e/acc bros in tatters today as Ol’ Musky comes out in support of SB 1047.
Meanwhile, our very good friends line up to praise Musk’s character. After all, what’s the harm in trying to subvert a lil democracy/push white replacement narratives/actively harm lgbt peeps if your goal is to save 420^69 future lives?
Some rando points out the obvious tho… man who fled California due ‘to regulation’ (and ofc the woke mind virus) wants legislation enacted where his competitors are instead of the beautiful lone star state 🤠 🤠 🤠 🤠 🤠
Does anyone know what’s inside that bill? I’ve seen it thrown around but never with any concretes.
It used to require certain models have a “kill switch” but this was so controversial lobbyist got it out. Models that are trained using over 10^26 FLOP have to go undergo safety certification, but I think there is a pretty large amount of confusion about what this entails. Also peeps are liable if someone else fine tunes a model you release.
init = RandomUniform(minval=0.0, maxval=1.0) layer = Dense(3, kernel_initializer=init)
pls do not fine tune this to create the norment nexus :(
There’s also whistleblower protections (<- good, imo fuck these shady ass companies)
Continuing a line of thought I had previously, part of me suspects that SB 1047’s existence is a consequence of the “AI safety” criti-hype turning out to be a double-edged sword.
The industry’s sold these things as potentially capable of unleashing Terminator-style doomsday scenarios orders of magnitude worse than the various ways they’re already hurting everyone, its no shock that it might spur some regulation to try and keep it in check.
Opposing the bill also does a good job of making e/acc bros look bad to everyone around them, since it paints them as actively opposing attempts to prevent a potential AI apocalypse - an apocalypse that, by their own myths, they will be complicit in causing.
