this feels a lot like Uber/Lyft whining about rideshare regulation, or Musk whining about self-driving regulation. Howard does a miserable job attempting to ex

this feels a lot like Uber/Lyft whining about rideshare regulation, or Musk whining about self-driving regulation. Howard does a miserable job attempting to explain what, exactly, this legislation will do to impact open source development and clearly hasnt read the specifics for open-source development in the bill. things like dual use/ITAR apply explicitly to commercial products, but he attempts to conflate them with open source instead and uses inference to try and define them. they are very well defined trade concepts at the federal level. from the bill, the specific applications to open source are: Appoint and consult with an advisory committee for open-source artificial intelligence that shall do all of the following: (A) Issue guidelines for model evaluation for use by developers of open-source artificial intelligence models that do not have hazardous capabilities. (B) Advise the Frontier Model Division on the creation and feasibility of incentives, including tax credits, that could be provided to developers of open-source artificial intelligence models that are not covered models. (C) Advise the Frontier Model Division on future policies and legislation impacting open-source artificial intelligence development. nowhere does it state open source developers need "required shutdowns" or burdensome reporting for open source. The states position to regulate trade is sacrosanct and in such, the bill applies almost entirely to commercial products. it would affect Jeremys business and as a business owner, he doesnt like that. here is the actual bill https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/2919384 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/2919384