Why California’s AI Safety Bill should (still) be signed into law - and why that won’t be nearly enough
We recorded 21 claims from this post. 8 were checked against evidence. 13 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (21)
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
“California’s SB-1047, not yet signed into law, but on its way to being one of the first really substantive AI bills in the US, primarily addressed to liability around catastrophic risks, was significantly weakened in last-minute negotiations.”
Our reading: California's SB-1047 was significantly weakened in last-minute negotiations.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Significance is an evaluative judgment about the documented legal changes.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“When Sam Altman stood next to me in the Senate, he told the Senate that he strongly favored AI regulation. But behind the scenes his team fought to water down the EU AI Act.”
Our reading: Sam Altman told the Senate, standing next to Marcus, that he strongly favored AI regulation, but behind the scenes his team fought to water down the EU AI Act.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The lobbying finding relies on reputable reporting because the available primary PDF extraction is corrupted.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“To my mind, many of these arguments were based on misrepresentation, as I have discussed here in earlier essays.”
Our reading: In Marcus's view, many of the arguments made against SB-1047 by Andreessen Horowitz and others were based on misrepresentation.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: This does not establish that opponents' arguments were accurate.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Most or all of the major big tech companies joined a lobbying organization that fought SB-1047, tooth and nail, despite broad public support for the bill.”
Our reading: Most or all major big tech companies joined a lobbying group that fought SB-1047 hard despite broad public support for it.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The majority assessment uses the contract's five-company group: Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“It’s not nothing, but companies worth billions or trillions of dollars may make mincemeat of that standard. Any legal action may take many years to conclude.”
Our reading: Very large companies may overwhelm SB-1047's reasonable care standard, and legal actions under it may take many years.
No horizon
Assessment: ContradictedSaid
Observation
“In the new form, SB 1047 can basically only be used only after something really bad happens, as a tool to hold companies liable. It can no longer protect us against obvious negligence that might likely lead to great harm.”
Our reading: In its new form, SB-1047 can basically only be used after something really bad happens, as a tool to hold companies liable, and it can no longer protect against obvious negligence that might likely lead to great harm.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The decisive source is the bill sponsor's explanation, rather than a clean statutory transcription.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Companies may simply roll the dice, and as Eric Schmidt recently said, let the lawyers “clean up the mess” after the fact.”
Our reading: AI companies may gamble on risky behavior and let lawyers handle consequences afterward despite SB-1047.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“There’s another problem with this bill too – it’s too narrow, focused mainly on catastrophic harm that causes over a half a billion dollars damaage, and does too little to address other issues, which I fear people may forget, once it is – or is not – passed.”
Our reading: SB-1047 is too narrow, focused mainly on catastrophic harm causing over half a billion dollars in damage, and does too little to address other issues, which Marcus fears people may forget once it is or is not passed.
No horizon
Qualifier: focused mainly on catastrophic harm over half a billion dollars
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Companies like OpenAI that have talked big about investing in safety research and then stinted on their promises”
Our reading: OpenAI talked big about investing in safety research and then failed to deliver on those promises.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The packet does not establish which particular promise Marcus meant.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Still I support the bill, even in weakened form.”
Our reading: SB-1047 deserves support even in its weakened form.
No horizon
Qualifier: even in weakened form
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Companies like OpenAI that have talked big about investing in safety research and then stinted on their promises may finally be incentivitized to walk the walk that their talk has promised.”
Our reading: Under SB-1047, including the specter of it, companies like OpenAI that have talked big about investing in safety research and then stinted on their promises may finally be incentivized to walk the walk their talk promised.
No horizon
Scope: companies like OpenAI that stinted on safety promises
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“The bill also sends a message to big tech that the quality of safety protocols, and internal investigations of safety, are relevant to the reasonable care standard — which can help to avoid Ford Pinto-like situations in which companies that should have known better fail to act.”
Our reading: SB-1047 sends big tech a message that the quality of safety protocols and internal safety investigations matter to the reasonable care standard, which can help avoid Ford Pinto-like situations in which companies that should have known better fail to act.
No horizon
Qualifier: can help
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“SB-1047’s strongest utility may come as a deterrent.”
Our reading: SB-1047's main value may be deterring irresponsible AI development by clarifying liability.
No horizon
Qualifier: even if nobody is ever penalized
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“It also provides important whistleblower protections, which as many ex OpenAI employees have made clear, are critical.”
Our reading: SB-1047 provides important whistleblower protections, which, as many ex-OpenAI employees have made clear, are critical.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The assessment concerns a proposed bill, not protections already in force.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If the bill doesn’t pass, the view will be that Big Tech always wins; nobody will bother. Future state and federal efforts will suffer.”
Our reading: If SB-1047 does not pass, the view will be that Big Tech always wins, nobody will bother, and future state and federal efforts will suffer.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Only if: if the bill doesn't pass
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“So it must pass. I hope the full CA Assembly will support it, and that Governor Newsom will sign it into law, rather than veto it.”
Our reading: SB-1047 must pass the California Assembly and be signed by Governor Newsom rather than vetoed.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“But it cannot be the last AI bill to pass, either in California, or the United States, if American citizens are to be protected from the many risks of AI, because it is but one link, already weakened, in the armor that we need in self-defense.”
Our reading: SB-1047 cannot be the last AI bill in California or the US if Americans are to be protected from AI's many risks.
No horizon
Qualifier: if citizens are to be protected from AI risks
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Causal claim
“As I emphasized last year in front of the Senate, there is not one risk but many: bias, disinformation, defamation, toxicity, invasion of privacy, and so much more, to say nothing of risks to employment, intellectual property, and the environment, precisely because recent techniques can be applied in so many ways, still poorly understood.”
Our reading: AI poses not one risk but many, including bias, disinformation, defamation, toxicity, invasion of privacy and so much more, plus risks to employment, intellectual property and the environment, precisely because recent techniques can be applied in so many ways and are still poorly understood.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The evidence includes scientific syntheses and a preprint, rather than one experiment testing the entire claim.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“We absolutely need a comprehensive approach, and SB 1047 is just a start. And we need federal legislation; a messy state-by-state patchwork is one thing that could actually stifle AI development.”
Our reading: The US needs a comprehensive, federal approach to AI regulation; SB-1047 is just a start.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“a messy state-by-state patchwork is one thing that could actually stifle AI development.”
Our reading: A messy state-by-state patchwork of AI laws could stifle AI development.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Hopefully, SB 1047 will be signed into law, and the perfectly rational, and in fact entirely ordinary, notion of regulating AI will be normalized, and the absurd idea that such regulation would kill off AI will have vanished.”
Our reading: Marcus hopes SB-1047 will be signed into law, that the notion of regulating AI, which he calls perfectly rational and entirely ordinary, will be normalized, and that the idea that such regulation would kill off AI, which he calls absurd, will vanish.
No horizon
Qualifier: hopefully
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: Once SB-1047 passes, much of what a16z and others claimed against it will be debunked.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: If SB-1047 passes, AI innovation will continue fine, no major tech company will leave California, and the regulation will not be fatal to the industry.
- Attribution is uncertain