Billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk on Monday came out in support of a California bill meant to establish safety measures for powerful artificial intelligence (AI) models, legislation that has divided large technology companies, startups and researchers.
“This is a tough call and will make some people upset, but, all things considered, I think California should probably pass the SB 1047 AI safety bill,” Musk said in a post on his platform X.
“For over 20 years, I have been an advocate for AI regulation, just as we regulate any product/technology that is a potential risk to the public,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO, who also owns an AI company called xAI, added.
California Senate Bill 1047 would require large-scale AI models to perform safety testing before being released to the public and would hold developers liable for severe harm caused by their models.
The legislation is opposed by several major tech firms, including Meta and Google, as well as AI companies, such as OpenAI, who argue it would stifle innovation in the Golden State.
.Here are the top political news stories for today.
Honestly I haven't studied SB 1047 hard enough -- I don't think it saves the world by itself, so the main impact is political consequences on which I'm not expert.
Disagree:
1) Our geopolitical adversaries like China will not pause/throttle and develop a massive advantage with economic & national security implications.
2) Regulation stifles progress & innovation while also driving capital out of the sector.
3) You can not trust the California legislature and their regulatory apparatus to fairly & effectively manage this without weaponizing it.
You make some good points. This guy does as well : The Pros and Cons of California's Proposed SB-1047 AI Safety Law - Gabriel Weil
I don't think it's going to slow down innovation because it's too exciting right now, but I am concerned about political control.
You’re right that innovation has “always found away” and that trait is part of the Silicon Valley culture’s past successes. It’s the political control which (just today again by Zuck’s admissions of censorship) has demonstrated we cannot trust centralized power with these things.
@PollsterAlexaGreen2yrs2Y
What's the best evidence that the bill is going to be used to go after open weights?
I know that earlier versions of the bill had a full shutdown req that's incompatible with open weights, but that's been removed. And I know that some AI safety people have expressed support for banning open weights, but I don't think that the people making decisions on what constitutes "duty of reasonable care" (regulators and courts) are those people?
The charitable read of the bill is that the (medium-term) goal is to mandate safety testing, so if during testing you discover world-threatening capabilities/behavior you would not be allowed to release the model at all.
@SOLESEN407mos7MO
I think that at the end of the day we can't let AI advance unregulated because it will lead to a worsening of the already post-truth world that we live in. If Sora.AI can make videos without a watermark than anyone can make anyone say anything regardless if they actually said it or not. You need to regulate the market to some degree, you can argue we should regulate less in most cases, but this isn't just a simple "Should Doorways be required to swing out or in" sorta thing, this is a possible threat to human society itself.
@GrumpyOilRepublican2yrs2Y
@EggsGenesisLibertarian2yrs2Y
@FerventPartis4nForward2yrs2Y
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
