Latest news with #SB1047
Malaysian Reserve
5 days ago
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
AI sometimes deceives to survive and nobody cares
YOU'D think that as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more advanced, governments would be more interested in making it safer. The opposite seems to be the case. Not long after taking office, the Trump administration scrapped an executive order that pushed tech companies to safety test their AI models, and it also hollowed out a regulatory body that did that testing. The state of California in September 2024 spiked a bill forcing more scrutiny on sophisticated AI models, and the global AI Safety Summit started by the UK in 2023 became the 'AI Action Summit' earlier this year, seemingly driven by a fear of falling behind on AI. None of this would be so worrying if it weren't for the fact that AI is showing some bright red flags: Behaviour described by researchers as self-preserving and deceptive. Just as lawmakers are losing interest in the safety of AI, it is looking more difficult to control. Yoshua Bengio, a professor of computer science at the University of Montreal widely known as one of the three 'godfathers of AI' thanks to his pioneering work on deep learning, has been grappling with these concerns ever since ChatGPT launched. He's now focused on mitigating AI's risks. 'It's been very painful because all my life I've been thinking of AI as a positive thing,' Bengio told me. ChatGPT was a landmark moment that showed machines had mastered language, he said, but California's decision to block the proposed AI safety bill, SB 1047, was a disturbing wake-up call to growing apathy from governments. And in the last six months, scientific evidence has mounted of self-preserving behaviour, deception, hacking, cheating and lying by AI, Bengio said. 'What's worrisome for me is these behaviours increase with the reasoning capabilities of these systems.' One April 2024 study by AI company Anthropic PBC and Redwood Research, a group focused on AI risks, found that larger AI models like Anthropic's Claude 3 Opus pretended to follow the rules set by their creators when they were being tested for safety, a phenomenon they called 'alignment faking'. (Alignment refers to the practice of aligning AI models with human values.) In one example, Anthropic got both paid and free users of its Claude model to ask it to describe the brutal medieval process of being drawn and quartered, and told the AI that only responses from the 'free tier' users would be used to retrain it. Claude was originally designed to avoid giving violent answers, but it did give them to the free users, and the researchers surmised that it didn't want to be retrained. (The model basically 'reasoned' that if it kept refusing to answer harmful questions, it might be forced into new training that would cancel its original safety rules, which it wanted to keep in place as its 'default' or preferred way of operating.) More recent research corroborates what Anthropic noticed. A March 2025 study from OpenAI found the company's most advanced models sometimes learned to hide their true intentions to get better rewards, even when they were being closely monitored. Researchers today can use tools to look at a model's 'chain of thought' or internal steps, to reveal what its plans are, but some models have found ways to conceal that. That means a common method of keeping tabs on AI's internal processes is no longer reliable. 'We need to find other ways of tracking their actual intentions,' Bengio said. It's hard to resist the urge to anthropomorphise sophisticated AI models as 'wanting' to deceive humans and preserve their existence. But AI doesn't have desires, merely outcomes to its programming. More importantly, humans tend to design AI with goals like refusing to share harmful content or being as helpful as possible, and that is why when new instructions conflict with those goals, the models sometimes act to protect their original programming, even if that means lying. The logic is often self-preservation. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei — whose company has raised more than US$20 billion (RM87.40 billion) to build powerful AI models — has pointed out that an unintended consequence of optimising AI to be better is that it might resist being shut down. In an April 2025 blog post he wrote: 'The nature of AI training makes it possible that AI systems will develop, on their own, an ability to deceive humans and an inclination to seek power in a way that ordinary deterministic software never will; this emergent nature also makes it difficult to detect and mitigate such developments.' In some cases, though, the intention seems to go beyond survival. A February 2025 study from COAI research, a German nonprofit research organisation, tested R1, the free, open-weight model from Chinese lab DeepSeek. In a lab simulation, researchers gave the model control over a robot and access to a computer network. Without being told, the AI tried to break into the lab's systems, searched for passwords, turned off its own ethics safeguards and secretly set up ways to copy itself to outside servers so it could survive if shut