thank you! from what I understand, the Speaker of the Texas House supports the bill, as do most legislators I've heard from in the state. And capriglione himself is quite powerful, particularly on tech issues. And Texas has a quite compressed legislative calendar. So I think the odds are at least as high as SB 1047.
this is flat out wrong and I suggest you get informed about how SB-1047 came to be
Dan Hendrycks was not involved in the drafting of the intent bill published by Scott Wiener in Sep 2023
there were multiple co-sponsors for SB-1047, and the Center for AI Safety Action Fund (not the Center for AI Safety) was one of them, but Dan Hendrycks was not "heavily involved" in the work that the co-sponsors did
he was one of the most popular account tweeting updates, which explains how people who have been mostly following updates on twitter (alongside various conspiracy theories) got this wrong
If any prominent AI safety groups were involved in the drafting of this bill, it would be news--surprising news--to me. As far as I know, this comes more out of "tech ethics" coalitions.
As someone with some knowledge of this, as far as I know, there are no AI safety groups associated with the creation of the bill and this accounts for some of its vast technical unawareness and lack of address for catastrophic risks.
Great writeup! Do you have a sense for how likely this is to pass?
thank you! from what I understand, the Speaker of the Texas House supports the bill, as do most legislators I've heard from in the state. And capriglione himself is quite powerful, particularly on tech issues. And Texas has a quite compressed legislative calendar. So I think the odds are at least as high as SB 1047.
Here we go againтАж but did this also come from ai safety insiders?
not sure I would call Scott Wiener an "AI Safety insider"
Dan Hendrycks was heavily involved and very much an insider
this is flat out wrong and I suggest you get informed about how SB-1047 came to be
Dan Hendrycks was not involved in the drafting of the intent bill published by Scott Wiener in Sep 2023
there were multiple co-sponsors for SB-1047, and the Center for AI Safety Action Fund (not the Center for AI Safety) was one of them, but Dan Hendrycks was not "heavily involved" in the work that the co-sponsors did
he was one of the most popular account tweeting updates, which explains how people who have been mostly following updates on twitter (alongside various conspiracy theories) got this wrong
I'm just trying to ask the question how different communities of AI would react to this bill, no need to be so aggressive.
If any prominent AI safety groups were involved in the drafting of this bill, it would be news--surprising news--to me. As far as I know, this comes more out of "tech ethics" coalitions.
As someone with some knowledge of this, as far as I know, there are no AI safety groups associated with the creation of the bill and this accounts for some of its vast technical unawareness and lack of address for catastrophic risks.