Terrible news...
#SB1047 has been vetoed.
silent crag
narrow plover
As noted elsewhere, very disappointing.
The best thing to work on this is to hope that we can coordinate with our coalition and expand on it
novel pond
He did say it was a good start, but too focused on current industry leaders, leaving smaller models to grow and make the same mistakes.
narrow plover
It was pretty much a lie
novel pond
Ah. Oh well
narrow plover
Notably everyone in the CA legislature seemed to be better on this than he was.
Anyway, we now have to lobby hard on the federal side.
humble scaffold
Sad but unsurprising. We're in a race. Every action that could be seen as potentially slowing down AI research for some country or state will face the same criticism. The same selfish reasons will be used again and again.
This is why we've been saying for over a year now that we need international regulation. We will not get sufficient safety measures on a national or state level. The incentives of racing ahead are too powerful. The game theory only works out if we all cooperate. Let's get out of this prisoners dilemma.
narrow plover
So focus on the UN?
humble scaffold
Not as a target - we still have to convince our national leaders. We need them to initialize treaty negotations
dawn karma
I’d still imagine that a convinced person inside the UN could do a fair bit of mobilizing nations
humble scaffold
The upcoming SF summit in november, and finding out who is attending - that should probably be our main focus now
#1288842991661744169
humble scaffold
"By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous".
What the fuck Gavin
"This bill only bans the largest bombs. Small bombs may be just as dangerous. So let's not ban large bombs"
dawn karma
Twitter
plush badge
"This bill only bans the largest bombs. Small bombs may be just as dangerous. So...
This part really sticks out to me.
I honestly read that as “California is afraid of losing their largest donors by holding them accountable, so let’s just not.”
How else is anyone supposed to interpret this?
umbral haven
The Nirvana fallacy when it comes to AI regulation is still so strong. Gavin is fine with it as long as it's a perfect piece of legislation which covers all possible dangers while having zero tradeoffs. And there's a unicorn which farts rainbows.
