Scott Wiener on his fight to make Big Tech disclose AI’s dangers

This is not the first attempt to solve AI’s AI’s danger in California State Senator Scott Vienner.

In 2024, Silicon Valley Mount a Campaign Its controversial AI protection bill, against SB 1047, which made technology agencies responsible for the potential loss of their AI systems. Tech leaders warned that it would suppress America’s AI boom. Governor Gavin News until the end The bill is vetoEcho of similar anxiety and a popular AI hacker house instant Throw A “SB 1047 VATO party.” A participant told me, “Thanks to God Shawar, AI is still legal.”

Now Winner has returned with a new AI protection bill, SB 53, Which sits on the governor’s news desk in the next few weeks waiting for his signature or veto. Now, almost, the bill is much more popular or least, Silicon Valley does not seem to fight it.

Ethnographic Authorized SB 53 early this month. Meta spokesman Jim Kulinan told TechCrunch that the company supports AI control that balances the guardians with innovation and says “SB 53 is a step in that direction,” though there is a field of improvement.

Former White House’s AI policy adviser Dean Ball TechCrunch told that SB 53 is a “victory for a reasonable voice”, and thinks that the governor has a strong opportunity to sign it.

When signed, SB 53 OpenAI, ethnographic, XAI and Google will impose some of the country’s first security report requirements on AI giants – companies that today do not face any obligation to publish their AI systems. Many AI labs explain how their AI models can be used to create biopones and other hazards, but they do it at will and do it at will They are not always continuousThe

The Bill Their most capable AI models for publishing security reports – especially those who earn more than $ 500 million – they need top AI labs. Much like SB 1047, the bill is especially focused on AI risk: the ability to contribute to human death, cyberratetacks and chemical weapons. Governor is considering a number of other bills that addresses other types of AI risk, such as Buggy Among the AI ​​companions.

SB 53 creates protected channels for reporting security officials for employees working in AI labs and establishes a state-directed cloud computing cluster, Calcoput, to provide AI research resources outside of large technology companies.

One of the reasons that SB 53 can be more popular than SB 1047 is less intense. SB 1047 also liable for any damage caused by their AI models, where SB 53 focuses on the need for self-report and transparency. SB 53 also narrowly applies to the world’s largest technology companies instead of startups.

However, many in the technology industry still believe that states should be left to AI control to the Federal Government. A Recent letter Governor Open to New Newsm has argued that AI labs only need to adhere to federal standards – which is interesting to call a state governor. Venture Farm Andresen Harovits wrote a recent one Blog post Versemly suggests that some bills in California can violate the dormant trade clause of the Constitution, which forbids the states to unjustly restrict inter -state trade.

Senator Winner addresses these concerns: He lacks faith in the Federal Government to pass meaningful AI protection control, so states need to take action. In fact, Winner thinks the Trump administration has been imprisoned by the technology industry and all states to block AI law are a form of Trump that “rewarded its funds.”

The Trump administration has made a significant change in the AI ​​protection of the Biden administration, replacing it with emphasis on growth. Vice President JD Vans A appeared in A. Shortly after taking over AI Conference In Paris and said: “I am not here to talk about AI protection this morning, which was the title of the conference a few years ago. I came here to talk about AI opportunity.”

Silicon Valley praised this shift with an example of Trump’s AI Action Plan, which Move the barrier AI models are creating the necessary infrastructure to train and serve. Today, Big Tech CEO is seen regularly Dining in the White House Or declaration Data Center for hundred-billion dollars Along with President Trump.

Senator Winner believes that the nation has been criticized for AI security for California, but without stopping innovation.

I recently interviewed Senator Winner to discuss his years at the discussion table with Silicon Valley and why he focused so much on the AI ​​protection bills. Our conversation has been lightly performed for clarity and bravy. My questions are bold, and his answers are not.

Maxwell Jeff: Senator Winner, SB 1047 Governor Sitting on the Newsm Desk I had interviewed you. Talk to me about the journey you started to control AI protection in the past few yearsThe

Scott Winner: This is a roller coaster, an incredible education experience and simply rewarded. We have been able to help improve this problem [of AI safety]Not just in California, but in national and international speeches.

