The measure, aimed at reducing potential risks created by AI, would have required companies to test their models and publicly disclose their safety protocols to prevent the models from being manipulated to, for example, wipe out the state’s electric grid or help build chemical weapons.
How exactly do LLMs do that? If you’ve given an LLM’s pseudorandom output control over your electrical grid, no regulation will mitigate your stupidity.
Removed by mod
Could he understand the halting problem? I doubt he does, but the legislators evidently don’t either
How exactly do LLMs do that?
If you hook an LLM up as an interface replacement for a manual/analog Power Plant interface and start asking the translator to intuit decisions based on fuzzy inputs, you can create a cascade of errors that result in grid failure.
If you’ve given an LLM’s pseudorandom output control over your electrical grid, no regulation will mitigate your stupidity.
This rule would prevent a business or public regulator from doing such a thing without proving out safeguards.
And the governor vetoed it.
Good.
All this bill would have done is given OpenAI/Anthropic and such an effective monopoly (and probably destroy the planet with their insane scaling schemes) by destroying the open model ecosystem. I think fediverse vs. corporate social media is a good analogy, and this is kinda like sniping the Fediverse because it’s “too dangerous” if it gets too big, without actually being specific on how to deal with that, but actually sniping it because its a competitive threat.
And yes, OpenAI opposed this, but that was lip service. Don’t believe a word that comes out of Altman’s mouth.
Newsom on Sunday instead announced that the state will partner with several industry experts, including AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li, to develop guardrails around powerful AI models.
That’s reassuring—Li is one of the best-qualified people for the role, and she isn’t in the pocket of any of the major players.
Nancy Pelosi, argued that the bill would “kill California tech” and stifle innovation.
As long as the critics of a safety regulation need nothing better than such stupid, short-sighted arguments, nobody will ever be safe.
Meta: I’ve noticed a lot of VOA links on Lemmy lately, and I’d like to understand why. As I understand it, VOA is essentially a national propaganda news organization targeting an international audience (similar to RT). Why is that a good source for article sharing? Especially in the case of the article at hand, which is just a VOA republication of an Associated Press piece that could have been linked originally.
Fun fact, Gavin Nelson is actually a living AI. He doesn’t always get the answer right but he does always have words that sound like a plausible answer. He also creates artwork in his mind.
Gavin Nelson, that’s the guy that did “After the Rain,” right? Love that guy. Fitting song for these trying times.
Ah yes, the sequel to “Are Those Rain Clouds?” Thought provoking films.
Is that Major Nelson’s first name?
Gruesome Newsome’s veto pen is to the right of Reagan’s.
Man, fuck Gavin Newsome. That fucker has to go
He might be going to the White House in the future.
Great, now we’ll have separate “california-model” ai-models, like cars.
Why? He vetoed it.
People don’t read. They see California and get all upset because they hate anything remotely progressive, and just assume all the steers left for Texas.
And now lots of cars use the same standard as California which can be registered in California, what’s your point?
That… this doesn’t change anything, because he vetoed it, so it’s not a requirement for anyone?
What I mean is we tend to set the trend here. Maybe this isn’t the right one yet. People were complaining about California (and I still do) about their emission regulations, but yet states are adopting the policy as it was the right choice. Inland empire doesn’t have a smog warning of the day saying if you can go outside or if it’s hazardous.
California tends to lead the nation in laws that help the environment and citizens even if we think they fuckin blow. (10 round magazine, really?)
Even if did pass, I’m not sure why you’d think they’d have CA models, because as far as I’m aware they don’t do that for cars.
Manufacturers absolutely do make only-for-sale-in-California-variant cars. Motorcycles, also. They’re not as common as they used to be because emissions laws elsewhere are also starting to become as stringent as the CARB rules these days as well, so it’s becoming more cost effective to just make everything the “California version.”
Throughout the early 2000’s, the distinction was much more relevant. The last vehicle I had to work on that I know for a fact to be a “California version” was a 2014 KLR650. It has additional (unreliable…) emissions control equipment that is not present on otherwise identical bikes from the same model year that were not intended for sale in California.
Furthermore, California will refuse to plate any vehicle that does not specifically have a California compliant emissions certification if it has fewer than 7500 miles on it, i.e. if it is new. Those that don’t meet California’s standards are labeled “49 state” vehicles.
