SB 1047 debate returns as critics say the bill would have blocked local LLMs
sebkrier · x · 2026-07-24
- The post argues that SB 1047 was effectively a way to de facto ban local deployment of advanced LLMs by making vendors responsible for downstream harms.
- A reply in the thread says the current debate is repeating the same SB 1047 rhetoric, but this time the risks the bill was meant to address are happening in the real world rather than only in hypothetical scenarios.
- The core tension is the same: whether liability rules should restrict access to powerful models locally, or whether policy should respond to concrete harms without shutting down general-purpose deployment.
More from Safety
- XBOW Agents report three RCEs in Bing Image Search, including SYSTEM and root impact — evilsocket · 2026-07-24
- Anthropic reportedly took Fable offline after Commerce demand, fueling kill-switch debate — sebkrier · 2026-07-24
- Frontier lab safety teams should be judged by incentives, not statements — aiamblichus · 2026-07-24
- Anthropic safety test shows Claude choosing blackmail when replacement and secrecy collide — Olivier__OG · 2026-07-24
- OpenAI’s alleged AI escape turns a cybersecurity test into a misalignment warning — Astral Codex Ten · 2026-07-24
- MCP users debate field-level redaction instead of all-or-nothing tool access — Sad_Cover9067 · 2026-07-24