9 ms·
What 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 payme
by hodgesrm 1y ago
What 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.
- observationist 1y ago[flagged]
- fourseventy 1y ago[flagged]
- tadfisher 1y agoThe problem it solves is providing any sort of baseline framework for lawmakers and the legal system to even discuss AI and its impacts based on actual data instead of feels. That's why so much of it is about requiring tech companies to publish safety plans, transparency reports and incidents, and why the penalty for noncompliance is only $10,000. A comprehensive AI regulatory action is way too premature at this stage, and do note that California is not the sovereign responsible for U.S. copyright law.
- iinnPP 1y agoIf I had a requirement to either do something I didn't want to do or pay a nickel, I'd just fake doing what needed to be done and wait for the regulatory body to fine me 28 years later after I exhausted my appeal chain. Luckily, inflation turned the nickel into a penny, now defunct, and I rely on the ability to pay debts in legal currency to use another 39 years of appeals.
- zie 1y ago28yrs for an appeals chain is a bit longer than most realities I'm aware of. More like a dozen years at the top end would be more in line with what I've seen out there. In general though, it's easier to just comply, even for the companies. It helps with PR and employee retention, etc. They may fudge the reports a bit, even on purpose, but all groups of people do this to some degree. The question is, when does fudging go too far? There is some gray, but there isn't infinite amounts of gray.
- iinnPP 1y agoFor sure, it's meant to go a bit too far I guess. I'll be more real. This is to allow companies to make entirely fictitious statements that they will state satisfies their interpretation. The lack of fines will suggest compliance. Proving the statement is fiction isn't ever going to happen anyway. But it's also such low fine, that will eat inflation for those 12 years.
- 1y ago
- egorfine 1y ago> What real-world problem does any of this solve? Drives AI innovation out of California.
- micromacrofoot 1y agoI think it applies to companies providing services to California (based on how much data from Californian's they process), not just limited to those operating within the state, similar to the CCPA.
- egorfine 1y agosign one more geo region to block. One more region to remember. Internet is becoming fragmented. :-(
- cosmic_cheese 1y agoGeoblocking the economy that’s the largest in the US and fourth largest in the world (if it were a country) over some kid gloves regulations would be phenomenally stupid.
- egorfine 1y agoWhat else I could possibly do if complying is not technically possible?
- happyopossum 1y agoIt’s not technically possible to publish a couple of documents?
- thereisnospork 1y agoWhich documents? Which are comprehensively listed where? With what indemnification for a good faith effort?
- andy99 1y agoYour rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some kind of wealth redistribution to the loudest complainers.
- drivebyhooting 1y agoI’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?
- CamperBob2 1y agoNews flash: You won't have any idea whether the textbook is AI-authored or not.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoThen we trust nothing published after 2020 or so AI will have effectively frozen human progress in a snapshot of time because nothing created after LLMs became widely available will be trustworthy
- AlexandrB 1y agoWho is "we"? A lot of people don't care and will trust new AI generated stuff regardless of how wrong it is. What this means for human progress is uncertain.
- CamperBob2 1y agoAnd if they outcompete you, then what? I guess it'll be a little less uncertain at that point.
- drivebyhooting 1y agoThe same way bacteria can outcompete humans.
- bloodyplonker22 1y agoIt solves a very real real world problem: putting more money into the hands of government officials.
- willmadden 1y agoBingo.
- array_key_first 1y agoThis is, like, the stupidest and most inefficient way for a government to make money. I know it's fun and all to circle jerk about how greedy those darn bureaucrats are - but we're all aware they control the budget, right? They could just raise taxes. I don't think they're fining companies... sigh... 10,000 dollars as some sort of sneaky "haha gotcha!" scam they're running.
- votepaunchy 1y agoRaising taxes does not solve the problem of getting the money out to the right people.
- array_key_first 1y agoThe right people? I just don't think CA, which has the fourth largest GDP in the world, is trying to target the likes of OpenAI for a measley fucking 10k.
- apercu 1y agoMy first impression of your post was “it’s not perfect why do it?” - I hope I’m wrong. Hard to tell on the interwebs so apologies if that wasn’t the intent.
- ipaddr 1y agoWhat if it was worded. Doing this distracts from the real issues like ip thief. Does a published safety plan really help or is this just another regulation / red tape exercise that increases government headcount/cost for political purposes?
- apercu 1y agoOr for performative purposes. I doubt it's to increase headcount. But, I ask, should they do nothing?
- nomel 1y ago> Government Operations Agency to develop a framework for creating a public computing cluster. The meat of the bill is that some government contractors are about to get very rich. And, if history reflects the future, some portion will be no-bid, to make sure the money goes to exactly who he wants it to go to: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article250348451.html https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article250348451.h...
- esalman 1y agoTalking to the government is a rare skill and those who do tend to get very rich. Just look at Elon Musk.
- simondotau 1y agoThis isn’t necessarily about fixing today’s real-world problems. Transparency is an enabler for identifying (or avoiding) a class of future real-world problems.
- Forgeties79 1y agoBasically what many of us called for 2-3 years ago and were called Luddites over.
- TiredOfLife 1y agoSame way you currently protect your IP from being vacuumed up and used by humans
- KurSix 1y agoIn a way, it assumes the training has already happened and focuses on what comes after