The whole story of SB 1047 is long and complicated, but the gist of it is actually quite simple. By and large, the artificial intelligence industry does not want to be regulated. It especially doesn’t want to be liable for harms caused by its AI models. Since SB 1047 regulates the industry and uses liability to enforce those regulations, much of the industry doesn’t want the bill.
Industry insiders can’t say this explicitly, so they make other arguments instead (often arguing against versions of the bill that don’t exist). It’s not super surprising that these arguments don’t really hold up to scrutiny.
SB 1047 mainly mandated that the largest AI developers implement safeguards to mitigate catastrophic risks. If a covered company’s AI model causes a disaster, defined as “mass casualties” or $500 million or more in damage and the company’s safeguards were not in line with industry best practices and/or relevant government standards, then the company could be liable for damages and additional financial penalties. The bill also included protections for AI whistleblowers.
It would have been the first law in the United States to mandate that these companies implement safeguards to mitigate catastrophic risks, breaking from the tradition of using the voluntary AI safety commitments preferred by the industry and national lawmakers.
Opposing the California Senate bill, OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, and Google argued that AI regulations should happen at the federal level instead.
However, Republicans have committed to obstruct significant national…
La suite est à lire sur: jacobin.com
Auteur: Garrison Lovely
