Democrats Pressure Governor Newsom to Veto Controversial AI Bill

In an unusual step, several Democratic members of Congress have intervened in state-level legislation, calling on California Governor Gavin Newsom to veto a significant artificial intelligence (AI) regulation bill. This rare move highlights the growing concerns over the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the state’s economy and innovation landscape.

Congressional Intervention in State Politics

According to Industry Insider, Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Santa Clara), Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) and Scott Peters (D-San Diego) sent a letter to Governor Newsom on Thursday, urging him to reject Senate Bill 1047. The bill, authored by state Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), seeks to hold developers of large AI models accountable for any significant harm their technologies might cause.

The bill, which has not yet been passed by the Legislature, cleared a critical Assembly committee on the same day. Lawmakers have until August 31 to pass the bill, and Governor Newsom must decide whether to sign or veto it by September 30. The Governor has typically refrained from commenting on pending legislation, making the outcome of this bill uncertain.

Concerns Over Economic Impact

In their letter, the Congressional Democrats expressed their concern that SB 1047 could pose “unnecessary risks for California’s economy with very little public safety benefit.” This sentiment echoes the worries of major technology companies and venture capitalists who argue that the bill could stifle innovation, particularly in the open-source AI community. These stakeholders fear that the legislation could discourage large companies from developing AI models due to the potential legal risks.

Related: Global AI Regulation Heats Up: France Targets Nvidia, California Proposes Safety Rules and US Senators Challenge FCC on Political Ads

Per Industry Insider, the bill would allow the state attorney general to take legal action against developers of large AI models if their technologies cause catastrophic harm, such as loss of life. The bill specifically targets models that cost $100 million or more to train, a threshold that far exceeds the capabilities of current AI technologies.

Amendments to Address Tech Community Concerns

In response to feedback from the tech community, Senator Wiener has made several amendments to the bill. For instance, developers who spend less than $10 million fine-tuning an AI model would not be liable under the bill’s provisions, a change aimed at protecting smaller developers. Additionally, Wiener agreed to other modifications suggested by AI model maker Anthropic, including integrating the proposed new regulatory body into the state’s existing Government Operations Agency.

The revised bill also narrows the circumstances under which the state attorney general can sue AI companies, focusing on situations where harm has already occurred or where there is an imminent threat to public safety. These changes are intended to balance innovation with safety, a point Wiener has emphasized in discussions with the tech community.

Divided Opinions in the Tech World

The bill has sparked a heated debate within the tech industry. Some prominent figures, such as startup incubator Y Combinator’s CEO Garry Tan, remain critical of the legislation despite the amendments. Tan argues that the bill could hinder innovation by exposing developers to excessive legal risks.

On the other hand, the bill has garnered support from certain quarters of the AI research community. Former Google AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton and AI pioneer Yoshua Bengio have both expressed their backing for the legislation. However, Fei-Fei Li, co-founder of Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Lab, has publicly opposed the bill, arguing that it could have unintended consequences for the development of AI technologies.

The Path Forward

As the August 31 legislative deadline approaches, the future of SB 1047 remains uncertain. Governor Newsom’s decision will likely have significant implications not only for California but also for the broader AI industry.

Source: Industry Insider