Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Senate Law 53, the Teacher’s Transparency Bill from Artificial Intelligence, which divided the companies of artificial intelligence and issued news headlines for several months, is now an official law in California.
On Monday, California Governor Gavin News signed a “transparency in the border artificial intelligence law”, which was composed by Senator Scott Winner (D-CA). that it The second draft For such a bill, such as newsom The veto against the first issue SB 1047 – Last year due to concerns was very strict and could suffocate the innovation of artificial intelligence in the state. It was possible that all artificial intelligence developers, especially for models with training costs, were $ 100 million or more, to test specific risks. After the veto, newsoms assigned researchers of artificial intelligence with Exit an alternativeIt was published in the form of a 52-page report-and the form of SB 53.
Some researchers’ recommendations have reached SB 53, such as asking the large artificial intelligence companies to reveal safety and security operations, allowing the protection of those informed of violations of employees in artificial intelligence companies, and to share information directly with the public for transparency purposes. But some aspects did not reach the report-such as third-party assessments.
As part of the draft law, the great artificial intelligence developers will need to “publicly publish a framework on their website (on the web) and describe how the company merged national standards, international standards and best practices in the industry within the framework of Amnesty International Release. Any major developer of Amnesty International, who is also making an update for its safety and security protocol, will also need to spread the update and thinking within 30 days. However, it should be noted that this part is not necessarily a victory over those whose violations and supporters of the organization are not necessarily. Many artificial intelligence companies that pressure against the regulations suggest voluntary frameworks and best practices – which can be considered instructions instead of the rules, with a few penalties attached.
The draft law creates a new way for each of the artificial intelligence companies and members of the public “to report the potential critical safety incidents of the California Emergency Services Office”, according to the issue, and “it protects the amounts of violations who reveal health risks and great safety formed by border models, and creates a civil penalty for non -secession, which can be implemented by the General Office of the General.” The issue also said that the California Ministry of Technology recommends updates to the law every year “based on the inputs of multiple stakeholders, technological developments, and international standards.”
Artificial intelligence companies were divided into SB 53, although most of them were either publicly or privately against the bill, saying that they would leave the companies from California. They knew the risks: With nearly 40 million California and a handful of artificial intelligence centers, the state has a great impact on the artificial intelligence industry and how it will be organized.
SB 53 has publicly approved man After weeks of negotiations on drafting the bill, but Meta in August launched a At the level of the country Superback To help forming artificial intelligence legislation in California. Openai pressed such legislation in August, with the chief global affairs employee, Chris Lean, Writing to newsom “The leadership of California in organizing technology is more effective when it complements the ecosystems of global and unimasistic safety.”
Lehane suggested that artificial intelligence companies be able to circumvent the requirements of California by signing federal or global agreements instead, “in order to make California a pioneer in the global and national artificial intelligence policy and the level at the government level, we encourage the state to consider the border developers compatible with the US requirements compatible with the United States.