It absolutely is. They pretty much gave the government the perfect excuse to meddle in their operations.
I want a company to be able to point out that its industry needs more regulation without making itself a special target.
They were calling for bans on open weight models. Bans on their competitors. Bans on anyone not as "enlightened" as them.
It is absolutely hilarious that they were the first to get regulated, and that it got to the point they had to turn off Fable as though it had been banned even for american citizens.
Source for that? Cause all I could find is:
>Our view is that regulation of frontier models should focus on empirically measured risks, not on whether a system is open-or closed-weights.
-https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-case-for-targeted-regulat...
>Clarifying the scope of a “full shutdown.” SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community. CalChamber explains:
>Under SB 1047, developers must build “full shutdown” capabilities into their models and may be held liable for downstream uses over which they have no control, impeding their ability to open-source their models. Ultimately, liability should rest with the user who intended to do harm, as opposed to automatically defaulting to the developer who could not foresee, let alone block, any and all conceivable uses of a model that might do harm. While recent amendments seemingly seek to narrow what is meant by “full shutdown” capabilities, the exclusions are unnecessarily difficult to interpret as drafted (full shutdown “does not mean the cessation of operation of a covered model to which access was granted pursuant to a license that was not created by the licensor…”) and altogether insufficient.
>Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control.
-https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/sb-1047-wi...
Equivalent to a ban. Nobody is going to host or invest in this stuff if they suddenly become liable for everything it does. This is equivalent to repealing the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA.
I'm confused why you think the only legal requirement is a "full shutdown" process. The text is there and I see a heck of a lot of requirements that are not about full shutdowns.
>SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community.
And I get the impression it's been addressed from the quote you're responding to. Neither mentions fine-tuning, which is defined elsewhere in the document. I'm not a lawyer, though, just relying on the analysis.
I’m glad we clarified the epistemological issue, so thank you for replying.
It is strange that half your reply is appeal to the authority of a not on point source and half is epistemological learned helplessness about what the impact of a vetoed bill would have been, pick a side.