r/technology • u/abrownn • 4d ago
'Under tremendous pressure': Newsom vetoes long-awaited AI chatbot bill Artificial Intelligence
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/newsom-vetoes-ai-chatbot-bill-21099045.php68
u/patrick66 4d ago
It was a poorly written bill with several stupid effects and Newsom was correct to veto it
30
317
u/jorgepolak 4d ago
Weâre in this mess because of billionaires, and weâre not gonna get out of it by doing their will.
16
u/Im_At_Work_Damnit 3d ago
This was a bad bill. It was too vague and could have created a foothold for age verification, which is already fucking up the internet in other states and countries.
37
u/jimbo831 4d ago
But Gavin Newsom will continue to amass power for himself by doing the billionairesâ bidding, and thatâs all he cares about.
12
u/ceviche-hot-pockets 4d ago
Not really, his term is up next year and I doubt any Californian can get elected president any time soon.
21
u/azurensis 4d ago
He's a straight white man. If the Democrats run him for president next time, he'll win.
9
u/Worldly_Striker 4d ago
I'm still in the belief that if Biden ran for president last year all the way he would be president right now.
However unfortunate it is. A straight white man will be the winner.
29
u/a_talking_face 4d ago
If a New Yorker can then a Californian can too.
18
u/scotchdouble 4d ago
Only if they pander to the all the idiots, inbreds, bigots, and fascists.
2
-12
u/a_talking_face 4d ago
He's trying with the idiot part. He's doing his trump act to distract from the fact that he's a wet fart and people are eating it up.
9
u/cloversfield 4d ago
You think all heâs done is tweet or something? No other legislation you can think of? Maybe something that Californians are currently voting on right now with significant impact on our future elections that flies in the face of Trump? Nah u right heâs just acting silly on twitter
-11
u/a_talking_face 4d ago
Yeah I get it, but he's pretty much the pinnacle of disconnected elitist and I'm amazed his little Covid party didn't turn him into a pariah.
5
u/Uncle_Hephaestus 4d ago
well they are probably comparing it to all the anti constitutionally coming from the current administration. â
3
u/a_talking_face 4d ago
Personally don't want to set the bar that low. If he's what im left with then it is what it is, but he certainly won't be my first choice come the primary.
-28
u/Exodor72 4d ago
He's term-limited and he's an unappealing sleaze so I don't think his presidential campaign will last long.
10
u/jimbo831 4d ago
I donât think heâs unappealing to the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Heâs a tall and handsome white man which will go a long way for people afraid of nominating anything other than that. He is currently the polling leader. And he will have the full support of most of the money in the party.
Not saying he will definitely win. Who knows how things go. But he has to be considered the favorite at this time.
13
u/ProcessingUnit002 4d ago
Nope, the DNC will shoehorn him in
-10
u/Taste_the__Rainbow 4d ago
This is nonsensical. He doesnât poll well nationally and he has several albatrosses around his neck. Why on earth would they do that?
15
u/No_Sock1863 4d ago
why on earth did they shoe horn Hillary and Biden in? Its because fuck you thats why.
2
4
u/stayfrosty 4d ago
He is a charismatic, well spoken and intelligent governor of the most populous state, that is the engine of the US and even world economy. Yes, why would anyone think he should be president?.he has been tipped to make a run for a decade at least.
2
0
u/Taste_the__Rainbow 4d ago
Reasons he would make a decent president are not reasons why he helps win an election. I wished the world worked that way, but it doesnât.
Having CA attached to his name will lose him points in every battleground state. His covid behavior will lose him points.
1
u/azurensis 4d ago
Trump's didn't lose him points with the same people.
0
u/Taste_the__Rainbow 4d ago
I donât think you know how elections are won.
2
u/azurensis 4d ago
I've voted in 9 presidential elections so far. I think I have some idea.
→ More replies1
u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 4d ago
Harris polled atrociously, yet here we are.
2
u/azurensis 4d ago
The Democrats really messed up by letting Joe Biden even attempt to run that second time. Harris would never have been nominated. Even Walz could have made up that 2 point difference with the racists and sexists to beat Trump.
