“Even then developers are required only to implement "reasonable safeguards" against these severe risks--not to fully mitigate them.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
SB-1047 requires developers only to implement reasonable safeguards against critical harms, not to fully mitigate them.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, An open letter to Fei-Fei Li concerning California’s proposed AI regulation, SB-1047, paragraph 6.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-3e417e-a3
We recorded 6 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2024-08-10. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- required only to implement
- reasonable safeguards
- against these severe risks
- not to fully mitigate them
Our interpretation
- Read 'not to fully mitigate' as not requiring elimination of every possibility of critical harm.
- In context, 'only' contrasts reasonable risk reduction with complete prevention; it does not deny separate testing, reporting, certification or other procedural duties.
- Use the July 3 amendment, the latest published version before the August 10 post.
Counts as supported if: The applicable safeguards and release standards require reasonable precautions against critical harms and unreasonable risks, without guaranteeing zero residual risk.
Counts as contradicted if: The applicable provisions require complete elimination of critical-harm risk despite reasonable precautions, or impose an unqualified guarantee that such harm cannot occur.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The amendment chronology identifies July 3, 2024 as the latest amendment before August 10 [e3]. Foley's July 9 analysis of that version describes reasonable safeguards, protocols providing reasonable assurance, and release restrictions where an unreasonable risk of critical harm remains [e1]. These qualified standards support the claim when “not to fully mitigate” means not guaranteeing elimination of every possibility of harm [e1]. Foley also lists assessment, certification and reporting duties, so this finding does not mean safeguards were the only obligations [e1].
Limitations
- The complete July 3 statutory text was not directly verified; the finding relies on contemporaneous legal analysis.
- The earlier committee analysis explicitly distinguishes reasonable assurance from certainty, but addresses the June 20 text rather than independently establishing the July 3 requirements [e2].
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: Foley & Lardner LLP,
reasonable safeguards
Why it matters here: The July 3 analysis describes reasonable safeguards and a prohibition on release where unreasonable critical-harm risk remains. Together these support risk reduction without a zero-risk guarantee.
- Publisher
- Foley & Lardner LLP
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: California Assembly Committee on Judiciary,
does not mean full certainty or practical certainty.
Why it matters here: The official analysis explicitly distinguishes assurance from certainty. It concerns the June 20 text with proposed amendments, so it corroborates the background standard but is not decisive evidence for the July version.
- Publisher
- California Assembly Committee on Judiciary
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Bill Sponsor,
amended.
Why it matters here: The next listed amendment is August 19, establishing July 3 as the relevant version.
- Publisher
- Bill Sponsor
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, An open letter to Fei-Fei Li concerning California’s proposed AI regulation, SB-1047
Even then developers are required only to implement "reasonable safeguards" against these severe risks--not to fully mitigate them.
- Where
- paragraph 6
- Published
- 2024-08-10
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-3e417e-a3: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-3e417e-a3.
HeldBy this site
The final-text check failed: citations_correct.
About assessment marcus-an-open-letter-to-fei-fei-li-concerning-3e417e-a2, which was not published.