Just days before an important deadline, a polarizing bill by progressive Senator Scott Wiener to control the fast-growing artificial intelligence industry has received support from an unexpected source.
Elon Musk, the Donald Trump-supporting and infrequently anti-regulation Tesla CEO and X owner, said this week that in his opinion “California should probably pass the proposal” that may regulate the event and deployment of advanced AI models, especially large-scale AI products that cost at the very least $100 million to provide.
The surprise endorsement from a person who also owns an AI company comes as other political heavyweights who typically share Wiener's views, including San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, are joining big tech corporations in urging Sacramento to hit the brakes.
“This is a difficult decision and will upset some people,” Musk wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “For over 20 years, I have been an advocate of AI regulation, just as we regulate any product/technology that poses a potential risk to the public.”
The billionaire co-founded OpenAI, developer of the hugely popular chat GPT, in 2015 and founded xAI – headquartered in Burlingame and incorporated in Nevada – in 2023. Wiener's office said if the bill passes, it might apply to all AI corporations doing business in California, no matter where they’re incorporated or headquartered.
Musk has criticized California up to now for hindering progress through regulation – referring to the state slow-moving high-speed rail project for example. However, this isn’t the primary time he has said that AI development must be regulated. He has expressed concerns that AI could potentially cause “the destruction of civilization.”
Now it’s Pelosi, Breed and others who argue that the proposal – Senate Bill 1047 – would stifle innovation and create unnecessary bureaucracy.
“While we want California to lead on AI while protecting consumers, data, intellectual property, and more, SB 1047 is more harmful than helpful in achieving that goal,” Pelosi said in a recent statement. “California's artificial intelligence bill, SB 1047, would have significant unintended consequences that would stifle innovation and harm the U.S. AI ecosystem.”
Opponents fear that the bill's AI testing requirements and safety regulations will end in compliance costs that might make life difficult for startups and other small businesses. Supporters have said the bill would only affect large corporations.
Breed – whose city is struggling to recuperate from the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic and who has touted San Francisco because the AI capital of the world – said in a letter to Wiener this week that the industry is “central to our city's economy and future.”
“I share your desire to ensure safe and sustainable development of AI and agree with the general intent of your bill,” Breed said. “However, I believe more needs to be done to bring together stakeholders from industry, government and society before we can move forward with the bill.”
All the wrangling is happening because the clock ticks toward Aug. 31. The bill, which has bipartisan support amongst state lawmakers to date, must advance by then whether it is to land on Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk later this yr. Newsom has not yet signaled whether he’ll sign the bill.
At a press conference on Monday, Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, urged his colleagues to vote for what he called a “low-key measure.”
“I want to make it clear, as I always have, that I am very supportive of AI innovation,” he said. “(It) has the potential to make the world a better place, but as with any powerful technology, there are risks. And we should try to get ahead of those risks rather than lag behind.”
Lawmakers amended their original proposal in response to criticism from opponents, enlisting San Francisco-based Anthropic as an ally. This week, CEO Dario Amodei wrote to Newsom in support of the bill.
“Last week, the bill came out of the Assembly Budget Committee and appears to us to be halfway between our proposed version and the original bill: many of our amendments passed, but many others did not,” Amodei said. “In our assessment, the new SB 1047 is substantially improved, so we believe its benefits likely outweigh its costs.”
Anthropic pointed to the introduction of safety protocols with “flexible policies” to administer disaster risks.
Nevertheless, the AI giants Open AI and Meta are sticking to their resistance.
In a letter dated August 21, Jason Kwon, chief strategy officer of Open AI, warned of a possible exodus of tech corporations if the bill passes.
“Many of the industry's leading developers, entrepreneurs and researchers live and work here, making California home to the largest AI players and a thriving ecosystem of startups and other smaller companies,” Kwon said. “If the bill becomes law … there is a real risk that companies will choose to locate in other jurisdictions or simply not publish their models in California,” he said, citing comments from Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, one other opponent.
Rob Sherman, Meta's vice chairman and privacy officer, had previously stated: “The fundamental flaw in the bill is that it fails to consider the entire ecosystem and allocate liability accordingly. It imposes disproportionate obligations on model developers for parts of the ecosystem over which they have no control.”
However, Wiener doesn’t consider the bill will harm California's robust technology economy.
“Similar predictions in the past have been proven wrong time and time again,” he said. “California remains the global epicenter of technological innovation.”
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com