News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047 by worstspotgain on Sunday September 29, 2024 @07:16PM (#41691747)
> 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-...

Re:Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047 by FeepingCreature on Monday September 30, 2024 @05:41AM (#41695276)
> 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?

Re:Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047 by worstspotgain on Monday September 30, 2024 @07:57AM (#41696173)
Just two spitballing conjectures, not meant to be a dichotomy. If you have first-hand knowledge please contribute.
Re:Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047 by ForOldHack on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @01:28PM (#41711475)
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.