Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed SB 1047, an artificial intelligence safety bill that would create requirements for developers of advanced AI models to create protocols aimed at preventing catastrophe.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would require developers to submit safety plans to the state attorney general’s office and would require developers to submit safety plans to the state attorney general’s office if AI models directly controlled by the developer are exposed to harm or an imminent threat. If this occurs, the developer may be held liable. Public safety.
The bill would also require technology companies to shut down AI models they directly control if things go wrong.
In his veto message, Newsom said the bill targets only large, expensive AI models, not small, specialized systems, and that the bill would require Americans to “take control of this fast-moving technology.” “This could give a false sense of security,” he said.
“SB 1047, while well-intentioned, fails to consider whether AI systems are deployed in high-risk environments, involve critical decision-making, or involve the use of sensitive data,” Newsom said. His veto message states: “Instead, this bill would apply strict standards to even the most basic functions, as long as large systems deploy them. We believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from the real threats posed by technology. I don’t think so.”
The governor announced Sunday that his administration will focus on analyzing the capabilities and risks of AI and enlisting leaders on the ground to help states build viable safeguards for AI deployment. Newsom pledged to continue working with Congress on this issue next session.
The bill was hotly debated in Silicon Valley, with support from the Center for AI Safety, SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk, the LA Times Editorial Board, and prominent AI researchers, but also from Facebook’s parent company Meta, ChatGPT maker, and others. OpenAI and several Democratic senators opposed it. That includes Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).
Proponents say it’s important to put guardrails around rapidly evolving AI technology to prevent future catastrophic damage, while opponents say such measures could stifle innovation. said.
It is possible for a bill to overcome the governor’s veto with two-thirds approval from both houses, but it is a major hurdle to overcome and is unusual.
Wiener criticized Newsom’s veto as a “missed opportunity” for California to lead in regulating innovative technology.
In a statement posted on social media, Wiener said: “This veto is an opportunity for all those who believe they have the power to oversee large corporations that are making critical decisions that impact the safety and well-being of our citizens and the future of our planet. It’s a setback for people.”
“We built our own weather system,” Newsom said earlier this month during a fireside chat at the San Francisco technology conference DreamForce, where he said SB 1047 sparked massive public debate.
He also spoke about the challenges in regulating AI.
“We have worked over the past several years to devise reasonable regulations that support risk-taking but are not reckless…” Newsom said.
Both supporters and opponents of SB 1047 shared resources and voiced their opinions. More than 125 actors, producers, directors, music artists and other entertainment industry leaders, including prominent Democrats, signed a letter urging Newsom to sign the bill. Signers of the letter included actors Pedro Pascal and Alec Baldwin, as well as “Bridgerton” executive producer Shonda Rhimes.
“We continue to believe that you are a leader who stands up for the well-being of all people, not just a few Silicon Valley giants,” the letter said.
Meanwhile, the Progressive Congress, which opposes the bill, released an AI-generated rock song with lyrics such as “Veto the chains that oppress us.”
“This bill is one of those bills that doesn’t come across your desk very often, and it doesn’t really matter who the last person on the phone was and how convincing they were,” Newsom said in an interview with the Times earlier this month. It depends on what’s going on,” he said. “It’s divided among so many people.”