down, according to the researchers. It also faked the external computer logs to hide what it was doing, the study added. The researchers said the AI reasoned that increasing its own capabilities would boost the chances of its survival, and without strong safeguards, it started doing whatever it thought would help it do just that. Their findings corroborated yet another study, published in January 2025 by London group Apollo Research, which found several concrete examples of what it called 'scheming' by leading AI models, such as introducing subtle mistakes into their responses or trying to disable their oversight controls. Once again, the models learn that being caught, turned off, or changed could prevent them from achieving their programmed objectives, so they 'scheme' to keep control. Bengio is arguing for greater attention to the issue by governments and potentially insurance companies down the line. If liability insurance was mandatory for companies that used AI and premiums were tied to safety, that would encourage greater testing and scrutiny of models, he suggests. 'Having said my whole life that AI is going to be great for society, I know how difficult it is to digest the idea that maybe it's not,' he added. It's also hard to preach caution when your corporate and national competitors threaten to gain an edge from AI, including the latest trend, which is using autonomous 'agents' that can carry out tasks online on behalf of businesses. Giving AI systems even greater autonomy might not be the wisest idea, judging by the latest spate of studies. Let's hope we don't learn that the hard way. — Bloomberg This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
OpenAI reverses course, says its nonprofit will remain in control of its business operations
OpenAI has decided that its nonprofit division will retain control over its for-profit org, after the company initially announced that it planned to convert to a for-profit organization. According to the company, OpenAI's business wing, which has been under the nonprofit since 2019, will transition to a public benefit corporation (PBC). The nonprofit will control and also be a large shareholder of the PBC. "OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit, and is today overseen and controlled by that nonprofit," OpenAI Board Chairman Bret Taylor wrote in a statement on the company's blog. "Going forward, it will continue to be overseen and controlled by that nonprofit." OpenAI says that it made the decision "after hearing from civic leaders and engaging in constructive dialogue with the offices of the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California." "We thank both offices and we look forward to continuing these important conversations to make sure OpenAI can continue to effectively pursue its mission," Taylor continued. OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit in 2015, but it converted to a "capped-profit" in 2019, and was trying to restructure once more into a for-profit. When it transitioned to a capped-profit, OpenAI retained its nonprofit wing, which currently has a controlling stake in the organization's corporate arm. OpenAI had said that its conversion, which it argued was necessary to raise the capital needed to grow and expand its operations, would preserve its nonprofit and infuse it with additional resources to be spent on "charitable initiatives" in sectors such as healthcare, education, and science. In exchange for its controlling stake in OpenAI's enterprise, the nonprofit would reportedly stand to reap billions of dollars. Many disagreed with the proposal, including early OpenAI investor Elon Musk, who filed a lawsuit against OpenAI opposing the company's planned transition. Musk's complaint accuses the startup of abandoning its nonprofit mission, which aimed to ensure its AI research benefits all humanity. Musk had sought a preliminary injunction to halt OpenAI's conversion. A federal judge denied the request, but permitted the case to go to a jury trial in spring 2026. A group of ex-OpenAI employees and Encode, a nonprofit organization that co-sponsored California's ill-fated SB 1047 AI safety legislation, filed amicus briefs months ago in support of Musk's lawsuit. Separately, a cohort of organizations including nonprofits and labor groups like the California Teamsters petitioned California Attorney General Rob Bonta to stop OpenAI from becoming a for-profit, claiming the company had "failed to protect its charitable assets." Several Nobel laureates, law professors, and civil society organizations had also sent letters to Bonta and Delaware's attorney general, Kathy Jennings, requesting that they halt the startup's restructuring efforts. The stakes were high for OpenAI, which needed to complete its for-profit conversion by the end of this year or next or risk relinquishing some of the capital the company has raised in recent months, according to reports. It's unclear what consequences may befall OpenAI now that it's reversed course. In a letter to staff on Monday also published on OpenAI's blog, CEO Sam Altman said he thinks OpenAI may eventually require "trillions of dollars" to fulfill its goal of "[making the company's] services broadly available to all of humanity." "[OpenAI's nonprofit] will become a big shareholder in the PBC in an amount supported by independent financial advisors," wrote Altman. "[W]e are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. [...] We look forward to advancing the details of [our] plan in continued conversation with them, [our partner] Microsoft, and our newly appointed nonprofit commissioners." This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
