Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

Post by johnnyanmac » Sun, Sep 29, 2024, 10:16 PM UTC

datavirtue wrote: post #36

SonOfLilit wrote: post #13

A bill laying the groundwork to ensure the future survival of humanity by making companies on the frontier of AGI research responsible for damages or deaths caused by their models, was vetoed because it doesn't stifle competition with the big players enough and because we don't want companies to be scared of letting future models capable of massive hacks or creating mass casualty events handle their customer support.…

The future survival of humanity involves creating machines that have all of our knowledge and which can replicate themselves. We can't leave the planet but our robot children can. I just wish that I could see what they become.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 29, 2024, 10:17 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #29

tbrownaw wrote: post #18

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can…

The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next election. The man cannot be trusted with power -- this is far from the first ridiculous law he has championed. Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by t…

Post by marshray » Sun, Sep 29, 2024, 10:18 PM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #46

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.

I don't think GP is dismissing the scenarios themselves, rather espousing their belief these answers will do nothing to prevent said scenarios from eventually occuring anyways. It's like if we invented nukes but found out they were made out of having a lot of telephones instead of something exotic like refining radioactive elements a certain way. Sure - you can still try to restrict telephone sales... but one way or…

Post by rekttrader » Sun, Sep 29, 2024, 10:19 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #29

tbrownaw wrote: post #18

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can…

The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next election. The man cannot be trusted with power -- this is far from the first ridiculous law he has championed. Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by t…

Post by marshray » Sun, Sep 29, 2024, 10:20 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #40

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.

> 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?