the top of the thread, so people have the opportunity to read both. (Actually we usually prefer the best third-party article to press releases, but nothing's…

FWIW I think you made the right call here. The PDF is substantive, primary, and has no paywall. The pinned WSJ article at the top gives best of both worlds.

It'll be better when we implement proper URL aggregation, which, you never know, may happen

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#469

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

svat wrote: post #253
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71

Curious if anyone can point to some resources that summarize the pros/cons arguments of this legislation. Reading this article, my first thought is that I definitely agree it sounds impossibly vague for a piece of legislation - "reasonable care" and "unreasonable risk" sound like things that could be endlessly litigated. At the same time, > Computer scientists Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, who developed much of…

Here's a post by the computer scientist Scott Aaronson on his blog, in support: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8269 -- it links to some earlier explainers, has some pro-con arguments, and further discussion in the comments.

Oh, wow, thanks very much! Not only was that a very informative article, but it also has links to other detailed opinions on the topic (and some of those had links...), which left me feeling much better informed. Much appreciated!

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#470

Post by lvspiff »

Just give us the Asimov three laws to start rather than these nebulous "open model" language crap. Those should be the basic premise for any regulations that go into a bill in this area (but I'm sure the military contractors would never go for that with the whole "no harm to humans" thing - they want their terminator).
Post reply on HN