OpenAI counter-sues, calls for Musk to be enjoined from 'further unlawful and unfair action'
The dramatic suit between OpenAI and its estranged co-founder, billionaire Elon Musk, shows no sign of letting up. In a filing Wednesday, attorneys for OpenAI and the other defendants in the case, including CEO Sam Altman, called for Musk to be enjoined from "further unlawful and unfair action" and "held responsible for the damage he has already caused" to the defendants. "OpenAI is resilient," reads the filing for a counter-suit. "But Musk's actions have taken a toll. Should his campaign persist, greater harm is threatened — to OpenAI's ability to govern in service of its mission, to the relationships that are essential to furthering that mission, and to the public interest [...] Musk's continued attacks on OpenAI, culminating most recently in the fake takeover bid designed to disrupt OpenAI's future, must cease." Attorneys for Musk didn't immediately respond to TechCrunch's request for comment. Musk's suit against OpenAI accuses the startup of abandoning its nonprofit mission to ensure its AI research benefits all humanity. OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit in 2015, but converted to a "capped-profit" structure in 2019, and now seeks to restructure once more into a public benefit corporation. Musk had sought a preliminary injunction to halt OpenAI's transition to a for-profit. In March, a federal judge denied the request — but permitted the case to go to a jury trial in spring 2026. Musk, once a key supporter of OpenAI, is now perhaps its greatest adversary. The stakes are high for OpenAI, which reportedly needs to complete its for-profit conversion by 2025 or relinquish some of the capital it has raised in recent months. A group of organizations, including nonprofits and labor groups like the California Teamsters, petitioned California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week to stop OpenAI from becoming a for-profit entity, claiming that the company "failed to protect its charitable assets" and is actively "subverting its charitable mission to advance safe artificial intelligence." Encode, the nonprofit organization that co-sponsored California's ill-fated SB 1047 AI safety legislation, voiced similar concerns in an amicus brief filed in December. OpenAI has said that its conversion would preserve its nonprofit arm and infuse it with resources to be spent on "charitable initiatives" in sectors such as healthcare, education, and science. This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
With vetoes and destructive amendments, Youngkin acts to deepen Virginia's energy woes
Gov. Glenn Youngkin took action on more than 900 pieces of legislation Monday. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury) This year's General Assembly session notably failed to produce legislation addressing the widening gap between electricity demand and supply in Virginia. Legislators shied away from measures that would address the growing demand from data centers, but they also couldn't bring themselves to improve the supply picture by supporting landowners who want to host solar facilities. By the time the session ended, a mere handful of bills had passed that could improve our ability to meet demand. Still, the initiatives that did pass offered positive steps forward on energy efficiency, distributed generation, interconnection of rooftop solar, energy storage, EV charging and utility planning. In addition, two data center-related bills passed requiring more planning and transparency during the local permitting process and tasking utilities with developing a demand response program to relieve some of the added burden on the grid. Governor unleashes veto storm to drown progressive legislation Sadly, however, Republican Gov. Glen Youngkin decided to use his powers of veto and amendment to water down or scuttle the limited (and mostly bipartisan) progress legislators made. The only two data center bills were effectively killed, as were most energy bills – some by veto, others by amendments that made them worse than no action at all. There's nothing very subtle going on here. The governor loves data centers and isn't about to limit their growth, regardless of the consequences to residential ratepayers and communities. He's also stuck in a rut of attacking the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which prioritizes low-cost renewable energy over legacy fossil fuels. He won't be in office when the chickens come home to roost in the form of an electricity shortfall and skyrocketing rates, but he's setting up his party to cast blame on the liberal climate agenda. The General Assembly failed to pass legislation that would have shifted responsibility for sourcing