California Governor Vetoes AI Safety Bill: A Victory for Tech Industry
Background
AI companies in California breathed a collective sigh of relief as Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the SB 1047 AI safety bill that the State Senate passed earlier this month.
The Bill and Its Provisions
The controversial bill would have mandated additional safety checks for AI models that cross a training compute or cost threshold. These models would require a "kill switch" and incur heavy fines for makers of the models if they were used to cause "critical harm."
Governor’s Decision to Veto the Bill
In his letter to the California State Senate, Newsom explained the reasons for his decision to veto the bill. He noted that one of the reasons California is home to 32 of the world’s 50 leading AI companies is the state’s "free-spirited cultivation of intellectual freedom." He hinted at the impact the bill would have on these companies, but did not directly mention the risk of some of these companies leaving California.
Reasons for Veto
Newsom said the main reason for vetoing the bill was that it was overly broad and the threshold for regulation did not address actual risks. He stated that by focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.
Alternative Approach
Newsom suggested that regulation of AI risks was necessary but that a focus on risky applications rather than the blanket approach of SB 1047 was a better option. He emphasized that regulation should be based on the deployment of AI systems in high-risk environments, critical decision-making, and the use of sensitive data.
Commitment to AI Advancement and Safety
While Newsom declined to sign SB 1047, he pointed to other AI regulations he signed this month as evidence that he is taking the risks associated with AI seriously. He concluded that given the stakes – protecting against actual threats without unnecessarily thwarting the promise of this technology to advance the public good – we must get this right.
Reactions to the Veto
Senator Scott Weiner was understandably unhappy that Newsom declined to sign the bill he authored. He lamented that the veto leaves us with the troubling reality that companies aiming to create an extremely powerful technology face no binding restrictions from U.S. policymakers, particularly given Congress’s continuing paralysis around regulating the tech industry in any meaningful way.
Support for the Veto
On the other hand, Meta’s Yann LeCun and venture capitalist Marc Andreesen publicly thanked Newsom for the veto.
Conclusion
Only time will tell if Newsom’s decision is an example of forward-thinking leadership or a cause for regret.
FAQs
Q: What was the purpose of the SB 1047 AI safety bill?
A: The bill aimed to mandate additional safety checks for AI models that cross a training compute or cost threshold.
Q: Why did Governor Newsom veto the bill?
A: Newsom vetoed the bill due to its broad application and the lack of focus on actual risks.
Q: What is the alternative approach suggested by Newsom?
A: Newsom suggested focusing on risky applications and deployment rather than a blanket approach.
Q: How did Senator Scott Weiner react to the veto?
A: Weiner expressed disappointment and concern that the veto leaves companies without binding regulations.
Q: Who publicly supported the veto?
A: Meta’s Yann LeCun and venture capitalist Marc Andreesen thanked Newsom for the veto.