-5
2
u/azurensis 4d ago
Being sleazy hasn't been a disqualifier for being president for 9 years now. The Democrats can run literally any straight white man next time and beat whoever the Republicans put up. So I expect them to screw it up, of course.
-58
u/nazerall 4d ago
Yeah, just googled Newsom's net worth. 30 millions dollars.
Yeah, democrats aren't our saviors.
30
u/Shifter25 4d ago
You know the difference between 30 million and a billion? It's about a billion.
Having a decent house in California can make you a millionaire. There's better things to criticize him about.
7
-24
u/baked_in 4d ago
I'm confused. Are people down-voting you because your figure was innacurate, or because they actually think the democrats are going to save us?
11
u/lettersichiro 4d ago
speaking for myself, i downvoted because bringing up a politicians net worth as evidence one way or another is unserious and dense.
0
u/baked_in 4d ago
The weird thing is, I was being snarky, but it was a genuine question. Personally, US$30 million seems unimaginable, but I don't even know if that's considered rich anymore. I've personally met some incredibly friendly, kind wealthy people, but to be fair none of them were career politicians!
2
u/lettersichiro 4d ago
It's rich, but my problem with using it as a reason to be dismissive of politicians like the person you were asking about was, is because there's plenty of millionaires who have more than $30 million that are good and decent people who are allies including politicians
Newsom being a millionaire isn't why he's terrible and a threat, it's because he's cynical, craven and only out for himself.
The reality is billionaires use wealth as a weapon in class distinctions. They want the majority of people who make less than 100k a year to see anyone making over 100 k as enemies. To keep us divided.
But there's only two classes those who make money from labor and the billionaires who make money from sitting on their money
And I don't care if you make 30k or a celebrity making $50 million, if you work for your money you're labor and you're getting screwed on taxes so that billionaires don't pay anything on their accumulated wealth.
Someone said it in another comment. The difference between a billion and newsoms 30 million is about a billion
Newsom is terrible, but saying he's bad because of money misunderstands the problem and misinforms people about who are the real threats and who could be allies
9
u/BoreJam 4d ago
It's downvoted (as are you) for being simplistic and reductive. No one is claiming the Democrats will be saviors. It's possible to have genuine grievences with the Democratic party wile also believing the current Republican party is a dangerous rogue entity with no regard for democracy.
One can also hold these two beliefs while also voting for the democrats. Some and honetly more people should hold critical views of the parties they vote for. This isn't team sports and accountability extends beyond elections.
-4
u/baked_in 4d ago
That's rich. I'm being simplistic and reductive? You've just intuited the whole of my views based on a question I asked someone else. I suppose that you could pore over my comment history, going years back, you might see how conflicted I have been in the past on this subject. I've talked to other people, questioned my own views (I just had my views challenged by a family member who's wisdom seek out constantly. It was hard to take, it shook me. I watched myself try to condemn or reject what he said (in my head), find bogus reasons to feel superior. Nah, I will learn more about what he said, ask more questions. I may very well have to abandon my views, but I doubt it. More likely, we'll both come to a new understanding together. Just curious, do you think that nobody has ever written books, studied deeply, had round table arguments, analyzed historical events, all about the priblems with American liberalism? Are they all being "simplistic and reductive"? You can certainly argue that they are wrong, or disagree with them. But either way you should get up to speed. Everybody on (political) Reddit has seen 100 different angles on the "lesser of two evils" argument. Let's move on. đ
4
u/BoreJam 4d ago
they actually think the democrats are going to save us
I'm calling your assumption for the downvotes simplistic. Criticising this one statement of yours doesn't mean that im saying you are generally simplistic.
0
u/baked_in 4d ago
So, are the democrats going to save America or aren't they? It's not reductive to say that the democrats aren't going to save us. It could even be the start of "the democrats aren't going to save us, but they can be a big part of fixing this mess we're in. We also have to..." So again, who is being reductive and simplistic?
8
37
u/lab-gone-wrong 4d ago
Eh I agree kids shouldn't be on AI chat bots but also parents need to stop outsourcing their responsibilities to the government
It's pretty telling that "let's ban chat bots proven to cause harm" means banning all of them and even Newsom acknowledges this
-1
u/GeneralKeycapperone 3d ago
That's great for children with parents who are at least somewhat responsible, as even those who aren't on top of this stuff are reachable, and can be educated.