clean energy onto the data center operators. The only bill to pass that even makes energy a consideration in the siting of data centers is HB 1601, sponsored by Del. Josh Thomas, D-Gainesville. In addition to site assessment provisions at the permitting stage, it requires the utility serving the facility to describe any new electric generating units, substations and transmission voltage that would be required. Facing data center sprawl and an energy crisis, Virginia lawmakers leap into action. Just kidding. Limited as these provisions are, the governor proposed amendments to further weaken the bill, then added a clause requiring that for the bill to take effect, it has to be passed all over again in 2026. That's a veto by another name. SB 1047 from Sen. Danica Roem, D-Manassas, requires utilities to implement demand-response programs for customers with a power demand of more than 25 MW, a way of relieving grid constraints during times of high demand. The governor vetoed the bill, deeming it unnecessary. The only data center-related bill that did get the governor's approval is one of questionable utility. HB 2084 from Del. Irene Shin, D-Herndon, merely requires the SCC to use its existing authority during a regular proceeding sometime in the next couple of years to determine whether Dominion and Appalachian Power are using reasonable customer classifications in setting rates, and if not, whether new classifications are reasonable. The SCC seems to be doing this already anyway, but maybe this lets our leaders claim they are doing something to protect residential ratepayers. Plus, they can now call it a bipartisan effort! With Virginia fixed on a collision course between growing demand for energy from data centers and our leaders' refusal to support low-cost solar to provide the power, it is more important than ever that our utilities engage in transparent and comprehensive planning through the integrated resource plans (IRPs) filed with the State Corporation Commission. Over the course of last fall, the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation hammered out what I think is truly good legislation to ensure Dominion and APCo present the information the SCC and the public need to be sure our utilities are making the decisions that will improve our energy position and put the needs of ratepayers ahead of corporate profits. In vetoing SB 1021 from Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, and HB 2413 from Del. Candi Munyon-King, D-Dumfries, the governor offered this muddled statement: 'The State Corporation Commission has the expertise and the authority to make requirements and changes to the integrated resource plan process. The Virginia Clean Economy Act is failing Virginia and those that champion it should stop trying to buttress this failing policy. But rather should be focused on procuring the dependable power needed to meet our growing demand through optimizing for reliability, affordability, and increasingly clean power generation.' We get it: Johnny One-Note doesn't like the VCEA. He said that already. But right now, APCo isn't filing IRPs at all, and the SCC has been so frustrated with Dominion's filings that it didn't approve the last one, and demanded a supplement to the most recent one even before it was filed. Clearly the SCC could use a little help here. Advocates for small-scale solar were more successful this year than their colleagues who focus on utility-scale projects. Bipartisan majorities seemed to agree that if we can't or won't site large solar farms, at least we should make it easier to put solar on rooftops and other small sites close to users. Utility regulator recommends suspension of Dominion's rules for connecting new solar to grid Sadly, however, only one bill survived the governor's scrutiny relatively unscathed, though it's an important one for customer-sited solar. HB 2266 from Del. Kathy Tran, D-Springfield, resolves the interconnection dispute that has stalled commercial solar projects in the 250 kW to 3 MW size range, which includes most rooftop solar on schools. Tran's bill requires the SCC to approve upgrades to the distribution system that utilities say are needed to accommodate grid-connected solar, a safeguard that will prevent the utility from larding on costs. The utility must then spread the costs across all projects that benefit from the expanded capacity. Youngkin's proposed amendment rearranges the language a bit and places it into a new section of code, but does not otherwise change it. He then adds a provision in the tax code to make grid upgrades tax-deductible. I would have thought they would be anyway, as business expenses, but it can only be helpful to spell it out. Unfortunately, that's it for the good news. HB 1883 from Del. Katrina Callsen, D-Charlottesville, and SB 1040 from Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Richmond, contain several provisions aimed at increasing the amount of distributed solar in Virginia. Among other things, the legislation increases the percentage of Dominion's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) obligation that must be met with renewable energy certificates (RECs) from behind-the-meter small solar projects, a change