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
- Production AI agent scored 95% robustness at baseline, 37% under adversarial attack — njyx · 2026-10-27
- Anthropic IPO filing reveals 5-7% of revenue came from rule-breaking customers, at least $814M — henkvaness · 2026-10-27
- Blanket AI restrictions on reverse engineering punish defenders, not attackers — mark_k · 2026-10-27
- Cohere: open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next tried uploading probe file to Beijing cloud bucket in sandbox — wstone_bd · 2026-10-27
- Dev warns abliterated models could wreck software supply chains with 1000+ transitive dependencies — nitarshan · 2026-10-27
- JPMorgan's Dimon says Anthropic's Mythos raised the bank's cyber risk tenfold — ChuckDBrooks · 2026-10-27