> He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely.

Well, we'll see what passes again and when. By then there'll be more kittens out of the bag too.

> Anthropic was a major advocate for it.

I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.

[1] https://thejournal.com/articles/2024/08/26/anthropic-offers-...

> I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.

This seems a curious dichotomy. Can we at least consider the possibility that they mean the words they say or is that off the table?

Just two spitballing conjectures, not meant to be a dichotomy. If you have first-hand knowledge please contribute.

One of the very most apt descriptions. One company trying to raise alarms about another company in the same business. I have been following this since IBM released $67,000 "Intellect" "Business Intelligence." and Lotus HAL.

He's a politician, and his stated reason for the veto is not necessarily his real reason for the veto.

Makes perfect sense since his elected based on public positions

This is the ideal, but it's often false in meaningful ways. In several US elections, for example, we've seen audio leaked of politicians promising policies to their donors that would be embarrassing if widely publicly known by the electorate.

This suggests that politicians and donors sometimes collude to deliberately misrepresent their views to the public in order to secure election.

worse.. a first-hand quote from inside a California Senate committee hearing chamber.. "Don't speak it if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink" .. translated, that means that in a contentious situation with others in the room, if allies can signal without speaking the words out loud, that is better.. and if the signal can be hidden, better still.

This is an old saying in politics and you're misinterpreting it - it's not about signaling to allies, it's about avoiding being held to any particular positions.

You're also missing the first half, "don't write if you can speak, don't speak if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink." The point is not to commit to anything if you don't have to.

Sometimes? lol

Anthropic was championing a lot of FUD in the AI area

Newsom vetoed the bill as a nod to his donors plain and simple. Same reason he just signed a bill allowing a specific customers at a single venue to be served alcohol later than 2 AM. Same reason he carved out a minimum wage exemption for Panera. Same reason he signed a bill to carve out a junk fee exemption specifically for restaurants.

He's just planning for a post-governor career.

Same reason the governor appointed public utility commission has allowed PG&E to raise rates 4 times in a single year without legitimate oversight. Yea unfortunately all roads point to his donors with this smooth talker, cost of living be damned.

On the east coast we don’t need the government to control electricity prices. And our electricity is cheaper. Go figure.

Companies like Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, and Consolidated Edison are regulated by state utility commissions, same as in California.

Why did New Jersey get more toxic waste dumps than California has lawyers? They got first choice. We will trade Newsom for a failed reactor. Please.

Oh yeah I forgot this one — basically making it easier to force neighborhoods to abandon their natural gas infrastructure. Something I'd be in favor of were it not for the constant stream of electric rate hikes.

https://www.kqed.org/news/12006711/newsom-signs-bill-to-help...

When you're a politician and have a business hobby

>> He's just planning for a post-governor career.

After this year, many democrats are as well - which is why Harris had such a hard time finding a VP and took Walz who was like the last kid you pick on your dodgeball team.

The presidential race in 2028 for the Democrats is going to have one of the deepest benches for talent I've seen in a long time. Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure.

But I agree, Newsom has been making some decisions lately that seem to indicate he's trying to clean up his image and look more "moderate" for the coming election cycles.

> Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure.

Neither has genuine appeal. Shapiro is a really, really poor speaker and has few credentials except as a moderate. Newsom is the definition of coastal elite. Both have spoken, neither have been heard.

Oops, I had mixed up Shapiro with Gretchen Whitmer (another of these "rising stars"). Shapiro just does white Obama.

Wow. Now that was funny. Thanks.

2032, nice try though. Besides, we're not going to need to vote anymore otherwise, remember? The 2028 Democratic Primary would be a pro-forma affair between Barron vs. Mayor McCheese.