California Blinks: Governor Newsom Rejects AI Bill Targeting Catastrophic Injuries

He eliminated text that would have allowed California’s attorney general to sue AI companies for negligent safety practices before a catastrophic event occurs, along with plans to create a division within the Department of Technology in California that would have provided oversight and enforcement.

Compared to the bill’s original language, what landed on the governor’s desk was substantially weaker, according to Gary Marcus, a scientist, entrepreneur and author of Taming Silicon Valley, a book highly critical of artificial intelligence generative. “The bill has been reduced,” Marcus said, adding that he sees its value as primarily symbolic and that Newsom’s decision signaled to Silicon Valley that it could “cause enormous chaos, and probably no one is going to force them to fix it”.

As with other measures before Newsom, the governor had a month to consider whether to sign SB 1047 or veto it, and during that time, his office was heavily lobbied by industry members on both sides of the aisle , as well as local congressmen and Hollywood celebrities.

“I don’t have the technical ability to perfectly predict how (SB 1047) would have affected the AI ​​industry,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “A lot of people in Sacramento don’t have that ability. Maybe they just decided to err on the side of caution, thinking, “Wow, there are so many industry voices saying this bill is dangerous and could have a chilling effect.” Not really knowing 100 percent, maybe the safer step is just veto,” Kousser said.

Wiener said the governor’s office did not get involved with his office as the bill moved through the state assembly and senate. “I’ve personally met with some of the most vocal opponents of the bill, the Andreessen Horowitz firm, some Stanford professors who opposed the bill, the big tech companies who opposed the bill. I also met with individuals and companies who had constructive criticism of the bill. And we made significant changes to the bill in response to that constructive criticism.”

Those changes weren’t enough for many critics, including Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, who wrote, “Any AI risk framework should be based on empirical data and fit for purpose. I also think this is an issue that should be dealt with at the federal level. Congress and the Administration are both moving on AI governance. I look forward to working with the governor as we move forward.”

Lofgren is the ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which in recent weeks has advanced nine bills, but all face uncertain futures in the House of Representatives. Nothing addressing the scope and breadth of SB 1047 came out of either committee. But Lina Khan of the Federal Trade Commission said federal regulators are eager to use existing laws to go after bad behavior in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

Unlike the European Union and Colorado, both of which have passed comprehensive laws, California lawmakers have largely focused on separate bills that address specific issues with generative artificial intelligence. Governor Newsom has signed 17 of those bills this year, as he noted in his veto message, and California is among several states taking steps to regulate generative AI.

Given the inertia in Washington DC, most policy analysts see the state level as the only hope for aggressive tech regulation.

In the race for the White House this year, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have sought the support of Silicon Valley’s most powerful players. Newsom’s presidential ambitions are likely on hold for the foreseeable future, but given SB 1047’s national profile, some have wondered if he might not make enemies among those profiting from the rise of generative artificial intelligence.

“I think like any good politician who has risen to the heights that Gavin Newsom has, you have to think about, ‘How am I going to be judged today, tomorrow, 5 or 10 years from now,'” Professor Kousser said. “That forward thinking has guided his decisions on many bills throughout his tenure as governor. He’s been on the right side of history in many of the strong policy positions he’s taken, as mayor and as governor — and he hopes he’ll be on the right side of history on this one.”