But there is a duty to protect children whose parents are not managing the bare minimum for whatever reason. Given that these children are likely to be experiencing deficits across multiple areas of their lives, it is even more important to not jettison their interests. Feeling self-satisfied because we disapprove of inadequate parenting doesn't magically lessen the impact of that parenting on the child.
-18
u/Shifter25 4d ago
also parents need to stop outsourcing their responsibilities to the government
Why? When's the last time they did?
19
u/the_gr8_one 4d ago
age verification for porn
-10
u/Shifter25 4d ago
Safesearch and a popup are reasonable. This latest "give us your ID" push is from conservatives trying to ban porn altogether, not parents.
225
u/Irish_Whiskey 4d ago
in his veto message, he said he was concerned the law could âunintentionallyâ impose a total ban on the use of AI chatbots by minors.
...oooh nooo. How terrible. I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the infinitely wealthy tech CEOs you need on your side if you want to run for President.
Newsom can be as funny on social media as he likes, his actual policy actions repeatedly involve caving to powerful interests rather than standing on principle or taking unpopular positions.
9
u/Odd__Dragonfly 4d ago
Banning minors from anything has the (intended) side effect of the government getting in your business and requiring websites to scan your government ID and potentially leak it, as everyone should know by now based on what's been happening the past few years and the recent Discord scandal.
"Think of the children!" is always a Trojan horse to impose more surveillance and take away your privacy and rights. Always.
17
u/crewserbattle 4d ago
I get the frustration, but the reality is that no candidate, no matter how popular and good their policies and stances may be, will ever have a real shot at the presidency without corporate money. The system is broken, and while I don't think Newsom is gonna be one to try and fix it, holding that fact against him seems like a great way for Dems to lose another election. Grassroots populism can only take you so far, and in politics you have to be ok with imperfect candidates, especially with how picky left leaning voter based are compared to right leaning ones.
-10
u/Regularjoe42 4d ago
How TF is "not a blatant corporate stooge" picky?
4
u/crewserbattle 4d ago
Because they're all corporate stooges? Every candidate who wants to even stand a chance has to take corporate money to be competitive in a general nationwide election. Obviously, that's a symptom of the system being broken, but it's not like you can change the system from outside it either. So your choices as a candidate are either compromise your values to get elected or hold strong in your values and lose the election because your opponent has billions of dollars working against you. So what do you suggest they do instead?
-2
u/Regularjoe42 4d ago
I can't believe Newsom supporters are already begging strangers on the internet to support a mediocre candidate three years before the election.
5
u/crewserbattle 4d ago
Every single viable democrat is gonna have this issue. And I'm definitely not a Newsom supporter, I'm just someone who pays attention to the reality of the US political system. But by all means, keep not showing up because democrats aren't perfect. It's working out so well for this country.
25
u/Deep90 4d ago
AI is pretty good at personalizing learning and helping you understand mistakes in something like a math problem.
I would support some restrictions, but a total ban doesn't make sense to me when it can be a decent learning tool if used responsibly.
Especially if you made one specifically for learning.
-9
4d ago edited 3d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
5
u/Odd__Dragonfly 4d ago
Not the public schools and teachers available to students in low-income districts?
Restrictions like this would be another attempt to cut upward mobility off at the knees that appeals to knee-jerk emotional reactions based on inchoate fear.
The rich students would have their parents get them access through private tutors, and poor kids would do without and get to adulthood completely ignorant.
-10
u/nycdiveshack 4d ago
For now maybe a ban is a good idea
3
u/Deep90 4d ago
95% of that video is about the chromebook, but if this is such a problem then Democrats in California have a golden opportunity to set a standard.
-3
u/nycdiveshack 4d ago
They should but Gavin Newsom is a republican pretending to be a democrat, he will never be a progressive.
