Proposed law would require AI companies to adhere to strict safety frameworks.
  • @[email protected]
    5•6 months ago

    California has pushed out badly worded laws in the past. Here’s a definition from the bill.

    “Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments and that may operate with varying levels of autonomy.

    Tell me that wouldn’t also apply to a microwave oven.

  • AutoTL;DRBEnglish
    2•6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Artificial intelligence heavyweights in California are protesting against a state bill that would force technology companies to adhere to a strict safety framework including creating a “kill switch” to turn off their powerful AI models, in a growing battle over regulatory control of the cutting-edge technology.

    The California Legislature is considering proposals that would introduce new restrictions on tech companies operating in the state, including the three largest AI start-ups OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere as well as large language models run by Big Tech companies such as Meta.

    The bill, passed by the state’s Senate last month and set for a vote from its general assembly in August, requires AI groups in California to guarantee to a newly created state body that they will not develop models with “a hazardous capability,” such as creating biological or nuclear weapons or aiding cyber security attacks.

    Developers would be required to report on their safety testing and introduce a so-called kill switch to shut down their models, according to the proposed Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act.

    But the law has become the focus of a backlash from many in Silicon Valley because of claims it will force AI start-ups to leave the state and prevent platforms such as Meta from operating open source models.

    “If someone wanted to come up with regulations to stifle innovation, one could hardly do better,” said Andrew Ng, a renowned computer scientist who led AI projects at Alphabet’s Google and China’s Baidu, and who sits on Amazon’s board.

    The original article contains 271 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 6%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • @trolololol
      2•6 months ago

      Yep we have a great track record of companies defending the next interests of citizens, why do we need laws for?

      /S

  • @[email protected]English
    2•6 months ago

    Many of these regulations will make it harder for humanity to share in the benefit of AI. The corps currently involved in AI development have made some pushes for regulation. You don’t normally see corps do that, so that raises some questions. Why? Answer: They want to stamp out competition.

    You know who has no trouble complying with and/or bending large, burdensome regulations? Huge megacorps. You know who does have trouble complying with them though? Small startups & open source initiatives.

  • mozz
    1•6 months ago

    I want to hear what AI experts I already think of as qualified (Yann LeCun or Rob Miles) think of this bill

    @[email protected]

    Or can anyone who’s still on Twitter just ask them?