I haven’t heard anything specific from Meta themselves, but I think the bill is short enough that we can reason as non-lawyers about it. Almost certainly they w

I haven’t heard anything specific from Meta themselves, but I think the bill is short enough that we can reason as non-lawyers about it. Almost certainly they would have to stop releasing LLMs weights based on the very specific qualifications in the legislation. I don’t actually know what the specific size limit would be, but based on the translated $ value in the text of the bill it probably would cover their 70B+ models. Disturbing approach to mitigating AI harms imo, this bill basically hopes it can limit the number of operators of an arbitrary model type so as to allow easier governance of AI model use. This ignores the reality that we already have large models openly released and easily modifiable (outside CA jurisdiction) which likely are capable of perpetuating “critical harms”, or that the information requirements to achieve the defined “critical harms” could be realized by an individual by simply reading a few books. There’s also no reason to simply assume that future models will require millions of dollars of compute to create; fulfilling the goals of this regulatory philosophy long term almost certainly requires the banning of general purpose compute to come close to the desired outcome of a supposed reduction in probability of some “critical harm” being perpetrated. We should be focusing on hardening society to the realities of the “critical harms” identified by this bill, rather than implicitly assuming the only reason we don’t see them as much irl is because everyone is stupid. The current paranoia wave around LLMs is just a symptom of people waking up to the fragility of the world we live in.