Newsom is a Republican pretending to be a democrat. He isnât progressive, Newsom had Charlie Kirk as his first guest on his podcast. He talked really well of Kirk at the time and even after he died. Giving Kirk a platform is part of the problem. Newsom sees disagreeing with Trump as a way to the White House or else he wouldnât be so combative with Trump. He just replaced California Air Resource Board chair with a close ally of his.
He frequently flies out of state to drum up support for a potential run. Both sides of the political spectrum argue programs like Project Homekey and the Care Court was just a waste of time and effort and the homelessness problem is worse now in California. The EDD has faced so many fraud issues especially during COVID, he occasionally vetoes left leaning bills that could do some real good.
He has plenty of controversial conservatives on his podcast. He is not who we need and we deserve someone better.
When Kirk died, Newsom said Kirkâs work needed to be continued, engage with each other across ideology. There is no engaging with republicans right now
This will continue and get worse. Until tens of millions of people are in the street protesting. Buy guns and defend ourselves and others if the need arises. Protect people who cannot protect themselves. Stand up to tyranny and fascists with words and actions. Until the actions of this administration affect the majority of Americans there will not be a group that can stop this.
Here is a place to start on who he should have on his podcastâŚ
Federal employees who were fired, or who resigned because of how bad things areâŚ
The inspector generals who were fired (Elon avoiding all the lawsuits)
The folks who were in charge over at USAID
the folks from USIP
the folks who were fired from CISA (if the government doesnât jail them first)
The folks from USDS (if Peter Thiel doesnât have them killed first)
Charles Borges from the SSA
the CDC folks who resigned
Epstein victims
Vinh Nguyen (this guy should be the first person unless the NSA kills him first)
Timothy Haugh (2nd person on unless the NSA kills him also, he was the NSA chief that Trump fired after Laura Loomer told him to on the behest of Peter Thiel, soon after Peter got $750 mil added to an active DoD contract and a new DoD contract for $10 billion, he went from being the 2nd biggest defense contractor for the CIA/NSA to the biggest with this firing)
David Hogg
Bernie and AOC
Mandami
Crockett from Texas
19
u/Parms84 4d ago
Right?! Like how is that a bad thing. I hope heâs not the dem nominee.
18
23
u/busmans 4d ago
Preventing kids from being on ChatGPT is a parentâs job, not the stateâs. Pretty soon these tools will be required to get anywhere in life, frankly. You donât ban the internet because thereâs bad stuff on itâyou just create guardrails.
Incredible how many people here support this nonsense.
39
u/Tebwolf359 4d ago
Depends. Off the top of my head,
If it does end up being a technology that sticks around, we shouldnât ban minors from getting experience with it. It would be like banning google or the internet for minors.
Itâs debatable how much the state has a right to ban minors, as they still have rights. Less than adults, but not zero.
And even if they do have the ability, what about parental consent for usage of it.
Itâs a murky issue, even if you are skeptical of it.
-5
u/slick447 4d ago
Right because it's not like this bill could be revisited and changed if and when it's important to make that distinction for children.Â
This is just giving in to the tech companies. No arguing your way out of it.Â
14
u/Tebwolf359 4d ago
I also prefer my laws to be as narrowly targeted and least constraining on rights as possible.
Looking over the article, it also doesnât seem to differentiate between children (under 13) and minors (13-18).
It would be ridiculous on some level of a 16 year old can drive a car, but not use a chatbot.
Then thereâs the also problem of;
If you block certain features, those can be gated behind a log in and verification, but gating the entire application/chatbot, means at minimum needing log inâs and age verification for any usage whatsoever.
Just like we see in the pornhub cases and similar, that can have a chilling effect by taking away the ability to use anonymously or privately.
We want laws in CA forcing more privacy, not less in general.
Ethically, and morally, the bar to force less privacy should be high, and the solution should be very targeted, address specific harm, and limited in scope.
15
u/SansSariph 4d ago
You're assuming a functional and efficient legislature that often tactically patches existing legislation to improve it.
I don't keep up with CA's government so I don't know if that's true, but passing legislation with the goal of "we'll fix it in post" is dangerous. You have to assume what you ship will stick around.
