11 ms·
California governor signs AI transparency bill into law
https://sb53.info/ https://sb53.info/
- toxicdevil 1y agoCopied from the end of the page: What the law does: SB 53 establishes new requirements for frontier AI developers creating stronger: Transparency: Requires large frontier developers to publicly publish a framework on its website describing how the company has incorporated national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. Innovation: Establishes a new consortium within the Government Operations Agency to develop a framework for creating a public computing cluster. The consortium, called CalCompute, will advance the development and deployment of artificial intelligence that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable by fostering research and innovation. Safety: Creates a new mechanism for frontier AI companies and the public to report potential critical safety incidents to California’s Office of Emergency Services. Accountability: Protects whistleblowers who disclose significant health and safety risks posed by frontier models, and creates a civil penalty for noncompliance, enforceable by the Attorney General’s office. Responsiveness: Directs the California Department of Technology to annually recommend appropriate updates to the law based on multistakeholder input, technological developments, and international standards.
- christkv 1y agoSo they are going to give a bunch of money to Nvidia that they don't have to build their own llm hosting data center?
- isodev 1y agoThis is so watered down and full of legal details for corps to loophole into. I like the initiative, but I wouldn’t count on safety or model providers being forced to do the right thing. And when the AI bubble pops, does it also prevent corps of getting themselves bailed out with taxpayer money?
- freedomben 1y agoAt least a bunch of lawyers and AI consultants (who conveniently, are frequently also lobbyists and consultants for the legislature) now get some legally mandated work and will make a shit ton more money!
- cyanbane 1y agoI don't see these, did the URI get switched? Anyone have orig?
- ryandrake 1y agoSo the significant regulatory hurdle for companies that this SB introduces is... "You have to write a doc." Please tell me there's actual meat here.
- Ajedi32 1y ago> This product contains AI known in the state of California to not incorporate any national standards, international standards, or industry-consensus best practices into its framework Compliance achieved.
- zmmmmm 1y agoit sounds like a nothing burger? Pretty much the only thing tech companies have to do in terms of transparency is create a static web page with some self flattering fluff on it? I was expecting something more like a mandatory BOM style list of "ingredients", regular audits and public reporting on safety incidents etc etc
- logicchains 1y agoBy putting "ethical" in there it essentially gives the California AG the right to fine companies that provide LLMs capable of expressing controversial viewpoints.
- zmmmmm 1y agoI only see "ethical" under the innovation / consortium part. Don't see how that applies to people producing LLMs outside of the consortium?
- WorldPeas 1y agoand what nobody seems to notice, that last part looks like it was generated by Anthropic's Claude (it likes to make bolded lists with check emojis, structured exactly in that manner). Kind of scary implying that they could be letting these models draft legislation
- theWreckluse 1y agoIts possible that ai was used for this summary section, which isn't as scary as you make it. It's def scary that ai is used in a legislative doc at all.
- WorldPeas 1y agoCorrect, but yes as you point out in the second half, I don't doubt that if they're using it for summaries then they're likely using it in daily work.
- ronsor 1y agoLegislators around the world have been doing that for a while now.
- willmadden 1y agoMore waste and graft so they can extort money out of the private sector to their mafia. Got it.
- hodgesrm 1y agoWhat real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?
- podgietaru 1y agoProtection for whistleblowers - which might expose nefarious actions
- freedomben 1y agoI think protection for whistleblowers both in AI and in general is a good thing, but ... do we really need a special carveout for AI whistleblowers? Do we not already have protections for them, or is it insufficient? And if we don't have them already, why not pass general protections instead of something so hyper-specific? (not directing these questions at you specifically, though if you know I'd certainly love to hear your thoughts)
- cosmic_cheese 1y agoCould be mainly to send a message. “Remember, no funny business with whistleblowers. We’re watching.”
- abakker 1y agoI think the idea is that explicit protections might encourage whistle-blowing. Especially since the domain is nascent enough that it's not clear what you'd blow the whistle on that might be unique to the companies that make foundation models. In many cases, there will be whistleblowers who both disclose what is being fed into models, but also details in aggregate about what users of models can do.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoYou have to understand what the purpose of this bill is. It's not supposed to do anything in particular. It's supposed to demonstrate to the public that lawmakers are Taking Action about this whole AI thing. An earlier version of the bill had a bunch of aggressive requirements, most of which would have been bad. The version that passed is more along the lines of filing paperwork and new rules that are largely redundant with existing rules, which is wasteful and effectively useless. But that was the thing that satisfied the major stakeholders, because the huge corporations don't care about spending ~0% of their revenue on some extra paper pushers and the legislators now get to claim that they did something about the thing everybody is talking about.
- TheAceOfHearts 1y agoI found this website with the actual bill text along with annotations [0]. The section 22757.12. seems to contain the actual details of what they mean by "transparency". [0] https://sb53.info/ https://sb53.info/
- dang 1y agoThanks! we'll add that link to the top text.
