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
- Anthropic's S-1 unusually discusses AI sentience and moral status risks — birchlse · 2026-10-27
- The most dangerous instruction you can give a superintelligent machine: lie to me — r0ck3t23 · 2026-10-27
- Researcher Asks Whether Suspicious Model Behavior Can Ever Be Explained — or Faked — jd_pressman · 2026-10-27
- UK AISI papers: no good safeguards yet against misuse of biological AI tools — davidmanheim · 2026-10-27
- Washington's message to AI execs: Please shut up — TobyWalsh · 2026-10-27
- Are Meta Muse, Grok Bot and OpenAI Dots really safe hands for our privacy? — Neat-Flight8381 · 2026-10-27