Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ gAI 4 days ago

"Don't publish safety research, or the gov will take punitive actions."

I want a company to be able to point out that its industry needs more regulation without making itself a special target.

▲matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent [-]

> safety research

They were calling for bans on open weight models. Bans on their competitors. Bans on anyone not as "enlightened" as them.

It is absolutely hilarious that they were the first to get regulated, and that it got to the point they had to turn off Fable as though it had been banned even for american citizens.

▲gAI 4 days ago | parent [-]

>bans on open weight models

Source for that? Cause all I could find is:

>Our view is that regulation of frontier models should focus on empirically measured risks, not on whether a system is open-or closed-weights.

-https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-case-for-targeted-regulat...

▲matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent [-]

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48470326

▲gAI 4 days ago | parent [-]

So this hinges on a reading of SB 1047 that interpreted the full shutdown requirement as impossible for an open-weight LLM. But it looks like that was already addressed. Here's an analysis:

>Clarifying the scope of a “full shutdown.” SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community. CalChamber explains:

>Under SB 1047, developers must build “full shutdown” capabilities into their models and may be held liable for downstream uses over which they have no control, impeding their ability to open-source their models. Ultimately, liability should rest with the user who intended to do harm, as opposed to automatically defaulting to the developer who could not foresee, let alone block, any and all conceivable uses of a model that might do harm. While recent amendments seemingly seek to narrow what is meant by “full shutdown” capabilities, the exclusions are unnecessarily difficult to interpret as drafted (full shutdown “does not mean the cessation of operation of a covered model to which access was granted pursuant to a license that was not created by the licensor…”) and altogether insufficient.

>Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control.

-https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/sb-1047-wi...

▲matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent [-]

> may be held liable for downstream uses over which they have no control

Equivalent to a ban. Nobody is going to host or invest in this stuff if they suddenly become liable for everything it does. This is equivalent to repealing the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA.

▲gAI 3 days ago | parent [-]

>Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control.

▲staticman2 3 days ago | parent [-]

I get the impression you are conflating whether a developer can be sued to oblivion for not implementing a "full shutdown" process that applies to finetunes versus whether they can be sued to oblivion for releasing a model that may cause "critical harm" when finetuned.

I'm confused why you think the only legal requirement is a "full shutdown" process. The text is there and I see a heck of a lot of requirements that are not about full shutdowns.

▲gAI 2 days ago | parent [-]

I get the impression that the full shutdown requirement is the main concern for open-weight from:

>SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community.

And I get the impression it's been addressed from the quote you're responding to. Neither mentions fine-tuning, which is defined elsewhere in the document. I'm not a lawyer, though, just relying on the analysis.

▲ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲staticman2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You claim you "get the impression" then do not quote either the law or a third party analysis of the law. Apparently we are supposed to believe this does not ban open source because the committee didn't write "This bans open source" in the beginning of the committee notes then circle it 3 times in red pen.

▲gAI 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, we're supposed to believe the official California Assembly committee bill analysis of SB 1047 over hacker news comments. Notably, SB 1047 passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Newsom in September 2024. So whether or not it would have restricted open-weight models is an open question that won't get an answer.

▲staticman2 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, you are not supposed to treat a politician or their staff’s statement about how their proposed bill works as dispositive and ignore the statutory text or third party analysis.

I’m glad we clarified the epistemological issue, so thank you for replying.

It is strange that half your reply is appeal to the authority of a not on point source and half is epistemological learned helplessness about what the impact of a vetoed bill would have been, pick a side.

▲gAI 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's called epistemological humility, and you could benefit.

▲staticman2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

When you make specific claims about a statute you were apparently too lazy to read, then respond with basically “I read the committee notes and surely if the statute was bad, it would say so and/or nobody can ever know what the statute does” when someone discusses the statute, whatever you are doing isn't “epistemological humility.”

▲ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]