An open letter to Fei-Fei Li concerning California’s proposed AI regulation, SB-1047
We recorded 4 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 2 can’t be checked. 4 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (4)
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: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Those seem reasonable to me, and I don't understand what would justify an exemption there.”
Our reading: Marcus finds it reasonable for SB-1047 to focus on specific critical harms, and he does not understand what would justify an exemption from those provisions.
No horizon
Scope: critical harms such as mass casualties, weapons of mass destruction, large-scale cyberattacks, and AI models autonomously committing serious felonies
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“And much of what would be required is already something companies committed to voluntarily, in discussions at the White House and in Seoul.”
Our reading: Much of what SB-1047 would require is something AI companies already voluntarily committed to at the White House and in Seoul.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The assessment is a qualitative comparison, not a count of statutory clauses.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“With no other serious proposal on offer, I personally favor SB-1047, though I would welcome discussion of alternatives.”
Our reading: With no other serious proposal on offer, Marcus personally favours SB-1047, though he would welcome discussion of alternatives.
No horizon
Qualifier: no other serious proposal on offer
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Lastly, asking for standards is not unique to AI; it's common across many industries to ask that companies evaluate the safety of their products according to set standards: just look at the pharmaceutical industry, or aviation, automobiles, etc.”
Our reading: Asking for standards is not unique to AI: in many industries, such as pharmaceuticals, aviation and automobiles, it is common to ask companies to evaluate the safety of their products against set standards.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The evidence establishes the three named U.S. examples, not a numerical survey of every industry or jurisdiction.
Held from this post (4)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: SB-1047 does not require AI developers to predict every possible use of their models.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: As Marcus understands the latest version of SB-1047, its kill switch requirement does not apply to open-source models once they are out of the original developer's control.
- The two reviews read the claim differently