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

501–510 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#501

Post by dangus »

telotortium wrote: post #280
dangus wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-Trump Republicans had no problem absurdly mismanaging Kansas’ coffers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment I think the Republican Party’s positive reputation for handling the economy and running an efficient government is entirely unearned. Closing down major parts of the government entirely (as Project 2025 proposes), making taxation more regressive, and offering fewer social services isn’t “efficien…

Democrats (especially in California) are somewhat to the right of socialist parties in Europe, and of course they’re neoliberal. But on most non-economic social issues, they’re quite far to the left compared to most European countries. So it really depends on what you consider more important to the left.

You could consider my definition of “left” and “right” to mean economic policy in this case.

Considering that the economy is supposedly to be the number one concern to most US voters, there really isn’t anything very far left available to vote for in that area.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#502

Post by SonOfLilit »

wslh wrote: post #500
SonOfLilit wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misread my intention, I think. I was pointing out that startups that don't raise enough to train a GPT-4 are excluded from the bill, that requires >$100mm expenses for a model to be covered.

Fair enough. Hope all is well there.

No offence taken, just a misunderstanding. I didn't downvote you.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#503

Post by curious_cat_163 »

drcode wrote: post #445
curious_cat_163 wrote: post #444

For those supporting this legislation: Would you like to share the specific harms to the public that this bill sought to address and prevent?

we'll probably create artificial superintelligence in the next few years when that happens, it likely will not go well for humans the specific harm is "human extinction"

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have a somewhat more optimistic take:

We will create some form of artificial intelligence (AI) in the next decade. However, the recent (i.e. over last five years) advances in natural language processing are not the ones that automatically lead to that. I think we need more fundamental breakthroughs than attention-based neural networks and all the tricks that have gone into say a Llama3. [1]

Even if we did develop an AI more aggressively, say by 2030, I am not sure if that automatically leads to extinction. Here, my optimism is guided by the last few times we had major technological innovations (i.e. Steam Engine, Rise of the Semiconductor based circuits, etc.).

To be sure, these technologies were disruptive, probably net-negative in terms of pure climate impact and led to near-term job losses and generally helped increase the power of people on the top of the capitalist food-chain. However, they also helped us accelerate into a world where we can produce more food than we need for feeding everybody on the planet in a given year. And generally, helped us see more of the world by connecting the planet both physically and virtually.

I am not a blind optimist though. I think we need regulation for harm prevention. The problem with that approach is that we need to understand what harms are being caused first and in some instances that might be too late. But, I don't think we start by taking a blanket position (as a society/polity) on how technological innovation should occur -- because a) we are not there yet and b) that's just a poor way to do science.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.21783

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#504

Post by labster »

anon291 wrote: post #373
labster wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think California might have a better run government if it had an electable conservative party. The Republican Party is not that, being tied to the national Trump-Vance-Orbán axis. A center-right party could hold Democratic officers accountable but it’s not being offered and moderates gravitate to the electable Dem side. An independent California would largely fix that. As a lifelong California Democrat, I realize t…

California republicans are extremely moderate (or at least, there have been moderate candidates for governor of california almost every year), so I have no idea what you're talking about. The last GOP governor of California was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is a moderate republican by basically all standards.

Some of them are very moderate, some of them have become more radical. But all of them are tied to a national brand which is not particularly electable here. Christian populism cannot win a majority here, yet to secure the right of their party all of the Republican candidates must say they support Trump. The national party is an albatross around their necks.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#505

Post by reciprocity »

fwip wrote: post #471
pbreit wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, this specific law sounds like not great law.

https://thezvi.substack.com/p/newsom-vetoes-sb-1047

This link convinced me otherwise. I wasn't too sure before (I'm a little ashamed to admit I hadn't been following the development of SB 1047).

I will also specifically share this talk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ

I think this passing this bill would have probably been a very good idea. Not perfect, but far, very far from broken.

Edit: I'm actually not sure if we as a community gave this topic enough attention leading in the months leading up to the announcement of this decision.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#506

Post by cma »

toephu2 wrote: post #463
cma wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's an example, took the money and delivered mostly an infeasible version of battery swapping with probably their existing factory install tech lightly modified: https://centerforjobs.org/?p=4600

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#507

Post by fennecfoxy »

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

Tbf there's the human element - we have had the technology to automate train systems for decades now and yet most train systems aren't automated - because then the drivers would lose their jobs. There's more to things like this than just "do we have the technology"

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#508

Post by fennecfoxy »

zzrzzr wrote: post #499
jquery wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 2 years of implementation, California has not seen an increase in sexual assaults. It's almost like transwomen aren't the problem. Anyone can file a request, but the request must be approved, and this is based on the totality of the situation with the prisoner. Someone doesn't get to just wake up one day and go "I'm trans" and automatically get approval, this is fearmongering from transphobes. There's tons of o…

Please consider reading the 4W article I linked above. It explains the problem. You may find this enlightening also: https://womensliberationfront.org/news/wolf-attends-prelimin... A relevant extract: " The four witnesses for the prosecution gave detailed accounts of two horrible rapes and the efforts by the alleged perpetrator to dissuade one of the victims from seeking justice, even after she was moved to a new fac…

That last part isn't true and is really only based on most men going "ah shit happens" to pretty much everything bad that happens to them in their lives until it all boils over into a violent outburst or suicide. :/

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#509

Post by fennecfoxy »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #187
deredede wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised at the claim that intentionally giving someone AIDS would be decriminalized, so I looked it up. The AIDS bill you seem to refer to (SB 239) lowers penalties from a felony to a misdemeanor (so it is still a crime), bringing it in line with other sexually transmitted diseases. The argument is that we now have good enough treatment for HIV that there is no reason for the punishment to be harsher than for…

"Undetectable means untranstmitable" is NOT the same as "cured" in the way that many STDs can be. I am not okay with being forced onto drugs for the rest of my life to prevent a disease which is normally a horribly painful death sentence. Herpes is so ubiquitous that much of the population (as I recall on the orders of 30-40%) has it and doesn't know it, so it's a special exception HIV/AIDS to this day is still somet…

Please don't generalise "your local gay community". You don't speak for all of us.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#510

Post by moomoo11 »

chirau wrote: post #139
moomoo11 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. As someone who moved to California I honestly can’t imagine living anywhere else. This state has so much good social programming and tries to do good for its people. It also helps that most Californians are awesome people. I’ve been in TX (hard nope), NY, NJ, VA, DC, OH, WA, OR, and MD. I would honestly never move out of California there’s no better place I can think of.

how would you rank the states you have lived in by those metrics(social programming + doing good for the people)?

Only CA and WA stand out. The rest are awful. TX doesn’t even make the list.
Post reply on HN