California removes teeth from AI law without addressing tech’s core concerns

The law appears more corporate friendly, but the implications for consumers are a bit murkier.

California lawmakers have amended a controversial bill that would hold AI firms accountable for harms caused by their products in response to industry criticism. However, it’s unclear if the state’s concessions will be enough to convince naysayers in the tech industry. 

The bill, called the “Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act,” (SB-1074) essentially seeks to protect whistleblowers and to empower the state of California to intervene if it has reason to believe an AI-related catastrophe is going to occur.

As Cointelegraph recently reported, the tech industry is in a bit of an uproar over the bill’s stipulations with many tech luminaries warning that it would stifle innovation and growth.

Stifling innovation

In its original format, the bill would have allowed the state to sue firms for negligence over lax safety practices, even if the violations didn’t result in a catastrophic event. It would have also created a government oversight board responsible for implementing and enforcing said safety practices.

After negative feedback from the tech industry, including a comprehensive list of suggestions from AI firm Anthropic, California Senator Scott Weiner claimed his office was under the belief they’d found a happy medium:

“We accepted a number of very reasonable amendments proposed, and I believe we’ve addressed the core concerns expressed by Anthropic and many others in the industry,”

Core concerns

However, based on the bill’s new language, it’s clear that lawmakers still haven’t addressed the tech world’s core concern. Whether the state can sue prior to a catastrophe or merely issue injunctions is tangential to the essential problem of liability.

SB-1074 would still allow the state to hold any AI developer responsible for harms caused by their products. In many cases, it’s near impossible to predict all the ways that “harm” could manifest from an AI model.

The bill’s next step is a final assembly vote which, according to the schedule, must be held prior to Aug. 31. At which point, unless the governor decides to veto it, technology firms operating in the state of California will face a regulatory environment unlike any other in the country.

Related: AI researchers want to solve the bot problem by requiring ID to use the internet