#199 – Nathan Calvin on California’s AI bill SB 1047 and its potential to shape US AI policy
Aug 29, 2024
auto_awesome
Nathan Calvin, Senior Policy Counsel at the Center for AI Safety Action Fund, discusses California's AI bill SB 1047 and its significance in shaping AI policy. He reveals how the bill addresses safety concerns amid fears of stifling innovation. The conversation highlights the contentious reactions from the tech community and the balance between regulatory requirements and fostering development. Calvin also emphasizes the broader implications of state-level regulation on national and global standards, showcasing the interconnectedness of local laws and industry practices.
Senate Bill 1047 aims to hold AI developers legally accountable for their technologies, emphasizing reasonable care and public safety.
The bill mandates safety assessments and audits for advanced AI models, specifically targeting those that require substantial computational resources.
Opposition to SB 1047 stems from fears of stifling innovation, highlighting the tension between regulatory measures and the need for AI development.
Deep dives
Responsibilities of AI Companies
Companies developing advanced AI models have a legal duty to prevent harm caused by their technologies. There is a misconception that statutory laws, such as Section 230, exempt software developers from liability. This bill aims to reinforce existing tort laws that hold companies accountable by establishing reasonable care standards. By clarifying these responsibilities, the legislation encourages companies to be more aware of their duty to protect public safety.
Overview of Senate Bill 1047
Senate Bill 1047 is designed to tackle significant risks associated with advanced AI development, such as cybersecurity threats and autonomous systems causing harm. It mandates comprehensive safety assessments and third-party audits for AI developers while establishing clear guidelines around liability. The bill specifically targets models requiring substantial computational resources, ensuring that only the most advanced systems adhere to these standards. By doing so, it seeks to ensure that developers implement rigorous safety protocols to mitigate potential dangers.
Support and Opposition
The bill has garnered significant support from various stakeholders, including prominent figures in AI research and organizations advocating for improved safety standards. However, it faces fierce opposition from major tech firms and venture capitalists who argue it could hamper innovation and lead to undue regulatory burdens. Critics claim that imposing stringent regulations may drive AI startups away from California, compromising the state's competitiveness in the industry. This contrast highlights the ongoing debate about finding a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring safety in AI development.
Public Perception and Misunderstandings
Public understanding of Bill 1047 has been clouded by misconceptions, with some claiming that it imposes harsh penalties on startups or could criminalize AI development. In reality, the bill primarily targets large-scale AI models that are unlikely to affect smaller startups. Further, it sets forth guidelines based on reasonable care rather than imposing strict liability, emphasizing responsible development rather than punitive measures. As these misunderstandings persist, they contribute to the growing controversy surrounding the bill.
Impact on Future AI Regulation
The successful passage of SB 1047 could pave the way for more robust AI regulations in the United States, potentially influencing other states or even federal standards. By proactively addressing safety concerns, the bill represents a significant step towards managing the risks associated with advanced AI technologies. Its provisions could serve as a framework for future legislative efforts, promoting accountability and encouraging responsible AI development. This initiative reflects a broader recognition of the need for governance in rapidly evolving technological landscapes, emphasizing a shift towards safety and risk awareness.
"I do think that there is a really significant sentiment among parts of the opposition that it’s not really just that this bill itself is that bad or extreme — when you really drill into it, it feels like one of those things where you read it and it’s like, 'This is the thing that everyone is screaming about?' I think it’s a pretty modest bill in a lot of ways, but I think part of what they are thinking is that this is the first step to shutting down AI development. Or that if California does this, then lots of other states are going to do it, and we need to really slam the door shut on model-level regulation or else they’re just going to keep going.
"I think that is like a lot of what the sentiment here is: it’s less about, in some ways, the details of this specific bill, and more about the sense that they want this to stop here, and they’re worried that if they give an inch that there will continue to be other things in the future. And I don’t think that is going to be tolerable to the public in the long run. I think it’s a bad choice, but I think that is the calculus that they are making." —Nathan Calvin
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez speaks to Nathan Calvin — senior policy counsel at the Center for AI Safety Action Fund — about the new AI safety bill in California, SB 1047, which he’s helped shape as it’s moved through the state legislature.
What’s actually in SB 1047, and which AI models it would apply to.
The most common objections to the bill — including how it could affect competition, startups, open source models, and US national security — and which of these objections Nathan thinks hold water.
What Nathan sees as the biggest misunderstandings about the bill that get in the way of good public discourse about it.
Why some AI companies are opposed to SB 1047, despite claiming that they want the industry to be regulated.
How the bill is different from Biden’s executive order on AI and voluntary commitments made by AI companies.
Why California is taking state-level action rather than waiting for federal regulation.
How state-level regulations can be hugely impactful at national and global scales, and how listeners could get involved in state-level work to make a real difference on lots of pressing problems.
And plenty more.
Chapters:
Cold open (00:00:00)
Luisa's intro (00:00:57)
The interview begins (00:02:30)
What risks from AI does SB 1047 try to address? (00:03:10)
Supporters and critics of the bill (00:11:03)
Misunderstandings about the bill (00:24:07)
Competition, open source, and liability concerns (00:30:56)
Model size thresholds (00:46:24)
How is SB 1047 different from the executive order? (00:55:36)
Objections Nathan is sympathetic to (00:58:31)
Current status of the bill (01:02:57)
How can listeners get involved in work like this? (01:05:00)
Luisa's outro (01:11:52)
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio engineering by Ben Cordell, Milo McGuire, Simon Monsour, and Dominic Armstrong Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
