5 ms·

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open wei

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/3019694 So this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size, would make it illegal to sell enough compute power to train such a model without first verifying that your customer isn't going to train a model and then ignore this law, and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters and can be turned off.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
timr 2y ago
The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next election. The man cannot be trusted with power -- this is far from the first ridiculous law he has championed. Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by the courts: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repeals-182900581.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repea... https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-misinformation-AB-2098-17530946.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-... (Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. Weiner has a long history of horrendously bad judgment and self-aggrandizement via legislation. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you are on, or what you think of "AI safety", you should want more thoughtful representation than this.)
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >you should want more thoughtful representation than this. Your opinion on what "thoughtful representation" is is what makes this point partisan. Regardless, he's in until 2028 so it'll be some time before that vote can happen. Also, important Nitpick, it's Scott Weiner. Anthony Weiner (no relation AFAIK) was in New York and has a much more... Public controversy.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Public controversy I think you accidentally hit the letter "L". :P
- dlx 2y ago
  you've got the wrong Weiner dude ;)
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Lol, I thought "How TF did Anthony Weiner get elected for anything else again??" after reading that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rekttrader 2y ago
  ** Anthony != Scott Weiner
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  Anthony Weiner is a disgraced New York Democratic politician who does not appear to have re-entered politics after his release from prison a few years ago. You mentioned his name twice in your post, so it doesn't seem to be an accident that you mentioned him, yet his name does not seem to appear anywhere in your links. I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    He meant Scott Wiener but had penis on the brain.
  - timr 2y ago
    Yes, it was a mistake. I obviously meant the Weiner responsible for the legislation I cited. But you clearly know that. > I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it. Really? The message is unchanged, so it seems like something you could deduce.
akira2501 2y ago
> and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters Audits cannot prove anything and they offer no value when planning for the future. They're purely a retrospective tool that offers insights into potential risk factors. > and can be turned off. I really wish legislators would operate inside reality instead of a Star Trek episode.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  This snide dismissiveness around “sci-fi” scenarios, while capabilities continue to grow, seems incredibly naïve and foolish. Many of you saying stuff like this were the same naysayers who have been terribly wrong about scaling for the last 6-8 years or people who only started paying attention in the last two years.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > seems incredibly naïve and foolish. We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. > were the same naysayers Now who's being snide and dismissive? Do you want to argue the point or are you just interested in tossing ad hominem attacks around?
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      > We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. Not so clear when you are inferencing a distributed model across the globe. Doesn't seem obvious that shutdown of a distributed computing environment will always be trivial. > Now who's being snide and dismissive? Oh to be clear, nothing against being dismissive - just the particular brand of dismissiveness of 'scifi' safety scenarios is naive.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
comp_throw7 2y ago
> this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size That's nowhere in the bill, but plenty of people have been confused into thinking this by the bill's opponents.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  Three of the four options of what an "artifical intelligence safety incident" is defined as require that the weights be kept secret. One is quite explicit, the others are just impossible to prevent if the weights are available: > (2) Theft, misappropriation, malicious use, inadvertent release, unauthorized access, or escape of the model weights of a covered model or covered model derivative. > (3) The critical failure of technical or administrative controls, including controls limiting the ability to modify a covered model or covered model derivative. > (4) Unauthorized use of a covered model or covered model derivative to cause or materially enable critical harm.
  - comp_throw7 2y ago
    It is not illegal for a model developer to train a model that is involved in an "artifical intelligence safety incident".
Terr_ 2y ago
Sounds like legislation that mis-indentifies the root issue as "somehow maybe the computer is too smart" as opposed to, say, "humans and corporations should be liable for using the tool to do evil."
- concordDance 2y ago
  The former is a potentially extremely serious issue, just not one we're likely to hit in the very near future.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
That is a very bad law. People and especially corporations in favor of it should be under scrutiny for trying to corner a market for themselves.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

timr 2y ago

The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next election. The man cannot be trusted with power -- this is far from the first ridiculous law he has championed. Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by the courts: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repeals-182900581.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repea... https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-misinformation-AB-2098-17530946.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-... (Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. Weiner has a long history of horrendously bad judgment and self-aggrandizement via legislation. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you are on, or what you think of "AI safety", you should want more thoughtful representation than this.)