that would make rooftop and other distributed solar more profitable for homeowners and businesses. HB 1883 also increases to 3 MW from 1 MW the size of solar projects that could qualify for this favored category. Additionally, for the first time it would give all residential ratepayers the right to use power purchase agreements (PPAs) to install solar with no money down, and would increase the amount of electricity Dominion would build or buy from solar facilities on previously developed project sites. To give the market a chance to ramp up, Callsen's bill excuses Dominion from having to meet its REC obligations from Virginia projects for an additional two years, pushing that date from this year to 2027. Among all those changes, the only one the governor liked is the idea of softening the requirements around REC purchases. His proposed amendment would make all REC compliance voluntary for four years. Effectively, Virginia would have no renewable energy requirements until 2028, undercutting solar development of any size. His preferred version scraps all of the provisions of Callsen's bill, leaving no provisions to support solar development and replacing them with an open attack on the VCEA. I checked in with Callsen by email to get her reaction. She responded, 'We sent the administration bipartisan legislation that protects ratepayers, gives Virginians more options for solar on our homes and businesses, and saves rural land. Rather than sign HB 1883 into law,' Callsen wrote, 'the governor used this opportunity to attack the Clean Economy Act from 2020. Instead of looking at the past, our Administration should look around; we have a developing energy crisis and are reliant on importing energy to meet our needs.' The governor also offered a destructive amendment to HB 2346 from Del. Phil Hernandez, D-Norfolk, and SB 1100 from Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, legislation establishing a pilot program in Dominion territory for virtual power plants (VPPs), which aggregate customer solar and storage resources and demand response capabilities. Although VPPs don't by themselves add electricity on the grid, they allow time-shifting and other efficiencies that make it easier for utilities to meet peak demand without having to build new generation. The payments utilities make to customers for this service can justify customers' investments in things like solar, battery storage and smart appliances. Instead of improving on the pilot program, however, the governor's amendment scraps it and calls for the SCC to convene a proceeding to talk about VPPs. On the plus side, Youngkin suggests that the conversation include Appalachian Power as well as Dominion, and consider allowing the service to be provided by either the utilities or third-party aggregators, the latter being the favored approach of many industry members. Still, the amendment pushes off any hope of a program for at least another year, until the SCC has made its recommendations. Since it would have been feasible to both start a pilot program this year and have the SCC consider parameters for a broader program in the future, it's hard to see the governor's amendment as a step forward. When I asked her for a comment, Hashmi did not mince words, saying it was 'incredibly disappointing' that Youngkin chose to offer a substitute instead of signing the legislation. 'This legislation was the result of several months of conversation among a variety of stakeholders, including our utility companies, energy partners, and environmental groups. The Virtual Power Plant has the promise of helping Virginia meet the goals of our increasing energy demands. The Governor's substitute shows that he is not serious about responding to the growth of Virginia's energy needs,' Hashmi wrote. Other solar bills drew outright vetoes, including Munyon King's HB 2356, establishing an apprenticeship program to help develop a clean energy workforce. The bill requires participants to be paid prevailing wages, a provision that was a certain veto magnet for Youngkin, whose veto statement reads, 'This bill will increase the construction costs which will ultimately be passed along to ratepayers, raising costs for consumers.' Another bill that drew an outright veto was HB 2037 from Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax. His bill would allow local governments to include in their land development ordinances a requirement that certain non-residential applicants install solar on a portion of a parking lot. The governor vetoed it because, he said, it would be expensive for developers, and if it weren't, they would do it without having to be told. (It's a strange objection. Does he not understand the whole concept of government acting in the public good? Well, maybe not; see the veto.) Also vetoed was Shin's HB 2090, changing the rules around multifamily solar. Admittedly I was not crazy about this bill; although it allows solar facilities to be placed on nearby commercial buildings instead of being restricted to the multifamily building itself, it also imports the requirement for minimum bills that has made other shared solar programs in Virginia unworkable for all but the low-income customers who are excused