> Excellent move by Newsom. [...] It was basically a torpedo against open models.
He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely.
> Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or about open models in general.
OpenAI (along with Google and Meta) led the institutional opposition to the bill, Anthropic was a major advocate for it.
> He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely.
Well, we'll see what passes again and when. By then there'll be more kittens out of the bag too.
> Anthropic was a major advocate for it.
I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.
> I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.
This seems a curious dichotomy. Can we at least consider the possibility that they mean the words they say or is that off the table?
One of the very most apt descriptions. One company trying to raise alarms about another company in the same business. I have been following this since IBM released $67,000 "Intellect" "Business Intelligence." and Lotus HAL.
This is the ideal, but it's often false in meaningful ways. In several US elections, for example, we've seen audio leaked of politicians promising policies to their donors that would be embarrassing if widely publicly known by the electorate.
This suggests that politicians and donors sometimes collude to deliberately misrepresent their views to the public in order to secure election.
worse.. a first-hand quote from inside a California Senate committee hearing chamber.. "Don't speak it if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink" .. translated, that means that in a contentious situation with others in the room, if allies can signal without speaking the words out loud, that is better.. and if the signal can be hidden, better still.
This is an old saying in politics and you're misinterpreting it - it's not about signaling to allies, it's about avoiding being held to any particular positions.
You're also missing the first half, "don't write if you can speak, don't speak if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink." The point is not to commit to anything if you don't have to.
Newsom vetoed the bill as a nod to his donors plain and simple. Same reason he just signed a bill allowing a specific customers at a single venue to be served alcohol later than 2 AM. Same reason he carved out a minimum wage exemption for Panera. Same reason he signed a bill to carve out a junk fee exemption specifically for restaurants.
After this year, many democrats are as well - which is why Harris had such a hard time finding a VP and took Walz who was like the last kid you pick on your dodgeball team.
The presidential race in 2028 for the Democrats is going to have one of the deepest benches for talent I've seen in a long time. Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure.
But I agree, Newsom has been making some decisions lately that seem to indicate he's trying to clean up his image and look more "moderate" for the coming election cycles.
> Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure.
Neither has genuine appeal. Shapiro is a really, really poor speaker and has few credentials except as a moderate. Newsom is the definition of coastal elite. Both have spoken, neither have been heard.
2032, nice try though. Besides, we're not going to need to vote anymore otherwise, remember? The 2028 Democratic Primary would be a pro-forma affair between Barron vs. Mayor McCheese.
Same reason the governor appointed public utility commission has allowed PG&E to raise rates 4 times in a single year without legitimate oversight. Yea unfortunately all roads point to his donors with this smooth talker, cost of living be damned.
Oh yeah I forgot this one — basically making it easier to force neighborhoods to abandon their natural gas infrastructure. Something I'd be in favor of were it not for the constant stream of electric rate hikes.
He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely.
> Market leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic weren't really worried about it, or about open models in general.
OpenAI (along with Google and Meta) led the institutional opposition to the bill, Anthropic was a major advocate for it.