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

481–490 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#481

Post by cultureswitch »

anon291 wrote: post #369
richrichie wrote: post #224

I am disappointed that there are no climate change regulations on AI models. Large scale ML businesses are massive carbon emitters, not counting the whimsical training of NNs by every other IT person. This needs to be regulated.

California already has cap and trade. There doesn't seem to be a need for further regulation. If there's a problem with emissions, adjust the pricing. That's the purpose of cap and trade.

The cap and trade principle is sound however legislators have allowed naked scams to legally claim that they are offsetting carbon output.

Such as owning a piece of forest land and pinky-swear you're not going to exploit it. This offsets nothing. There is no additional carbon being absorbed out of the atmosphere. Yet this counts as emission reduction.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#482

Post by cultureswitch »

unit149 wrote: post #267

Much like UAW, a union for industrial machinists and academics, this bill has united VCs and members of the agrarian farming community. Establishing an entity under the guise of the Board of Frontier Models parallels efforts at Jekyll Island under Wilsonian idealism. Technological Keynesianism is on the horizon. These are birth pangs - its first gasps.

Sounds interesting, could you translate to English?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#483

Post by atemerev »

whimsicalism wrote: post #397
ls612 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To make a deadly virus, you need just a degree in bioengineering and about $1M of equipment; the information is readily available. If you are on the cheap side, you can source the equipment nearly free on lab clearance sales etc. It is 2024. Children do their first genetic engineering projects in _high school_. You can buy a CRISPR kit _right now_ for about $150.

This horse has sailed long ago.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#484

Post by datavirtue »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #465
datavirtue wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Fully sized machines. I'm trying to be realistic here.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#486

Post by JoshTriplett »

cultureswitch wrote: post #478
JoshTriplett wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT isn't plotting your demise in between requests. I never suggested it was doing anything between requests. Nothing stops an LLM from evaluating other goals during requests, and using that to inform its output. Quite a few people have just hooked two LLMs (the same or different models) up to each other to start talking, and left them running for a long time. Others hook LLMs up to run shell commands. Still ot…

So you're admitting that an AGI that pipes into /dev/null is harmless even if given the directive to destroy humanity? The danger is in what they're hooked up to, not the containerized math that happens inside the model.

Nope. I said it "hardly seems necessary for any AIs to break out of /dev/null or a pure text channel", because numerous AIs have been hooked up to more capable things. I didn't say it was impossible to do so.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#487

Post by whimsicalism »

atemerev wrote: post #483
whimsicalism wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To make a deadly virus, you need just a degree in bioengineering and about $1M of equipment; the information is readily available. If you are on the cheap side, you can source the equipment nearly free on lab clearance sales etc. It is 2024. Children do their first genetic engineering projects in _high school_. You can buy a CRISPR kit _right now_ for about $150. This horse has sailed long ago.

That is not even remotely true for a novel viral sequence that would be very dangerous.

And funny that we have gone from “nothing is more dangerous than the atomic bomb” to “anyone with a bio degree and 1 million is more dangerous than the atomic bomb”

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#488

Post by ForOldHack »

worstspotgain wrote: post #334
FeepingCreature wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR. This seems a curious dichotomy. Can we at least consider the possibility that they mean the words they say or is that off the table?

Just two spitballing conjectures, not meant to be a dichotomy. If you have first-hand knowledge please contribute.

One of the very most apt descriptions. One company trying to raise alarms about another company in the same business. I have been following this since IBM released $67,000 "Intellect" "Business Intelligence." and Lotus HAL.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#489

Post by ForOldHack »

iluvcommunism wrote: post #447
ldbooth wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the east coast we don’t need the government to control electricity prices. And our electricity is cheaper. Go figure.

Why did New Jersey get more toxic waste dumps than California has lawyers? They got first choice. We will trade Newsom for a failed reactor. Please.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#490

Post by ForOldHack »

taurath wrote: post #473
taurath wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure. Neither has genuine appeal. Shapiro is a really, really poor speaker and has few credentials except as a moderate. Newsom is the definition of coastal elite. Both have spoken, neither have been heard.

Oops, I had mixed up Shapiro with Gretchen Whitmer (another of these "rising stars"). Shapiro just does white Obama.

Wow. Now that was funny. Thanks.
Post reply on HN