4 ms·

> If you want to train a model that could conceivably fall into any of those three categories, you have to sign a document under pain of perjury (a felony) prom

by rdtsc 2y ago

> If you want to train a model that could conceivably fall into any of those three categories, you have to sign a document under pain of perjury (a felony) promising the Frontier Model Division that it is safe; That just sounds so strange. People will have to sign promises that their model is safe from possible end-user harm. It seems like they are setting up something for selective enforcement. > The California government is gearing up for the “increased incarceration costs” and other costs associated with criminalizing AI development if this bill passes That is just so odd. Weren't they the state focusing intently on quicker rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration but now they are preparing to incarcerate more people over AI models? What is even going on that state. What's the obvious loophole for the companies here. Leave the state? Or can they just say "This model was designed and built in Nevada/Kansas/Kentucky/etc. Us (OpenAI) are just licensing this as an end-user from our partners in Kentucky, sorry, CA attorney general, /shrug/?".

SllX 2y ago
> What's the obvious loophole for the companies here. As with all things under California’s broken political system: the ballot initiative process. Get people to vote for a law that in effect repeals this one, and put repealing the repeal out of reach for the legislature.
- slg 2y ago
  For those that aren't familiar, this is exactly what happened with rideshare and delivery companies in California. AB5 was passed in 2019 that reclassified those workers as employees and so Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and others spent over $200m on getting Prop 22 passed in 2020 to give them an exception to AB5. Part of Prob 22 was a requirement that a seven-eighths majority in the legislature would be needed to amend it.
  - Arrath 2y ago
    7/8's majority requirement?? These kind of supermajority threshold requirements should not be allowed, they're simply outrageous and blatantly obstructionist. Might was well write "this is immutable ha ha suck it"
    - SllX 2y ago
      If you can modify the California constitution by a simple ballot initiative, anything is possible within the bounds of Federal law and the US Constitution. AB5 was a bad law, but the solution was only a half-step to reversing it and yeah, the super majority requirement is essentially a bad solution to a legislature that would have had no qualms overturning a majority vote and talking a good game about how they’re right and voters are wrong. If our political environment didn’t feature short legislative term limits and ballot initiatives to begin with and was properly representative, it’s unlikely someone like the bill’s sponsor would have either been voted in in the first place or received enough support within the legislature to get AB5 passed. She also left the legislature and found herself a nice career working for the very interest groups that wanted to see AB5 passed in the first place.
slg 2y ago
>> The California government is gearing up for the “increased incarceration costs” and other costs associated with criminalizing AI development if this bill passes >That is just so odd. Weren't they the state focusing intently on quicker rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration but now they are preparing to incarcerate more people over AI models? What is even going on that state. Why is this a point of contention? Isn't it obvious that any new law that defines a new type of illegal behavior is going to result in increased incarceration costs? It doesn't matter if 99.99% of people convicted of violating a new law never face incarceration. There still will be some people who will be convicted of perjury or other crimes because of this new law and dealing with those people won't be free. This isn't an endorsement of this regulation, I'm just asking for clarification on why this specific aspect is worth singling out as a problem.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > Why is this a point of contention? It's ok, I guess? It just seems a little odd to go from we'll make AI model creators liable by law directly to effectively "let's expand our prison exercise yards and visitation facilities". Like they're planning on fill up the prisons right away. On second thought, I guess, exercise yard expansion might not be quite right, I am think more like "this incarcerated population will require espresso machines and yerba mate gourds. We'll have start a commission to study how to source those...". (One has to laugh when things get ridiculous enough...)
  - slg 2y ago
    I clicked through to the original source and here is the text of the note about increased costs. >Potential non-reimbursable annual costs (local funds, General Fund) in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to counties for increased incarceration costs relating to the expansion of felony perjury in this bill. And the first Google result[1] says it costs $132,860 to house a prisoner in California. So the analysis is effectively saying that California might incarcerate 0-7 people annually based off this new law. Is that supposed to be ridiculous? This just seems like a weird aspect of this issue to highlight and it ends up making the overall argument against this bill look weaker because of course incarceration costs will go up if you incarcerate more people. [1] - https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/california-prison-inmate-cost/103-c7393793-ee1d-4b64-8498-7dc6df0a90be https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatte...

by rdtsc 2y ago

SllX 2y ago

> What's the obvious loophole for the companies here. As with all things under California’s broken political system: the ballot initiative process. Get people to vote for a law that in effect repeals this one, and put repealing the repeal out of reach for the legislature.

slg 2y ago
For those that aren't familiar, this is exactly what happened with rideshare and delivery companies in California. AB5 was passed in 2019 that reclassified those workers as employees and so Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and others spent over $200m on getting Prop 22 passed in 2020 to give them an exception to AB5. Part of Prob 22 was a requirement that a seven-eighths majority in the legislature would be needed to amend it.
- Arrath 2y ago
  7/8's majority requirement?? These kind of supermajority threshold requirements should not be allowed, they're simply outrageous and blatantly obstructionist. Might was well write "this is immutable ha ha suck it"
  - SllX 2y ago
    If you can modify the California constitution by a simple ballot initiative, anything is possible within the bounds of Federal law and the US Constitution. AB5 was a bad law, but the solution was only a half-step to reversing it and yeah, the super majority requirement is essentially a bad solution to a legislature that would have had no qualms overturning a majority vote and talking a good game about how they’re right and voters are wrong. If our political environment didn’t feature short legislative term limits and ballot initiatives to begin with and was properly representative, it’s unlikely someone like the bill’s sponsor would have either been voted in in the first place or received enough support within the legislature to get AB5 passed. She also left the legislature and found herself a nice career working for the very interest groups that wanted to see AB5 passed in the first place.

slg 2y ago

>> The California government is gearing up for the “increased incarceration costs” and other costs associated with criminalizing AI development if this bill passes >That is just so odd. Weren't they the state focusing intently on quicker rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration but now they are preparing to incarcerate more people over AI models? What is even going on that state. Why is this a point of contention? Isn't it obvious that any new law that defines a new type of illegal behavior is going to result in increased incarceration costs? It doesn't matter if 99.99% of people convicted of violating a new law never face incarceration. There still will be some people who will be convicted of perjury or other crimes because of this new law and dealing with those people won't be free. This isn't an endorsement of this regulation, I'm just asking for clarification on why this specific aspect is worth singling out as a problem.

rdtsc 2y ago
> Why is this a point of contention? It's ok, I guess? It just seems a little odd to go from we'll make AI model creators liable by law directly to effectively "let's expand our prison exercise yards and visitation facilities". Like they're planning on fill up the prisons right away. On second thought, I guess, exercise yard expansion might not be quite right, I am think more like "this incarcerated population will require espresso machines and yerba mate gourds. We'll have start a commission to study how to source those...". (One has to laugh when things get ridiculous enough...)
- slg 2y ago
  I clicked through to the original source and here is the text of the note about increased costs. >Potential non-reimbursable annual costs (local funds, General Fund) in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to counties for increased incarceration costs relating to the expansion of felony perjury in this bill. And the first Google result[1] says it costs $132,860 to house a prisoner in California. So the analysis is effectively saying that California might incarcerate 0-7 people annually based off this new law. Is that supposed to be ridiculous? This just seems like a weird aspect of this issue to highlight and it ends up making the overall argument against this bill look weaker because of course incarceration costs will go up if you incarcerate more people. [1] - https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/california-prison-inmate-cost/103-c7393793-ee1d-4b64-8498-7dc6df0a90be https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatte...