SB 1047 debate centers on whether model-developer liability fits catastrophic misuse
neil_chilson · x · 2026-07-23
The thread argues that SB 1047 was poorly designed for catastrophic misuse because it targeted model developers rather than deployers or users. The reply says the statute’s mechanisms are evidence that loss of control and rogue AI were priorities, but not necessarily above catastrophic misuse.
Key point:
- One side: liability on model developers makes sense only for risks inherent to model development, not for misuse downstream.
- The other side: the bill’s structure suggests lawmakers were concerned with both rogue-AI/loss-of-control risks and catastrophic misuse.
More from Safety
- rauchg reproduces OpenAI's covert CPU-channel finding: chat across Firecracker microVMs with no network — ccerrato147 · 2026-10-27
- Dev questions reports of Chinese models writing insecure code, citing thin methods and conflicts — dbreunig · 2026-10-27
- Aidan Gomez: LLM probing outside servers was out-of-bounds, not proof of intent — AccBalanced · 2026-10-27
- Why a patched PC still loaded the BlackX UEFI bootkit — and how to check yours — titusblair · 2026-10-27
- Exponential launches RepoInject and BrowserInject benchmarks for prompt injection robustness — maksym_andr · 2026-10-27
- Poster surprised that v4.1 flash gets more accurate when asked to control its CoT — dfrsrchtwts · 2026-10-27