Landon Klein

With California’s AI safety bill SB 1047 awaiting a final decision from @CAgovernor @GavinNewsom, widespread support and calls for Governor Newsom to sign it continue to grow louder. In this video, hear from some of its supporters:

📢@GavinNewsom @CAgovernor, add @CaliforniaLabor to the list of interest groups supporting reasonable rules on AI risk. They join the public, academics, artists, parents, youth, world leaders, tech leaders/workers & many more. Who knew not dying would be so popular? #signSB1047

“The general public and regulators should be aware that by default, AI companies will be incentivized to disregard some of the costs and risks of AI deployment — and there’s a chance those risks will be enormous” @GavinNewsom @CAgovernor #signSB1047

The future is ours to protect! 💥 With the power of AI growing, it’s time for California to set the standard. @GavinNewsom, #SignSB1047, and let’s make sure tech serves the people, not the other way around. 🚨 x.com/JordanUhl/stat…

"But the governor should sign or approve it [...] because a veto would signal that no regulation of AI is acceptable now and probably until or unless catastrophic harm occurs. Such a position is not the right one for governments to take on such technology." #signSB1047

I read California Governor @GavinNewsom's comments about SB1047 yesterday: “The governor said he is weighing what risks of AI are demonstrable versus hypothetical.” bloomberg.com/news/articles/… Here is my perspective on this: Although experts don’t all agree on the magnitude and timeline of the risks, they generally agree that as AI capabilities continue to advance, major public safety risks such as AI-enabled hacking, biological attacks, or society losing control over AI could emerge. Some reply to this: “None of these risks have materialized yet, so they are purely hypothetical”. But (1) AI is rapidly getting better at abilities that increase the likelihood of these risks, and (2) We should not wait for a major catastrophe before protecting the public. Many people at the AI frontier share this concern, but are locked in an unregulated rat race. Over 125 current & former employees of frontier AI companies have called on @CAGovernor to #SignSB1047. I sympathize with the Governor’s concerns about potential downsides of the bill. But the California lawmakers have done a good job at hearing many voices – including industry, which led to important improvements. SB 1047 is now a measured, middle-of-the-road bill. Basic regulation against large-scale harms is standard in all sectors that pose risks to public safety. Leading AI companies have publicly acknowledged the risks of frontier AI. They’ve made voluntary commitments to ensure safety, including to the White House. That’s why some of the industry resistance against SB 1047, which holds them accountable to those promises, is disheartening. AI can lead to anything from a fantastic future to catastrophe, and decision-makers today face a difficult test. To keep the public safe while AI advances at unpredictable speed, they have to take this vast range of plausible scenarios seriously and take responsibility. AI can bring tremendous benefits – but only if we steer it wisely, instead of just letting it happen to us and hoping that all goes well. I often wonder: Will we live up to the magnitude of this challenge? Today, the answer lies in the hands of Governor @GavinNewsom.

Please urge @GavinNewsom to #SignSB1047 It introduces basic safety testing & safeguards for huge AI systems to guard against things like, oh I don't know, taking down the freakin' power grid! Text SAFE AI to 50409 to sign the petition.

Polling yet again shows Americans’ support for California’s SB 1047 rivals the popularity of moms and apple pie. Speaking of moms, @GavinNewsom did I mention both @ptogetheraction and @NationalNOW encourage you to #SignSB1047 ?

@Yoshua_Bengio @GavinNewsom Thank you @Yoshua_Bengio for your thoughtful and measured perspective in the midst of an otherwise-noisy discourse. By signing this bill, @GavinNewsom can secure California’s position as the global leader in innovation that puts people first!

A stark reminder that voluntary commitments aren't enough to stop the self-interested release of risky models

@tegmark @GavinNewsom Support from leading academics, from tech workers leading AI development (calltolead.org), and from the public (theaipi.org/april-voters-p…). It's not surprising that experts and the public agree: @GavinNewsom ensure safe and beneficial AI by signing SB 1047!

I’m proud to stand with experts and academics supporting the California AI bill SB1047 and urge Gov @GavinNewsom to sign it into law. This is a vital step towards responsible AI development. I think it strikes a good balance between innovation and accountability. It’s concerning that some companies now oppose requirements to do basically what they already promised to do voluntarily. safesecureai.org/academics

@Scott_Wiener And this other, independent poll from David Binder Research showing similarly favorable results. static1.squarespace.com/static/65ea6ad…

@Scott_Wiener Pretty telling that even with this WILDLY misleading and factually inaccurate question designed specifically to evoke opposition, CA CoC still couldn't manufacture majority opposition. Californians overwhelmingly want safer AI!

The CA Chamber of Commerce announced a poll supposedly showing SB 1047 isn’t popular. We found the actual poll. It’s the most over the top, manipulative push poll question I’ve ever seen. It describes a made up bill no one is authoring. Just when you think you’ve seen it all …

@Scott_Wiener Compare with this AIPI poll, which is far more accurate, far more balanced, and demonstrates overwhelming bipartisan support for SB 1047

An excellent summary of what SB 1047 would do and why it's so critical

@AnthropicAI "In our assessment the new SB 1047 is substantially improved, to the point where we believe its benefits likely outweigh its costs."

Props to @AnthropicAI for their level-headed assessment of SB 1047. While I don't agree with everything in the letter, it's clear they have taken the time to understand the bill and are sticking their necks out in the interest of public safety. An encouraging show of good faith!

"The bill's 'thresholds' for covered models have been extensively debated, but it's clear the focus is on models requiring substantial development resources. This would affect larger entities like Anthropic and other large frontier labs, while largely exempting smaller players."

A few highlights: "We believe SB 1047 [...] likely presents a feasible compliance burden for companies like ours, in light of the importance of averting catastrophic misuse."

@tegmark @OpenAI @jasonkwon @sama @jasonkwon does point to bills in Congress that @OpenAI supports, but none of them actually REGULATE AI. The FAIIA makes voluntary standards and the other bills create/fund new AI resources (laudable but not REGULATION). They support regulation unless it tries to regulate them.

Jason, it will be great if you can clarify *how* you want AI to be regulated rather than just explaining *how not*. Please list specific rules and standards that you want @OpenAI to be legally bound by as long as your competitors are too. @jasonkwon @sama