The Nonlinear Library: LessWrong LW - Thoughts on SB-1047 by ryan greenblatt
May 30, 2024
22:25
Link to original article
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Thoughts on SB-1047, published by ryan greenblatt on May 30, 2024 on LessWrong.
In this post, I'll discuss my current understanding of SB-1047, what I think should change about the bill, and what I think about the bill overall (with and without my suggested changes).
Overall, SB-1047 seems pretty good and reasonable. However, I think my suggested changes could substantially improve the bill and there are some key unknowns about how implementation of the bill will go in practice.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.
[This post is the product of about 4 hours of work of reading the bill, writing this post, and editing it. So, I might be missing some stuff.]
[Thanks to various people for commenting.]
My current understanding
(My understanding is based on a combination of reading the bill, reading various summaries of the bill, and getting pushback from commenters.)
The bill places requirements on "covered models'' while not putting requirements on other (noncovered) models and allowing for limited duty exceptions even if the model is covered. The intention of the bill is to just place requirements on models which have the potential to cause massive harm (in the absence of sufficient safeguards). However, for various reasons, targeting this precisely to just put requirements on models which could cause massive harm is non-trivial.
(The bill refers to "models which could cause massive harm" as "models with a hazardous capability".)
In my opinion, I think the bar for causing massive harm defined by the bill is somewhat too low, though it doesn't seem like a terrible choice to me. I'll discuss this more later.
The bill uses two mechanisms to try and improve targeting:
1. Flop threshold: If a model is trained with <10^26 flop and it is not expected to match >10^26 flop performance as of models in 2024, it is not covered. (>10^26 flop performance as of 2024 is intended to allow the bill to handle algorithmic improvements.)
2. Limited duty exemption: A developer can claim a limited duty exemption if they determine that a model does not have the capability to cause massive harm. If the developer does this, they must submit paperwork to the Frontier Model Division (a division created by the bill) explaining their reasoning.
From my understanding, if either the model isn't covered (1) or you claim a limited duty exemption (2), the bill doesn't impose any requirements or obligations.
I think limited duty exemptions are likely to be doing a lot of work here: it seems likely to me that the next generation of models immediately above this FLOP threshold (e.g. GPT-5) won't actually have hazardous capabilities, so the bill ideally shouldn't cover them. The hope with the limited duty exemption is to avoid covering these models.
So you shouldn't think of limited duty exemptions as some sort of unimportant edge case: models with limited duty exemptions likely won't be that "limited" in how often they occur in practice!
In this section, I'm focusing on my read on what seems to be the intended enforcement of the bill. It's of course possible that the actual enforcement will differ substantially!
The core dynamics of the bill are best exhibited with a flowchart.
(Note: I edited the flowchart to separate the noncovered node from the exemption node.)
Here's this explained in more detail:
1. So you want to train a non-derivative model and you haven't yet started training. The bill imposes various requirements on the training of covered models that don't have limited duty exemptions, so we need to determine whether this model will be covered.
2. Is it >10^26 flop or could you reasonably expect it to match >10^26 flop performance (as of models in 2024)? If so, it's covered.
3. If it's covered, you might be able to claim a limited ...
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Thoughts on SB-1047, published by ryan greenblatt on May 30, 2024 on LessWrong.
In this post, I'll discuss my current understanding of SB-1047, what I think should change about the bill, and what I think about the bill overall (with and without my suggested changes).
Overall, SB-1047 seems pretty good and reasonable. However, I think my suggested changes could substantially improve the bill and there are some key unknowns about how implementation of the bill will go in practice.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.
[This post is the product of about 4 hours of work of reading the bill, writing this post, and editing it. So, I might be missing some stuff.]
[Thanks to various people for commenting.]
My current understanding
(My understanding is based on a combination of reading the bill, reading various summaries of the bill, and getting pushback from commenters.)
The bill places requirements on "covered models'' while not putting requirements on other (noncovered) models and allowing for limited duty exceptions even if the model is covered. The intention of the bill is to just place requirements on models which have the potential to cause massive harm (in the absence of sufficient safeguards). However, for various reasons, targeting this precisely to just put requirements on models which could cause massive harm is non-trivial.
(The bill refers to "models which could cause massive harm" as "models with a hazardous capability".)
In my opinion, I think the bar for causing massive harm defined by the bill is somewhat too low, though it doesn't seem like a terrible choice to me. I'll discuss this more later.
The bill uses two mechanisms to try and improve targeting:
1. Flop threshold: If a model is trained with <10^26 flop and it is not expected to match >10^26 flop performance as of models in 2024, it is not covered. (>10^26 flop performance as of 2024 is intended to allow the bill to handle algorithmic improvements.)
2. Limited duty exemption: A developer can claim a limited duty exemption if they determine that a model does not have the capability to cause massive harm. If the developer does this, they must submit paperwork to the Frontier Model Division (a division created by the bill) explaining their reasoning.
From my understanding, if either the model isn't covered (1) or you claim a limited duty exemption (2), the bill doesn't impose any requirements or obligations.
I think limited duty exemptions are likely to be doing a lot of work here: it seems likely to me that the next generation of models immediately above this FLOP threshold (e.g. GPT-5) won't actually have hazardous capabilities, so the bill ideally shouldn't cover them. The hope with the limited duty exemption is to avoid covering these models.
So you shouldn't think of limited duty exemptions as some sort of unimportant edge case: models with limited duty exemptions likely won't be that "limited" in how often they occur in practice!
In this section, I'm focusing on my read on what seems to be the intended enforcement of the bill. It's of course possible that the actual enforcement will differ substantially!
The core dynamics of the bill are best exhibited with a flowchart.
(Note: I edited the flowchart to separate the noncovered node from the exemption node.)
Here's this explained in more detail:
1. So you want to train a non-derivative model and you haven't yet started training. The bill imposes various requirements on the training of covered models that don't have limited duty exemptions, so we need to determine whether this model will be covered.
2. Is it >10^26 flop or could you reasonably expect it to match >10^26 flop performance (as of models in 2024)? If so, it's covered.
3. If it's covered, you might be able to claim a limited ...