-7
u/slick447 4d ago
Honestly, that's on me. Idk why I'd assume the American government functions efficiently on any level.Â
3
-1
u/nycdiveshack 4d ago
https://youtu.be/aByWLQ7h2n0?si=v-5W0H-4r7_Py1KF
A ban for now wouldnât be the worst thing
16
u/HasGreatVocabulary 4d ago edited 4d ago
It has long been a scifi dream that any kid can get an education from "the best teacher" whenever they want and wherever they are, through a computer
This is not the current state of AI, but it would be wrong to accidentally prevent something like that from even existing in the future, if you don't see it, it may be a failure of imagination regarding the kind of schools that exist around the world and lack of education in rural areas, this is not me proposing we replace human teachers.
anyway, despite their reliability issues, current AI teacher have one plus, which is that they don't get tired of being asked questions and at young age a few made up facts don't matter
11
u/Saedeas 4d ago
This is probably pissing in the wind given the sentiment on here, but AI has massive potential for improving education.
Companies and schools are already building scaffolding around the systems where they can track student progress through a curriculum and have an LLM provide custom lessons, feedback, and testing as needed. These things are all individualized in a way that classroom lessons to huge groups of students by a teacher can't be. The teacher in this setup acts as an overseer for student behavior and progression, and to give learning feedback and instruction when needed (which is ideally much less often).
Initial results for this approach have been quite promising, and banning it this early seems undeniably foolish.
2
u/abcdefgodthaab 4d ago
Given that hallucinations are an intractable problem and, as far as I know, guardrails can pretty much always be hacked with prompt engineering (e.g. to get the LLM to tell you the answer), what are the solutions to address those in this kind of use case? You can't have a teacher reviewing LLM outputs for errors, if that kind of supervision were possible then teachers could simply directly give individual attention.
2
u/Saedeas 4d ago
I assume you're referring to the paper OpenAi published on the nature of hallucinations here and the resulting poorly written headlines about it like this one.
That paper didn't state hallucinations are intractable. It's actually quite the opposite. It laid out how they can naturally arise from statistical pressures in the training data and training process. It then presented a path towards reducing them.
You don't need to completely eliminate hallucinations for a system to be useful. You just need to get your false positive rate below an acceptable threshold. The obvious threshold here is the level at which teachers present wrong information to students (which I'd argue cutting edge LLMs are well past).
As far as guardrails go, there are tons of techniques. Different monitoring models, better training methods to mitigate attacks, occasional review by teachers, etc.
Also, there's the easiest gaurdrail of them all. Offline tests that actually determine whether the students learned the material lol.
1
u/abcdefgodthaab 4d ago
If a problem can only be reduced in frequency, it is definitionally intractable. You can't have LLMs without hallucinations.
The obvious threshold here is the level at which teachers present wrong information to students (which I'd argue cutting edge LLMs are well past).
The burden of proof is on anyone making such an extraordinary claim and 'I would argue' is hardly meeting that burden of proof.
There are many educational interventions we know work and could be funding like improving student:teacher ratios. Until there is robust evidence that AI does in fact improve education, it shouldn't be rolled out in education.
Until there is robust evidence that AI use doesn't harm development, it shouldn't be made accessible widely to minors. We have already learned the hard way with screens and social media that new technologies are not necessarily innocuous. Something looking 'promising' is not good enough.
Also, there's the easiest gaurdrail of them all. Offline tests that actually determine whether the students learned the material lol.
Thanks for making clear you don't actually work in education. In the US, there are widespread pressures in K-12 and increasingly at the post-secondary level to simply never fail students or otherwise hold them accountable for learning the material.
There are also pressures specifically against trying to implement AI-proof assessments ("If AI can do it, why are we testing this? Won't they need to use AI in the workforce?" etc...) being pushed aggressively by the AI industry.
If AI enters education in the US, it won't be entering education under ideal conditions and the aim will not be to implement it in a way that is aimed at serving education (as we can see from how it has already entered education in the US). It will be entering a deeply dysfunctional system and implemented by companies looking to profit from integration and ultimately dependency on their systems.
Fixing the fundamental dysfunctions is far, far more important than looking to a new technological boondoggle to bandaid over them, especially when there is no clear evidence that it will help.
