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
- Why So Many AI Researchers Think the Machines Could Kill Everyone — wiredmagazine · 2026-09-11
- California creates standards for independent AI auditors to verify lab safety testing — VraserX · 2026-09-11
- a16z podcast: why 2-3 person startups are absent from policy debates — a16z Podcast · 2026-09-11
- Researcher questions AI safety eval firm, citing 'blatantly sloppy' security and monitoring — Kyrannio · 2026-09-11
- Class action accuses Anthropic of overselling Claude subscriptions with deceptive usage multipliers — The Decoder · 2026-09-11
- MD shows buying lab media requires background checks, calling AI bioweapon doom scenarios implausible — Ghost_Pilot_MD · 2026-09-11