My objection to this bill (CA SB-1047) is not that it would be fatal or even significant to the companies producing LLMs, it is that it is silly. How many LLMs does it take to change a light-bulb? Yeah, that's right, LLMs cannot change lightbulbs. They can't do anything but model language. They don't provide any original information that could not be found elsewhere. They are fluent, but not competent.
The bill includes liability for "enabling" catastrophic events. The latest markup revises that to "materially enable," but that is still too vague. Computers enabled the Manhattan project. Was that material? Could it have been foreseen by their developers?
The silliest provision is the requirement to install a kill switch in any model before training, "the capability to promptly enact a full shutdown" of the model.
The risks that it seeks to mitigate might be real for some model, some day, but not today. The current state of the art models do not present the anticipated risks, but the criteria for what constitutes a "covered model" are all stated relative to current models (e.g., the number of FLOPS or the cost of training). They would not necessarily apply to future models, for example, quantum computing models, or they may apply to too many models, which do not present risks. Future models may be trainable for less than $100 million, for example, and they would be excluded from this regulation. That makes no sense: Apply today's criteria to models that do not exist and may not be relevant to models that do present risks.
What this bill does is to respond to and provide government certification to the hype surrounding GenAI models. It supports and provides government certification that these models are more powerful than they are. Despite industry protestations, this bill is a gift to the industry. If today's models are not genuinely (and generally intelligent), they will be within a few years (or so the bill presumes) and so this specific kind of regulation is needed now. The state is contributing to the marketing based on science fiction. That is silly.
Finally, the bill creates a business model for "third party" organization to certify that the models are safe. For the foreseeable future, that party will be able to collect large fees without actually having to do any valuable work.
Today's models do not present the dangers that are anticipated by this bill and it is dubious whether any future model ever will. The California legislature is being conned and that is why I object to this bill. Stop the hype.
This is a simple transparency and liability bill which encourages safety. Assuming that none of the harms caused by AI is novel, then that will be a valid defense in court.
But overall, this merely holds Big Tech to their own voluntary commitments to the White House. That they are objecting so heavily now to it heavily questions their sincerity.
We do know that AI models can create novel threats, including with deception(Anthropic, Apollo) and it only makes sense that there is fledging light-touch regulation to a transformative technology.
Alas, I would not be so sure. Pentesters like me have been pointing this sort of stuff out to people; so maybe it requires getting people to try themselves? The pure "Here's the crazy crap it does" from someone else does not seem to give certain folks pause.
These days it feels like billionaires can wade through lakes of real blood (thinking of self-driving cars here) without consequence. Linking the abstract concepts of algorithms that feed the social media monsters to political violence or suicide and properly regulating them seems impossible. It's very disheartening.
Based on history we won't see any real regulation until the political and financial elites are harmed. Like with radium they didn't regulate the stuff when dozens of watch company workers died. It was when a wealthy socialite named Eben Byers died that they finally cracked down on use of radium.
Once someone hacks an autonomous car to crush a billionaire or two we should see the law get real serious about regulation of software systems.
Any advice for us here in England? The government has been speaking to a number of orgs about regulating AI. My charity aims to be involved from a disability perspective
I would like to see the people who weakened the bill and their online allies have their names remembered. It shouldn't be a free of consequence game to willingly endanger the public however much of a temporarily embarassed millionaire you are.
This is commonplace when it comes to politics, whether it's in Sacramento or here where I live in Washington. Effective delaying comprehensive regulations not only protects major players, it also gives them time to extensively develop deeper relationships with legislators and their staffs via higher level lobbying that will enable them to develop long term strategies to establish regulations that continue to protect them while making it harder for smaller players to enter the market and thrive.
They, of course, have every right to do this. The problem is that most of the public will not be award of what's going on NOW and will found out later when something happens to them, their lives, their lives, their jobs, their industries, or their communities.
Notice the astroturfing even here, where the objectors to SB-1047 consistently have written no other comments, follow no subcriptions, etc.
My objection to this bill (CA SB-1047) is not that it would be fatal or even significant to the companies producing LLMs, it is that it is silly. How many LLMs does it take to change a light-bulb? Yeah, that's right, LLMs cannot change lightbulbs. They can't do anything but model language. They don't provide any original information that could not be found elsewhere. They are fluent, but not competent.
The bill includes liability for "enabling" catastrophic events. The latest markup revises that to "materially enable," but that is still too vague. Computers enabled the Manhattan project. Was that material? Could it have been foreseen by their developers?
The silliest provision is the requirement to install a kill switch in any model before training, "the capability to promptly enact a full shutdown" of the model.
The risks that it seeks to mitigate might be real for some model, some day, but not today. The current state of the art models do not present the anticipated risks, but the criteria for what constitutes a "covered model" are all stated relative to current models (e.g., the number of FLOPS or the cost of training). They would not necessarily apply to future models, for example, quantum computing models, or they may apply to too many models, which do not present risks. Future models may be trainable for less than $100 million, for example, and they would be excluded from this regulation. That makes no sense: Apply today's criteria to models that do not exist and may not be relevant to models that do present risks.