We have this incredibly strong new technology that is changing the world. How do we ensure that it benefits humanity in a way we reduce the risk? How we will promote innovation on public health and public protection. This is an important – and in some ways non -existent – conversation about the future. SB 1047, and now SB 53, helped encourage that conversation about safe innovation.

In the past 20 years of technology, what have you learned about the importance of laws that can hold Silicon Valley into account?

I am the man who represents San Francisco, the AI ​​Innovation of the Heart Heart. I myself answer the Silicon Valley, so we’re here right here. However, we also saw that big technology companies – some of the richest companies in the world history have been able to stop federal control.

Every time I see Tech CEOs dinner with the ambitious fascist dictator at the White House, I have to breathe deeply. All of this is truly brilliant people who have made a lot of wealth. I represent a lot of people for them. The deal with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and how do I see that money is that it really hurts me when I see Trump’s meme becomes funnel in coinThe It causes me deep concern.

I’m not anyone who is opposed to technology. I want technology to invent. This is incredibly important. But it is an industry that we should not believe in controlling ourselves or giving volunteer commitments. And it’s not casting the desire on anyone. It is capitalism, and it can create great prosperity, but if there is no intelligent regulations to protect the public interest, it can be damaged. When it comes about AI protection, we are trying to thread that needle.

The SB 53 AI has been focused on the worst damage that can be fictitiously concentrated on – death, huge cyber attacks and bioopons. Why focus on there?

The risks of AI are diverse. There are algorithmic discrimination, job loss, deep mesh and scandal. There are several bills in California and elsewhere to solve these risks. SB 53 was never intended to address every risk built by AI in the field. We have focused on the risk of a particular category in case of catastrophic risk.

This problem is San Francisco – Startup Founder, Frontline AI Technologist and people who created these models come to me biologically from my AI space people. They came to me and said, ‘This is something that needs to be solved in a thoughtful way.’

Do you think that AI systems are inherently unsafe, or death and huge cyberpettacks?

I don’t think they are inherently safe. I know that there are lots of people working in these labs who care very deeply about trying to reduce the risk. And again, this is not about the risk eliminating. About life risk, unless you are going to live in your basement and never leave, you will have your risk in your life. Even in your basement the ceiling may fall down.

Is there any risk that some AI models can be used to make significant damage to society? Yes, and we know there are some people who would like to do it. We should try to make this fatal harm to the bad actors, and so people can develop these models.

Anthropic has issued its support for SB 53. What are your conversations with other industrial players?

We have talked to everyone: big companies, small startups, investors and educators. The ethnographic has been truly constructive. Last year, they never formally supported [SB 1047] However, it was positive to tell them about the aspects of the bill. I do not think[ethnographic}SB53’severydaytheAmmenketeraitaraswerethesameastheequipment[Anthropic}loveseveryaspectofsb53butithinktheyconcludedthattonbalancethebillworthworthworthworthworthsuertsuftsporting[নৃতাত্ত্বিক}এসবি53এরপ্রতিটিদিকইপছন্দকরেতবেআমিমনেকরিতারাএইসিদ্ধান্তেপৌঁছেছেযেভারসাম্যেরভিত্তিতেবিলটিসমর্থনকরারমতোছিল।[Anthropic}loveseveryaspectofSB53butIthinktheyconcludedthatonbalancethebillwasworthsupporting

I have had a conversation with big AI labs who are not supporting the bill, but they are not in the war the way they were with SB 1047. Not surprising. SB 1047 was more than a liability bill, more than SB 53 transparency bill. This year startups are less employed because the bill really focuses on the largest companies.

Are you feeling stressed from large AI packs formed in recent months?

This is another symptom of Citizen United. The richest companies in the world to try to intimidate selected officers can only be endless resources in these PAC. Under the rules we have, they have every right to do this. How I get to the policy is never really influenced. There is a party that is trying to destroy me as long as I was in the elected office. Different groups have spent millions of trying to blow me, and I’m here. I am trying to do it correctly by my elements and trying to make my community, San Francisco and the world better space.

Do you argue whether the Governor will sign or veto your message to your message?

My message is that we have heard you. You have vetoed the SB 1047 and provided a very wide and thoughtful veto message. You were intelligently called a working group that made a very strong report and we were really watching the report in creating this bill. The governor had put a way, and we followed that path to come to an agreement and I hope we get there.