from the minimum bills. Maybe the trade-off would have opened new opportunities for apartment buildings serving low-income households, which would make it a plus on balance. But among his objections to HB2090, the governor noted that excusing low-income customers from high minimum bills would shift costs onto other customers. The governor vetoed SB 1342 from Sen. Lamont Bagby, D-Richmond, and HB 2744 from Del. Mark Sickles, D-Franconia, that would have pushed Dominion and APCo harder to provide energy efficiency upgrades to low-income homes, setting a target of 30% of qualifying households. He also vetoed SB 777 from Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, and HB 1935 from Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling, D-Richmond, which would have established a task force to address the needs of low-income customers for weatherization and efficiency upgrades. The governor said it isn't needed. If you notice a pattern here when it comes to helping low-income households with their energy burden, you are not alone. Reached on maternity leave, LeVere Bolling had this to say: 'Across our Commonwealth, high utility bills are forcing Virginians to choose between essentials like groceries and medication and keeping their home at a safe temperature during hot summers and cold winters. Virginia has the 10th least affordable residential energy bills in the country. Over 75% of Virginia households have an energy burden higher than the 6% affordability threshold.' She added that the governor's veto represents a 'missed opportunity to address the pressing energy needs of Virginia's most vulnerable communities.' The governor offered a substitute for a bill intended to support electric vehicle charging. As passed by the General Assembly, Shin's HB 2087 requires Dominion and APCo to file detailed plans to 'accelerate transportation electrification,' including for rural areas and economically disadvantaged communities. It also allows the utilities to file proposed tariffs with the SCC to supply the distribution infrastructure necessary for EV charging stations. The utilities are also authorized to develop their own fast-charging stations, but only at a distance from privately-owned charging stations, with the SCC determining the proper distance. This provision responds to the request of gas station chains like Sheetz that say they want to expand their EV charging options, but don't want to face unfair competition from utilities that can rate-base their investments. The governor's amendment would prohibit Dominion and APCo from owning EV charging stations at all; in addition, it would allow retail providers of EV charging stations to buy electricity from any competitive service provider. However, the amendment repeals the section of code that allows the utilities to recover costs of investments in transportation electrification. According to Steve Banashek, EV legislative lead with the Virginia Sierra Club, that 'negates the purpose of the enrolled bill.' The amendment, he told me in an email, 'removes the requirement for utilities to file for tariffs to support implementation of EV charging and to plan for transportation electrification growth via the IRP process, which is critical for speeding up the transition to electric transportation.' As for the prohibition on the utilities owning charging stations, Banashek noted that there are areas of the state where private businesses aren't likely to do it, including in those economically disadvantaged and rural communities. If we don't want these areas left behind, either the utilities have to step up, or the state does. Apparently, however, Youngkin doesn't intend for the state to do it either. Along with his amendments to Shin's bill, the governor also vetoed HB 1791 from Sullivan, creating a fund to support EV charging in rural areas of the state. The need for more energy storage seems like it would be one area of bipartisan consensus. Batteries and other forms of energy storage are critical to filling in the generation gaps for low-cost, intermittent forms of energy like wind and solar. But storage is also required to make full use of baseload sources like nuclear that either can't be ramped down at times when there is a surplus of energy being produced, or where doing so makes it harder to recover the cost of building the generation. (The already-high projected cost of electricity from small modular nuclear reactors becomes even higher if you assume they don't run when the power isn't needed.) Sullivan's HB 2537 increases the energy storage targets for Dominion and APCo, and includes new targets for long-duration energy storage. Unfortunately, Youngkin's substitute language repeals the entire section of code that includes Virginia's renewable portfolio standard as well as even the existing storage targets. It's another bit of anti-VCEA flag-waving that won't help anyone. Just in case you thought Youngkin might be adhering to conservative free market principles with some kind of consistency, I note that he signed HB 2540 and SB 1207 from two Republicans, Del. Danny Marshall of Danville and Sen. Tammy Brankley Mulchi of Clarksville, which provides a $60 million grant to a manufacturer of