What this bill does is to respond to and provide government certification to the hype surrounding GenAI models. It supports and provides government certification that these models are more powerful than they are. Despite industry protestations, this bill is a gift to the industry. If today's models are not genuinely (and generally intelligent), they will be within a few years (or so the bill presumes) and so this specific kind of regulation is needed now. The state is contributing to the marketing based on science fiction. That is silly.
Finally, the bill creates a business model for "third party" organization to certify that the models are safe. For the foreseeable future, that party will be able to collect large fees without actually having to do any valuable work.
Today's models do not present the dangers that are anticipated by this bill and it is dubious whether any future model ever will. The California legislature is being conned and that is why I object to this bill. Stop the hype.
This is a simple transparency and liability bill which encourages safety. Assuming that none of the harms caused by AI is novel, then that will be a valid defense in court.
But overall, this merely holds Big Tech to their own voluntary commitments to the White House. That they are objecting so heavily now to it heavily questions their sincerity.
We do know that AI models can create novel threats, including with deception(Anthropic, Apollo) and it only makes sense that there is fledging light-touch regulation to a transformative technology.
If people just continually asked ChatGPT questions they know the answer too and saw how consistently wrong it is then the hype would die overnight
Alas, I would not be so sure. Pentesters like me have been pointing this sort of stuff out to people; so maybe it requires getting people to try themselves? The pure "Here's the crazy crap it does" from someone else does not seem to give certain folks pause.
Garry Marcus, last week: the AI bubble is over! This is it! AI is collapsing! It was all BS!
Garry Marcus, this week: If this bill doesn't pass AI is going to become an existential threat.
Talk about speaking from both sides of your mouth!
To be clear, I support this legislation. But man, you sure do change your narrative to suit your needs.
Regulation is written in blood.
These days it feels like billionaires can wade through lakes of real blood (thinking of self-driving cars here) without consequence. Linking the abstract concepts of algorithms that feed the social media monsters to political violence or suicide and properly regulating them seems impossible. It's very disheartening.
And they are literally pouring millions now to advertise falsehoods or astroturf a highly popular bill(77% of Californians favor it).
Based on history we won't see any real regulation until the political and financial elites are harmed. Like with radium they didn't regulate the stuff when dozens of watch company workers died. It was when a wealthy socialite named Eben Byers died that they finally cracked down on use of radium.
Once someone hacks an autonomous car to crush a billionaire or two we should see the law get real serious about regulation of software systems.
Don't Look Up.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/25/big-tech-existential-risk-ai-scientist-max-tegmark-regulations
Big Tech is not being honest about the risks to the public.
Hinton, Yoshua, etc all have also chimed in. On the objective level, all of Tegmark's points are completely true.
Speculation?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2024/06/19/top-ai-chatbots-spread-russian-propaganda/
I can also show deception, self awareness, reward hacking, etc
Any advice for us here in England? The government has been speaking to a number of orgs about regulating AI. My charity aims to be involved from a disability perspective
I think there are UK based AI Safety organizations; I may be able to connnect you with them if you want to DM.
“Fairy Tales”
The AI Tale
Is too big to fail
Too big to nail
And too big to jail
Too big for facts
And too big to tax
We have to be lax
Lest China attacks
“Agog about a Gig”
A gig economy
Current biz
Gen AI, you see
All it is
And just a gig is no gig deal
“Too big to derail” too
Cuz then you’re only left with “The AGI G”
“The AGI Grail
Is too big to fail
….”
is better
Sorry, supposed to be “fAIry Tales”
“AIry Tales” also works
But what about China?
Frankly, they AI’n the place
Thank you for being a voice for what is good for the public as well as for ongoing innovation!
Don't you dare require us to be responsible. That would thwart innovation.
It would hurt AInovation
Definition of AInovation: scrape up more copyrighted data to train on
And when there is no more copyrighted (ie, good) data to be had, feed the AI its own tail (MAID - Mad AI Disease)
I would like to see the people who weakened the bill and their online allies have their names remembered. It shouldn't be a free of consequence game to willingly endanger the public however much of a temporarily embarassed millionaire you are.
This is commonplace when it comes to politics, whether it's in Sacramento or here where I live in Washington. Effective delaying comprehensive regulations not only protects major players, it also gives them time to extensively develop deeper relationships with legislators and their staffs via higher level lobbying that will enable them to develop long term strategies to establish regulations that continue to protect them while making it harder for smaller players to enter the market and thrive.
They, of course, have every right to do this. The problem is that most of the public will not be award of what's going on NOW and will found out later when something happens to them, their lives, their lives, their jobs, their industries, or their communities.
Absolutely. Besides substack, do you know if you can submit to any California newspapers in support of the bill?
If AI is harmless as you believe, then the regulations will never cause any issues. No worries about liability at all!
Light touch liability enhances transparency and promotes safety and innovation.