4 ms·

>> The California government is gearing up for the “increased incarceration costs” and other costs associated with criminalizing AI development if this bill pas

by 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...
  - jfyi 2y ago
    > This just seems like a weird aspect of this issue to highlight It's FUD from a thinktank that specializes in freaking out over corporate legislation under the guise of "personal liberty". Still seem weird? Seems right on point to me.

by slg 2y ago

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...
- jfyi 2y ago
  > This just seems like a weird aspect of this issue to highlight It's FUD from a thinktank that specializes in freaking out over corporate legislation under the guise of "personal liberty". Still seem weird? Seems right on point to me.