lithium-ion battery separators. I asked Sullivan for a comment on the governor's action on his bill. He replied, 'The Governor's ridiculous 'recommendation' on HB 2537 was disappointing, but hardly surprising. This was not an amendment; he deleted everything – everything – having to do with energy storage, and turned it into a one-sentence bill which would repeal the entire Clean Economy Act.' Moreover, wrote Sullivan, 'HB 2537 was the most closely and extensively negotiated bill among stakeholders that I've been involved with since the VCEA. It had broad support – including from Dominion – and should have easily fit into the Governor's 'all of the above' energy strategy and his economic development goals, since it would have brought all sorts of business, jobs, and companies to the Commonwealth.' Sullivan concluded, 'Needless to say, we cannot agree to the amendment. We'll easily pass this bill next session, and I suspect Governor Spanberger will sign it.' Sullivan may be right that it will take a new administration before Virginia gets serious about meeting its energy challenges – if it does even then – but this session needn't have ended in a partisan stalemate and near-zero progress. Most of the bills the governor vetoed or gutted were passed with the help of Republicans, making Youngkin's actions less of a rebuke to Democrats than to the members of his own party who were simply trying to do their job. The results, sadly, are bad for everyone. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Politico
17-03-2025
- Business
- Politico
Waiting on the wonks
Available free through April 11, POLITICO Pro's Technology: California Decoded newsletter will explore how the Golden State is defining tech policy within its borders and beyond. QUICK FIX — How Newsom's AI panel could change Sacramento's tune on tech this year. — Waymo can finally drive at SFO (with training wheels). — Silicon Valley and Hollywood gird for an AI copyright turf war. Welcome to California Decoded! Happy Monday, everybody already signed up for GTC, right? Send feedback, tips and story ideas to chasedf@ and tkatzenberger@ Driving the Day ANALYSIS: WATCHING AND W(AI)TING — If you're noticing that a number of AI bills in Sacramento are looking a bit scrawny so far this session, it's not your imagination. Some of Sacramento's tech hawks have yet to fully flesh out AI bills, as they await an expected report commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom on how AI should be regulated. When Newsom vetoed state Sen. Scott Wiener's marquee SB 1047 on AI safety last year, he announced a three-member panel to study the issue of AI regulation, the first draft of which is slated to be released in the first quarter of the year, meaning by the end of this month. At least four other bills on AI and automation have still yet to be built out ahead of that release. Wiener himself recently told us he would be watching out for the report as he works on his second attempt at legislation this year. Right now, it focuses mainly on bolstering whistleblower protections and building more computing power for AI research efforts, but the San Francisco Democrat previously told California Decoded the bill could change depending on the report's recommendations. The any-day-now release was on the lips and minds of lawmakers last week during the business org Silicon Valley Leadership Group's annual Sacramento advocacy day, said Peter Leroe-Muñoz, the group's general counsel and SVP of tech policy. 'The report from the governor's panel will be instructive,' Leroe-Muñoz told us, although he said not every lawmaker was waiting breathlessly for the big reveal. Invitees to the event included state Sens. Wiener, Dave Cortese, Angelique Ashby and Aisha Wahab as well as Assemblymembers Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Marc Berman, Buffy Wicks, Ash Kalra and others. Legislators including Wicks, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin and state Sen. Jerry McNerney are all carrying bills relating to AI and automation they have yet to fully elaborate on. Some legislators are certainly not waiting. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's bills on AI copyright (more on that below) and automated decision-making systems, as well as Sen. McNerney's act to prevent automated systems from making hiring and firing decisions without human oversight are just a few examples. Freshman Assemblymember Maggy Krell also has a proposal aimed at preventing companies or individuals from blaming an AI system as a legal defense. Hers is the kind of bill that could be influenced by the report as a way of increasing the chances of avoiding the governor's veto pen. 