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

81–90 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#81

Post by Lonestar1440 »

This is no way to run a state. The Democrat-dominated legislature passes everything that comes before it (and rejects anything that the GOP touches, in committee) and then the Governor needs to veto the looniest 20% of them to keep us from falling into total chaos. This AI bill was far from the worst one.

"Vote out the legislators!" but for who... the Republican party? And we don't even get a choice on the general ballot most of the time, thanks to "Open Primaries".

It's good that Newsom is wise enough to muddle through, but this is an awful system.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/california-gov-ne...

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#82

Post by llamaimperative »

CSMastermind wrote: post #75
SonOfLilit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would Google, Microsoft and OpenAI oppose a torpedo against open models? Aren't they positioned to benefit the most?

The bill included language that required the creators of models to have various "safety" features that would severely restrict their development. It required audits and other regulatory hurdles to build the models at all.

If you spent $100MM+ on training.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#83

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

GolfPopper wrote: post #70
timr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by t…

Anthony Weiner is a disgraced New York Democratic politician who does not appear to have re-entered politics after his release from prison a few years ago. You mentioned his name twice in your post, so it doesn't seem to be an accident that you mentioned him, yet his name does not seem to appear anywhere in your links. I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to…

He meant Scott Wiener but had penis on the brain.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#85

Post by Terr_ »

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…

Sounds like legislation that mis-indentifies the root issue as "somehow maybe the computer is too smart" as opposed to, say, "humans and corporations should be liable for using the tool to do evil."

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#86

Post by elicksaur »

Nothing like this should pass until the legislators can come up with a definition that doesn’t encompass basically every computer program ever written:

(b) “Artificial intelligence model” means a machine-based system that can make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments and can use model inference to formulate options for information or action.

Yes, they limited the scope of law by further defining “covered model”, but the above shouldn’t be the baseline definition of “Artificial intelligence model.”

Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/2919384

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#87

Post by gdiamos »

llamaimperative wrote: post #82
CSMastermind wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bill included language that required the creators of models to have various "safety" features that would severely restrict their development. It required audits and other regulatory hurdles to build the models at all.

If you spent $100MM+ on training.

Advanced technology will drop the cost of training.

The flop targets in that bill would be like saying “640KB of memory is all we will ever need” and outlawing anything more.

Imagine what other countries would have done to us if we allowed a monopoly like that on memory in 1980.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#88

Post by jart »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #17
jprete wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Democrat decided to reject the measure because it applies only to the biggest and most expensive AI models and doesn’t take into account whether they are deployed in high-risk situations, he said in his veto message." That doesn't mean you're wrong , but it's not what Newsom signaled.

Only applying to the biggest models is the point ; the biggest models are the inherently high-risk ones. The larger they get, the more that running them at all is the "high-risk situation". Passing this would not have been a complete solution, but it would have been a step in the right direction. This is a huge disappointment.

The issue with having your regulation based on fear is that most people using AI are good. If you regulate only big models then you incentivize people to use smaller ones. Think about it. Wouldn't you want the people who provide you services to be able to use the smartest AI possible?

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#89

Post by Terr_ »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #53
timr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>you should want more thoughtful representation than this. Your opinion on what "thoughtful representation" is is what makes this point partisan. Regardless, he's in until 2028 so it'll be some time before that vote can happen. Also, important Nitpick, it's Scott Weiner. Anthony Weiner (no relation AFAIK) was in New York and has a much more... Public controversy.

> Public controversy

I think you accidentally hit the letter "L". :P

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#90

Post by benreesman »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #66
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]…

why would Google, Microsoft and OpenAI oppose a torpedo against open models? Aren't they positioned to benefit the most?

Some laws are just bad. When the API-mediated/closed-weights companies agree with the open-weight/operator-aligned community that a law is bad, it’s probably got to be pretty awful. That said, though my mind might be playing tricks on me, I seem to recall the big labs being in favor at one time.

There are a number of related threads linked, but I’ll personally highlight Jeremy Howard’s open letter as IMHO the best-argued case against SB 1047.

https://www.answer.ai/posts/2024-04-29-sb1047.html

Post reply on HN