> SB 1047 creates an unaccountable agency that can refer model developers for charges that lead to jailtime (yes, literally) and is coming up for a vote in the California Senate. It's highly unpopular in the AI community, at an estimated 10:1 ratio based on recent public comments.<p>I know nothing about this bill other than what's in this tweet, but oh my gosh, criminal accountability for AI developers?? What a horrifying idea.
I really dislike seeing a call to action like this with all context squeezed down to a thread on X. Perhaps the bill is as crazy as the post makes it sound, but the giant claims (e.g. 24 regulators with no accountability that can put you in jail) make me suspect some level of hyperbole.<p>Does anyone have more thorough resources for this? I realize I can go read the bill, but I’m not sure how much I could grok from that.
here:<p><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/2919384" rel="nofollow">https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/2919384</a><p>and a helpful definition as you parse this:<p>(f) “Covered model” means an artificial intelligence model that meets either of the following criteria:
(1) The artificial intelligence model was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations in 2024, or a model that could reasonably be expected to have similar performance on benchmarks commonly used to quantify the performance of state-of-the-art foundation models, as determined by industry best practices and relevant standard setting organizations.
(2) The artificial intelligence model has capability below the relevant threshold on a specific benchmark but is of otherwise similar general capability.