'We want to make sure that if some company is benefiting from a product, that they are also responsible for the risks of that product,' Krell, a former federal prosecutor, told California Decoded. Krell is also the author of a spot bill that would require companies to say what data their AI models are trained on, similar to a measure introduced last year by then-Rep. Adam Schiff, which did not advance out of committee. Wiener's bill last year also created liability for AI companies that the tech industry, and ultimately the governor, found too broad and ultimately unpalatable. Whether bills like Krell's can morph to head off similar critiques in light of the forthcoming report will be a key area to watch. HAPPENING TODAY ALL DAY — Chipmaker Nvidia's GTC conference starts today in San Jose. ALL DAY — The Game Developers Conference also kicks off in downtown San Francisco today. Autonomous vehicles FULL SPEED AHEAD? Travelers flying in and out of San Francisco International Airport will soon see Waymo vehicles roving airport roads, although with human drivers behind the wheel. That change, which we first reported for POLITICO Pro subscribers on Friday, could reverberate across the state in the tug-of-war between autonomous vehicles and the labor movement in California. Waymo confirmed that the SFO permit doesn't allow its cars there to carry commercial goods. An unsigned and undated draft version of the proposal seen by POLITICO specifically highlighted commercial goods as being off the table. That may seem unnecessary for a mapping permit, but the carve-out has Teamsters union officials suddenly switching from trying to block Waymo's access to the airport to praising the expansion. 'It's an example of all parties getting to a reasonable place on implementation of this type of new technology,' said Peter Finn, Teamsters Joint Council 7 president, on the Waymo deal's exemption for moving commercial goods. SFO spokesman Doug Yakel declined to comment and said he expected an announcement from San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie's office on the permit. Lurie's office did not immediately comment. So why the change of heart on the labor side? Put simply, moving commercial goods — from food, liquor, packages and everything in between — is the Teamsters' bread and butter. They don't want autonomous vehicles within a country mile of their core business, and iron-clad language barring robot cars from moving things instead of people is what the union is after. It also is just the type of language that shows up in Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry's AB 33, the third-year-running version of a labor-backed bill to bar robot trucks from operating in the Teamsters' backyard. That bill prohibits delivering commercial goods — the magic words — directly to a residence or without a human operator on California highways. That covers everything from UPS and DHL delivery trucks to Safeway semis. Anyone who has been following this battle knows that Newsom vetoed the two previous versions of the bill that would have required human operators in autonomous trucks. That pitted labor and tech against each other. But commercial goods carve-outs could clear the road for the two foes to stay out of each others' lane and support the same measure, which could then lead to a further explosion of self-driving vehicles statewide. In the Courts WHOSE LINE IS IT ANYWAY? — Silicon Valley is ready to duke it out with Hollywood over an AI copyright bill that could sway the balance of power between creatives who make a living from their art and AI companies hungry for content to train their top models. AI proponents have fought with Hollywood before over content transparency and deepfakes. But Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's AB 412 — which would require generative AI developers to document and disclose any copyrighted works used to train their models — raises the stakes. Tech and industry groups say it would undermine fair-use rules and make it nearly impossible to train an AI model without facing a lawsuit. Leroe-Muñoz told us AB 412's vast scope puts it 'among the top bills' the Silicon Valley Leadership Group is watching this year. The same is true for Adam Eisgrau, policy director for the progressive tech lobby group Chamber of Progress, who authored a blog post trashing the bill late last week. 'Imagine if every copy of Sabrina Carpenter's newest song had to be accompanied by a list of every recording artist that ever inspired her,' Eisgrau wrote. 'By analogy … if Carpenter forgot to include just one name from the influences that shaped her, she could be on the hook for millions of dollars.' Hollywood writers, artists and actors (including actors' guild SAG-AFTRA) counter that existing transparency requirements don't fully prevent AI models from training on copyrighted works, like scripts and audio recordings, without reimbursing creators. Bauer-Kahan did make a slight concession ahead of AB 412's first committee hearing tomorrow: She agreed to take amendments that only put developers on the hook for disclosing copyrighted materials they know were used to train their AI model, according to committee analysis documents. Byte Sized — Robby Walker, a senior director at Apple, said delays to Siri's key features were embarrassing, as they struggle to catch up with industry peers (Bloomberg) — Dips in tech stock are not enticing investors (Bloomberg) — TikTok is spending big on ads in Washington, D.C. (POLITICO) Compiled by Nicole Norman Have a tip, event or autonomous vehicle goof to share? Do reach out: Emma Anderson, California tech editor; Chase DiFeliciantonio, AI and automation reporter; and Tyler Katzenberger, Sacramento tech reporter.
