home.social

#sb1047 — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #sb1047, aggregated by home.social.

  1. "It’s part of the established playbook that Big Tech — which Andreessen and Horowitz are closely aligned with, despite their posturing — runs at the state level where it can win (as with SB 1047), meanwhile asking for federal solutions that it knows will never come, or which will have no teeth due to partisan bickering and congressional ineptitude on technical issues.

    This newly posted joint statement about “policy opportunity” is the latter part of the play: After torpedoing SB 1047, they can say they only did so with an eye to supporting a federal policy. No matter that we are still waiting on the federal privacy law that tech companies have pushed for a decade while fighting state bills.

    And what policies do they support? “A variety of responsible market-based approaches.” In other words: hands off our money, Uncle Sam.

    Regulations should have “a science and standards-based approach that recognizes regulatory frameworks that focus on the application and misuse of technology,” and should “focus on the risk of bad actors misusing AI,” write the powerful VCs and Microsoft execs. What is meant by this is we shouldn’t have proactive regulation but instead reactive punishments when unregulated products are used by criminals for criminal purposes.

    This approach worked great for that whole FTX situation, so I can see why they espouse it.

    “Regulation should be implemented only if its benefits outweigh its costs,” they also write. It would take thousands of words to unpack all the ways that this idea, expressed in this context, is hilarious. But basically, what they are suggesting is that the fox be brought in on the henhouse planning committee."

    techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/micr

    #AI #AIRegulation #USA #California #SB1047 #Microsoft #a16z #BigTech

  2. @Inquiry Great and more through analysis found from the links.

    The vetoing of the bill is true snake oil salesmanship. All-in.

    #ai #safety #sb1047
    thezvi.substack.com/p/newsom-v

  3. Is there a trusted source that analyses California's SB 1047 - back in the day I would look for Sarah Jeong's takes, but she doesn't seem to be on social media anymore :(

    #sb1047

  4. @robertwilbin "At least 113 current & former employees of leading #AI companies have signed an open letter in support of #SB1047 including 37 current staff at companies opposing the bill." ( ed : What did they & Illya see 🤔) x.com/robertwiblin/status/1833

  5. @timnitGebru I need your help, and I hope you’ll respond. I’m trying to wrap my head around the real risks related to current AI/ML research, LLMs of course, and the likelihood that AGI will be achieved at some point. I read a slashdot article tonight based on a Ars Technical report on California’s SB-1047 bill. Do you think the risks targeted by the bill are sci-fi, or is it correctly targeting the risks?

    #ai #risk #SB1047 #California

  6. If you live in California I you should write your representatives and oppose

    #SB1047 Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

    Here is a #AI generated template for you:

    Subject: Opposition to SB 1047: Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

    Dear [Representative’s Name],

    I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding SB 1047, the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. While I appreciate the bill’s intent to ensure the safe and ethical development of artificial intelligence, I believe it poses several risks to California’s vibrant technology economy and the innovation it fosters.

    Y Combinator, representing numerous AI startups, has outlined several critical points of opposition which I wholeheartedly support:

    1. Liability and Regulation: The bill imposes unusual burdens on developers by holding them responsible for the misuse of their tools. This approach unfairly targets the creators rather than those who abuse these technologies.
    2. Arbitrary Threshold for Regulation: Setting a regulatory threshold at 10^26 FLOPs is problematic. As the technology continues to evolve rapidly, such specific metrics may not accurately reflect the capabilities or risks of future models.
    3. Kill Switch Requirement: The mandated kill switch, while intended to ensure safety, could act as a de facto ban on open-source AI development, stifling innovation.
    4. Vague Language: The bill’s vague language could be expanded or reinterpreted in the future to encompass a wide range of existing software, potentially crippling the tech industry in California.

    Moreover, numerous business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, have highlighted the significant regulatory uncertainty SB 1047 introduces. The bill mandates compliance with overbroad, vague, and impractical standards, which could hinder AI development and miscalculate its economic impact.

    At its core, SB 1047 seeks to prevent any foreseeable harm from AI models, even those not inherently linked to the model itself. This requirement forces developers to navigate impractical and often impossible standards, creating a climate of significant regulatory uncertainty.

    For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider the implications of SB 1047 and oppose its passage. It is essential to balance safety and ethical considerations with the need to foster innovation and maintain California’s leadership in the technology sector.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    Best regards,

    [Your Name]
    [Your Address]
    [Your City, State, ZIP Code]
    [Your Email Address]
    [Your Phone Number]