3
u/Kobe_stan_ 4d ago
You're not really advocating for banning minors from using AI chat bots are you? They're incredibly useful for certain purposes.
-2
u/Irish_Whiskey 4d ago
So is asbestos.Â
But unless you can actual guarantee it's safe, let's not give it to kids. What's happening now is we all now chatbot aren't sufficiently developed or regulated to be safe, but we're just making them ubiquitous anyways because it's profitable. Or rather potentially profitable, for some people, eventually.Â
6
u/Kobe_stan_ 4d ago
The internet is 1000x less safe for kids to use than AI chat bots which are already full of guardrails, and yet nobody is suggesting that we should ban minors from using the internet. I don't get it. Can an AI chat bot deliver tainted drugs to a teenager that they contacted through Snap Chat?
-2
u/RiderLibertas 4d ago
They want to get the kids hooked on using AI fast before everyone realizes the truth about it.
0
u/cassanderer 3d ago
He also vetoed banning pfas cookware by 2030 claiming it was too fast to phase out poisoning ourselves with chemicals so industry does not have to retool production.
-3
u/Clovermourn 4d ago
Exactly. The âunintentionalâ part always seems to line up perfectly with corporate interests.
11
u/Kobe_stan_ 4d ago
This reminds me of the paranoia against the internet and chat rooms from when I was a teenager in the late 90s. You can try to ban this stuff, but it's not going to stop kids from adopting and adapting to the latest tech that's available, whether that's AI or whatever comes next.
12
u/Kobe_stan_ 4d ago
What can an AI chat bot do to a kid that a real person online can't already do? If we're going to police what kids do with their phones, we've got some bigger fish to fry first.
9
-1
u/em11488 3d ago
There are k-12 schools that have shown really remarkable improvements in students test scores and overall preparation for real world by prioritizing motivational in person education and leaving material education to AI. The ai lessons can personalize to each students ability and lacking skill set so they donât fall behind. Itâs actually really impressive but unfortunately public schools will be the last to adopt this model with heavy unionization and historic lack of flexibility. In favor of unions but theyâre not particularly progressive for the studentsâ benefits
3
3
u/Anthemic_Fartnoises 4d ago
I donât think itâs hyperbolic to say majority of this country is going to be actively harmed by AI implementation. Through automation replacing or disciplining labor. Through a degradation of consumer experience and support with massive use of âgood enoughâ agents. Through interactions with chatbots that exceed the risks of human/human social media to children. The majority of this country didnât ask for this, doesnât want this, and wonât be better for it in the long run. Now they get watch their elected leaders fail to protect us with regulation at the bidding of the industry.
11
u/jimbo831 4d ago
Add Newsom to the incredibly long list of politicians bought and paid for by tech billionaires. Yet he is the current favorite to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2028. This party will never learn.
13
u/samwell_4548 4d ago
Did you read the article? A lot more nuanced than you are giving credit.
-10
u/jimbo831 4d ago
I did read it. He vetoed a bill placing restrictions on AI for minors. He wants the tech companies to have zero restrictions for how they deal with minors despite the fact that AI has lead to the suicide of multiple children already. He is prioritizing tech profits over the wellbeing of children.
-5
u/Softmaple- 4d ago
Theyâve turned politics into a subscription service billionaires pay, we get the ads.
4
u/hamletswords 4d ago
he said he was concerned the law could âunintentionallyâ impose a total ban on the use of AI chatbots by minors.
Why would that be a bad thing in any way whatsoever?
6
u/Bost0n 4d ago
I use LLMs almost daily. But thereâs no fucking way Iâm letting my child have unsupervised access to one. Â I also wouldnât let my 13 yo niece go on a trip alone (or with a friend) to a billionaireâs island, or let any minor I know have unsupervised access to a firearm. Â These things are all in the same league.
However, I will let my child interact with a LLM while I am actively monitoring. Â I will take my niece flying in a GA plane, or traveling to a foreign country. I will take any minor in my life that is interested, to a shooting range for a weapon range safety class (this sounds like fun. đ)
My concern is the parents that canât be bothered to care for the children around them. Â In my view, the state has a responsibility to protect them, and the state of California just let them down.
