The misguided backlash against California’s SB-1047
We recorded 8 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 6 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (8)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“In many ways, it is much weaker than what Altman and I talked about at the Senate last year.”
Our reading: SB-1047 is in many ways much weaker than the AI regulation Marcus and Sam Altman discussed at the Senate in 2023.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The result depends on reading strength through the licensing and review mechanisms highlighted in the surrounding passage.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“None of that is unreasonable, and the CEO of OpenAI himself said that we need regulation on AI.”
Our reading: The requirements of SB-1047 (safety testing, liability in extreme cases, a shutdown path) are not unreasonable.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Fine to talk big in front of the Senate, but when push comes to shove, nobody in the industry seems to actually want the kind of regulation they previously hinted at.”
Our reading: Nobody in the AI industry appears to actually want the regulation they previously hinted at supporting before the Senate.
No horizon
Assessment: ContradictedSaid
Observation
“He doesn’t specify which actual restrictions in the proposal bill would “stifle AI models”.”
Our reading: Andrew Ng's critique does not identify which specific SB-1047 provisions would stifle AI model builders.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: This assessment does not validate Ng's legal interpretation or his prediction about innovation.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Every company that would be subject to the stronger set of regulations is valued in the billions.”
Our reading: Every company that would be subject to SB-1047's stronger regulations is valued in the billions of dollars.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Private-company valuations are intermittent and may refer to different share classes or transaction terms.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Anyone who can afford that can easily fill out some paperwork and run a few tests, just like I can pay a few bucks to get a driver’s license. It’s the least they can do.”
Our reading: Companies that can afford $100M+ training runs can easily afford SB-1047's paperwork and testing requirements.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The packet contains no documented estimate of the June proposal's incremental paperwork and testing costs matched to developers' available resources and existing commitments.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Big tech seemingly will not be content until they have squeezed out every last cent of profit, whilst socializing the costs of every last risk.”
Our reading: Marcus says, in deliberately exaggerated terms, that Big Tech seemingly will not be content until it has squeezed out every last cent of profit while socializing the costs of every last risk.
No horizon
Qualifier: seemingly
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“We should be making SB-1047 stronger, not weaker.”
Our reading: SB-1047 should be strengthened rather than weakened.
No horizon
Held from this post (6)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: As far as Marcus knows, none of the AI companies that said they support AI regulation is supporting SB-1047 or offering a substantive alternative.
- Attribution is uncertain
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: Marcus says he does not see any provision in SB-1047 that would subject new model developers to regulatory challenges the dominant AI players are exempt from, and that the industry group quoted by The Information names no such specific challenges.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- Attribution is uncertain
- Attribution is uncertain