- cogman10 1y ago> “Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this definition covers basically all automation of any kind. Like, a dumb lawnmower responds to the input of the throttle lever and the kill switch and generates an output of a spinning blade which influences the physical environment, my lawn. > “Catastrophic risk” means a foreseeable and material risk that a large developer’s development, storage, use, or deployment of a foundation model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident, scheme, or course of conduct involving a dangerous capability. I had a friend that cut his toe off with a lawnmower. I'm pretty sure more than 50 people a year injure themselves with lawn mowers.
- kimixa 1y agoIf a single design of automated lawnmower cut off 50 toes it should absolutely be investigated. Perhaps the result of that investigation is there is no fault on the machine, but you don't know that until you've looked.
- cogman10 1y agoThe reason I bring up the definition is that "AI" is defined so loose as to include dumb lawn mowers. In my friend's case, he was mowing on a hill, braced to pull the lawnmower back, and jerked it back onto his foot. Edit: Looked it up, the number of injuries per year for lawn mowers is around 6k [1] [1] https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3037760/lawn-mowers-can-cause-variety-of-harm/ https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/303776...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- davidmckayv 1y agoThis is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court already settled this. Brandenburg gives us the standard: imminent lawless action. Add in the narrow exceptions like child porn and true threats, and that's it. The government doesn't get to create new categories of "dangerous speech" just because the technology is new. But here we have California mandating that AI companies assess whether their models can "provide expert-level assistance" in creating weapons or "engage in conduct that would constitute a crime." Then they have to implement mitigations and report to the state AG. That's prior restraint. The state is compelling companies to filter outputs based on potential future harm, which is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits. Yes, bioweapons and cyberattacks are scary. But the solution isn't giving the government power to define "safety" and force companies to censor accordingly. If someone actually uses AI to commit a crime, prosecute them under existing law. You don't need a new regulatory framework that treats information itself as the threat. This creates the infrastructure. Today it's "catastrophic risks." Tomorrow it's misinformation, hate speech, or whatever else the state decides needs "safety mitigations." Once you accept the premise that government can mandate content restrictions for safety, you've lost the argument.
- nubg 1y agoWas this comment written with the assistance of AI? I am asking seriously, not trying to be snarky.
- davidmckayv 1y agoNo. I just write well.
- freedomben 1y agoYou clearly already know this, but you do in fact write very well!
- pluc 1y agoStill nothing about how they stole copyrighted works for profit eh?
- johnnyanmac 1y agogovernment works slowly. The courts will probably determine those issues well before any major power signs proper regulations into law.
- cwillu 1y agoWhat do you expect california to do about american federal law?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- srj 1y agoReading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety" industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.
- xpe 1y agoThe commenter’s profile indicates they work for a major AI development companies — where being against AI regulation aligns nicely with one’s paycheck. See also the the scare quotes around AI safety. We all have heard the dogma: regulation kills innovation. As if unbridled innovation is all that people and society care about. I wonder if the commenter above has ever worked in an industry where a safety culture matters. Once you have, you see the world a little bit differently. Large chunks of Silicon Valley have little idea about safety: not in automotive, not in medicine, not for people, and certainly not for longer-term risks. So forgive us for not trusting AI labs to have good incentives. When regulation isn’t as efficient as we’d like, that is a problem. But you have to factor what happens if we don’t have any regulation. Also, don’t forget to call out every instance of insider corruption, kickback deals, any industry collusion.
- xpe 1y agoI welcome any substantive commentary and disagreement, as always. I’m happy to stray outside the herd. HN needs more clearly articulated disagreement regarding AI regulation. I made my comment in response to what seemed like a simplistic, ideology-driven claim. Few wise hackers would make an analogous claim about a system they actually worked on. Thinking carefully about tech but phoning it in for other topics is a double standard. Bare downvotes don't indicate (much less explain) one's rationale. I can’t tell if I (1) struck a nerve (an emotional response); (2) conjured a contentious philosophy (i.e. we have a difference in values or preferences or priorities), (3) made a logical error, (4) broke some norm or expectation, or (5) something else. Such a conflation of downvotes pushes me away from HN for meaningful discussion. I’ve lived/worked on both coasts, Austin, and more, and worked at many places (startups, academic projects, research labs, gov't, not-for-profits, big tech) and I don’t consider myself defined by any one place or culture. But for the context of AI regulation, I have more fundamental priorities than anything close to "technical innovation at all costs". P.S. (1) If a downvote here is merely an expression of “I’m a techno-libertarian” or "how dare you read someone's HN profile page and state the obvious?" or any such shallow disagreement, then IMO that’s counterproductive. If you want to express your viewpoint, make it persuasive rather than vaguely dismissive with an anonymous, unexplained downvote. (2) Some people do the thing where they guess at why someone else downvoted. That’s often speculation.