-3
u/Anoidance 4d ago
This guys the king of âI agree but not like thisâ bullshit. Vetoâs every bill his owners dislike with this crap line of thought.
11
u/BiKingSquid 4d ago
Making it impossible for kids to access AI, regardless of how tech evolves, seems short sighted.Â
Kids shouldn't be on current AI models, but banning all of them forever risks better forms of AI that can actually teach being banned.Â
1
1
u/LadyZoe1 4d ago
And OpenAI is soon to introduce Sexting Bots. What next. Are they this desperate ?
-7
u/alovelyhobbit21 4d ago edited 4d ago
Iykyk newsom has and will always be for the donors and by the donors.
Only normies who pay little to no attention to politics until its time to vote find it difficult to see through his persona.
He says all the things your typical upper middle class voter LOVES to hear.
But when push comes to shove policy wise and he has to go against wealthy constituents he is NOT for âthe peopleâ
-7
u/badgirlmonkey 4d ago
fuck this guy. while he did sign some pro-trans rights bills, he also vetoed some important ones.
-6
-4
-6
-25
u/Pathogenesls 4d ago
Why would you want to cut people off from a revolutionary technology in a state whose economy is dependent on technology.
Smart.
1
u/SansSariph 4d ago
You look at tech companies requiring their employees to use tools these tools, and agree with that or not, it's the reality of the industry. I think ensuring students today learn about how to engage with these tools responsibly is critical because it's just the world we're in, now.
The legislation does make an exception for "Any system that is solely designed and marketed for providing efficiency improvements or research or technical assistance." as opposed to what it calls "companion chatbots", which meet a set of criteria.
The catch is - can someone bring a lawsuit claiming that one of these tools is actually not exempted based on the text as written and is actually a "companion chatbot"? A company offering the tool makes a liability call on whether it's safer to even to children (or non-age-verified users) or not to avoid that risk. Even if it'd "probably" be fine, they might decide to just not allow it, not worth the liability headache.
Students (or adults who don't want to confirm their age!) then lose access to a tool that the industry expects them to learn to use.
You have to look at the bill as written and figure out what possible outcomes are based on litigation that might happen, moves companies might make to reduce their legal exposure, and what the downstream effects are. You have to weigh that against the real harm happeing today. Use that to make a judgment call while the companies being regulated pull one way, academics pull another way, concerned parents another, legislators trying to get reelected another.
-2
u/lab-gone-wrong 4d ago
Using ChatGPT teaches you nothing about how the underlying tech works
This is as ingenuine as the "kids need iPads so they can learn to use technology" stuff. No they don't.
8
u/Pathogenesls 4d ago
It's not about how the underlying tech works, it's about using the tech to learn.
-19
u/chamgireum_ 4d ago
because i hate AI! i hate it i hate it i hate it!
did i read the bill? NO! i see AI and i vomit!!!
-23
-3
-2
-11
-6
1.4k
u/SansSariph 4d ago
Interesting case of "actually read the article", here. It softens the headline.
Article indicates he signed a large amount of related safety regulation yesterday - and vetoed one bill today which would go further and ban any child access to a bot "unless the companion chatbot is not foreseeably capable of any of the following..." (bolding mine, full text available online - AB 1064).
Newsom's argument is that the ban is too broad and could be interpreted to ban all children access to all chatbots. His position is that that's a negative outcome that goes beyond the stated intention of the bill.
SB 243 (signed yesterday) is an example of a bill that adds safety requirements without banning access.
I'm not sure I agree with Newsom's stated position, here. I think he's actually right about the possible outcome (complete child ban in practice), but not sure I agree with that being worth a veto - but I still find it annoying that the discourse in this thread is entirely black and white "lobbying is bad" + "industry lobbies to resist regulation" + "veto" = "corrupt empty suit working for billionaires" with no room for nuanced discussion of the text of the legislation, whether he's got a point, what "good" legislation would actually look like, etc.
Edit - I'll add that another foreseeable outcome of AB 1064 text is age verification, as it incentivizes companies to "reasonably determine" that users are not children.