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>you should want more thoughtful representation than this. Your opinion on what "thoughtful representation" is is what makes this point partisan. Regardless, he's in until 2028 so it'll be some time before that vote can happen. Also, important Nitpick, it's Scott Weiner. Anthony Weiner (no relation AFAIK) was in New York and has a much more... Public controversy.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Public controversy I think you accidentally hit the letter "L". :P
dlx 2y ago
you've got the wrong Weiner dude ;)
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Lol, I thought "How TF did Anthony Weiner get elected for anything else again??" after reading that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rekttrader 2y ago
** Anthony != Scott Weiner
GolfPopper 2y ago
Anthony Weiner is a disgraced New York Democratic politician who does not appear to have re-entered politics after his release from prison a few years ago. You mentioned his name twice in your post, so it doesn't seem to be an accident that you mentioned him, yet his name does not seem to appear anywhere in your links. I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  He meant Scott Wiener but had penis on the brain.
- timr 2y ago
  Yes, it was a mistake. I obviously meant the Weiner responsible for the legislation I cited. But you clearly know that. > I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it. Really? The message is unchanged, so it seems like something you could deduce.

akira2501 2y ago

> and mandates audit requirements to prove that your models won't help people cause disasters Audits cannot prove anything and they offer no value when planning for the future. They're purely a retrospective tool that offers insights into potential risk factors. > and can be turned off. I really wish legislators would operate inside reality instead of a Star Trek episode.

whimsicalism 2y ago
This snide dismissiveness around “sci-fi” scenarios, while capabilities continue to grow, seems incredibly naïve and foolish. Many of you saying stuff like this were the same naysayers who have been terribly wrong about scaling for the last 6-8 years or people who only started paying attention in the last two years.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > seems incredibly naïve and foolish. We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. > were the same naysayers Now who's being snide and dismissive? Do you want to argue the point or are you just interested in tossing ad hominem attacks around?
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > We have electrical codes. These require disconnects just about everywhere. The notion that any system somehow couldn't be "turned off" with or without the consent of the operator is downright laughable. Not so clear when you are inferencing a distributed model across the globe. Doesn't seem obvious that shutdown of a distributed computing environment will always be trivial. > Now who's being snide and dismissive? Oh to be clear, nothing against being dismissive - just the particular brand of dismissiveness of 'scifi' safety scenarios is naive.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

comp_throw7 2y ago

> this is the one that would make it illegal to provide open weights for models past a certain size That's nowhere in the bill, but plenty of people have been confused into thinking this by the bill's opponents.

tbrownaw 2y ago
Three of the four options of what an "artifical intelligence safety incident" is defined as require that the weights be kept secret. One is quite explicit, the others are just impossible to prevent if the weights are available: > (2) Theft, misappropriation, malicious use, inadvertent release, unauthorized access, or escape of the model weights of a covered model or covered model derivative. > (3) The critical failure of technical or administrative controls, including controls limiting the ability to modify a covered model or covered model derivative. > (4) Unauthorized use of a covered model or covered model derivative to cause or materially enable critical harm.
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  It is not illegal for a model developer to train a model that is involved in an "artifical intelligence safety incident".

Terr_ 2y ago

Sounds like legislation that mis-indentifies the root issue as "somehow maybe the computer is too smart" as opposed to, say, "humans and corporations should be liable for using the tool to do evil."

concordDance 2y ago
The former is a potentially extremely serious issue, just not one we're likely to hit in the very near future.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

That is a very bad law. People and especially corporations in favor of it should be under scrutiny for trying to corner a market for themselves.