- parineum 1y ago> For purposes of this chapter: > (a) “Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. I was curious how California was going to define AI since it's basically a marketing term as of now. Seems like it's defined as a non-biological system that generates outputs from inputs.
- dgfitz 1y agoSo, like my coffee maker?
- kylehotchkiss 1y agoYeah, that's regulated now by CalCompute. Hope it's compliant!
- tadfisher 1y agoI'm in disagreement with others here: this definition matches no technology in existence, because AIs can't "infer" anything from their input. Likewise, we can't really prove humans can either.
- Cheer2171 1y agoYou'd have an argument if 'inference' hadn't become the standard term for "output from a weighted model" for a generation.
- piperswe 1y agoThe term for using an ML model is "inference" - perhaps it's not the same definition of the word as you're thinking, but it's a commonly used definition.
- progval 1y agoI love that the two replies to this comment are: "this definition matches no technology in existence" and "So, like my coffee maker?"
- cogman10 1y agoThis is something that could be (and should be) pre-empted with federal law. That said, this law seems pretty sloppy with its definitions. In particular, the definition of “Artificial intelligence model” includes all machines and every algorithm ever written. > “Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. It's like they saw the twilight zone and decided they needed to cover androids just in case someone figured out how to make a robot with a cuckoo clock.
- tmsh 1y agoSo if one causes $1B in damages one has to pay a fine of $10M? Similarly for other "catastrophic" damages? WTF. I am very AI pilled but this is no regulation at all. Suppose OpenAI pays their engineers $1M a year. In what world do they have any incentive to work to avoid a $10k fine? Let alone a $1M fine for "catastrophic" damage?
- tintor 1y ago> (3) For a knowing violation that creates a material risk of death, serious physical injury, or a catastrophic risk, a large developer shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) for a violation that is the large developers first such violation and in an amount not exceeding ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for any subsequent violation. So, if violation is "unknowning" (I assume this means unintentional) and creates a material risk, then there is no penalty? Also, penalties listed are upper bounds only (penalty will not exceed $X), and not lower bounds. $0 fine fulfills "not exceeding $10m" rule.
- ihsw 1y ago[dead]
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoDoes that prevent them from using any of my prompts (or derivations of it) for anything else than answering me?
- zer0zzz 1y agoYeah that would be an actual concrete item.
- zer0zzz 1y agoI scrolled this entire thread and still can’t figure out what effect this might have on the ai industry. Everyone’s takes feel excessively either politically motivated knee jerk or nihilistic.
- willmadden 1y agoThe effect is it creates a bunch of fake jobs that they can trade for favors while gumming up AI progress.
- zer0zzz 1y agoWhat ai progress? Please stop with this vague posting.
- tzs 1y agoIt looks like it largely codifies things that most of the large AI companies are already doing. It encourages them to keep doing those things, and when other AI companies get large they will have to do them too. It adds some reporting requirements if you AI does something that kills too many people or causes too much monetary damage. The link to the annotated bill text that dang added near the top of the page [1] is pretty useful, especially if you click the blue underlined parts which expand to annotations explaining how some of the things in it came about. That link also has a good summary and FAQs. [1] https://sb53.info/index https://sb53.info/index
- zer0zzz 1y agoThanks for the link and summary
- nickpsecurity 1y agoI wonder if whistleblowing applies to copyright claims. For instance, using data sets which involve copying proprietary works scraped from public sources. If so, California might be a dangerous place for some AI companies to operate in.
- throwmeaway222 1y agoYet again, heard about it after the signing. The CA government is a crapshow.
- dailyreflection 1y agoThis is important in the big picture.
- rob_c 1y agoSo I'm guessing we're all signing the new tethics pledge then. What a thumbass idea.
- agar 1y agoReading the comments, this is both a "nothing burger" and a reason to geoblock California. It does too much, and too little. The costs are too high, and too low. It's an example of corruption, but also a good first start at regulations. It will drive AI companies out of California, but also attract more companies with a lower bar for edge innovation. Can anyone link to an actual informed and nuanced discussion of this bill? Because if it exists here, I haven't found it.
- parineum 1y agoI think all of those outcomes are possibilities and I don't think we'll know until we see both how the government decides to attempt to enforce this and how the courts allow it to be enforced. The language of the law is so vague to me that I could see it being either a sledgehammer or absolutely inconsequential.
- mercurialsolo 1y agoQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- BrenBarn 1y agoI'm so sick of these laws that just require people to "formulate plans" and "adopt policies" and so on. They should reverse the entire concept and ban all of it, then gradually start allowing little bits and pieces.
- KurSix 1y agoThe devil will be in enforcement, definitions, and how often those thresholds are updated