Tech industry, Hedge funds, VC’s were against it. As usual CA leads and the rest of the country will call this over-reaching regulation etc. Slowly over time everyone will come around and adopt some version of it.
The bill is aimed at requiring companies that spend $100 million or more training AI models to develop safety measures to prevent their technology from being used to cause serious harm to society.
Shouldn’t any company spending over $100M on anything have safety measures to prevent doing harm to society…for example, building cars, refining oil, transporting dangerous chemicals, flying airplanes full of people, splitting atoms, doing virus research, etc.
Mike
Where’s the money in that?
Business owners only do safety when required by regulations or to stay in business.
Only business owners are against safety regulations.
I was rolling that issue over in my mind, over lunch, in light of the Chevron decision. I can see automakers chomping at the bit to have the emissions and fuel economy regs invalidated by the court. Emissions have no natural, deep pocketed, defender. The oil industry would love to see everyone driving 12mpg monsters, like we saw in the early 70s. But what about safety regs? The safety regs are there because the insurance industry wants them, and the insurance industry has pockets deep enough to buy all the support they need.
How would this conflict work out? Would the automakers and insurance companies agree to not challenge safety regs, in return for outlawing passenger vehicles below “average” size and weight, as “inherently unsafe”?
Steve