California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed SB 1047, a sweeping AI safety bill, arguing that it is not the best way to address the looming threats and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence.
In a statement explaining the decision to veto the bill, Newsom noted that 32 of the top 50 AI companies are based in California and that the bill would really only focus on the largest companies, which could potentially compromise any safety benefits.
“While well intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision making, or uses sensitive data,” Newsom wrote in his letter explaining the veto. “Instead, the bill applies rigorous standards to even the most basic functions, as long as a large system implements them. I don't believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from the real threats posed by technology.”
He also noted that he has signed many bills that focus on or touch on risks associated with AI (earlier this month, for example, he signed SAG-AFTRA-backed bills that regulate AI performance replications 'artificial intelligence).
“This year, the Legislature sent me several thoughtful proposals to regulate AI companies in response to current and rapidly evolving risks, including threats to our democratic process, the spread of misinformation and deepfakes, risks to online privacy, threats to critical infrastructure and disruptions to the workforce,” Newsom said Sunday. “These bills and my administration's actions are guided by principles of accountability, fairness and transparency of artificial intelligence systems and the implementation of aluminum technology in California.”
SB 1047 was a hot bill, opposed by Silicon Valley and supported by many in Hollywood, including JJ Abrams, Jane Fonda, Pedro Pascal, Shonda Rhimes, and Mark Hamill. However, it has also garnered opposition from related power players such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who argued that federal legislation should step in and close this security gap.