A day before the deadline to take action or allow the bill to become law, Newsom rejected SB 1047, the Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, citing burdens it would place on AI companies and criticism that the bill's scope was too broad.
"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 the use of sensitive data," Newsom said in a statement. "Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology."
In other words, Newsom believes the law fails to distinguish between AI systems used in high-risk environments and those used for basic tasks. He said the bill lacks nuance in differentiating all types of AI within large systems, regardless of their function.
The bill would have compelled AI companies to take safety measures to protect the public from cyberattacks, prevent AI from being used to develop weapons and to prevent automated crime. It would have required companies to implement safety testing of large AI products, costing at least $100 million to develop, and to enable a "kill switch" on new AI technology.
The bill's main author, San Francisco Democrat Scott Wiener, said in a statement Sunday, "This veto is a setback for everyone who believes in oversight of massive corporations that are making critical decisions that affect the safety and welfare of the public and future of the planet."
The bill has moved at a swift pace, having been introduced only in February. It quickly polarized Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C.
Despite the strong opposition from California's robust tech sector, last month, the bill passed in the state Senate 29-9 and in the Assembly by a 41-9 vote.
Tech giants such as Meta, Google and OpenAI fiercely opposed the bill and lobbied against it in the state legislature, saying the bill would stifle AI innovation.
Meanwhile, the bill prompted democratic lawmakers to take the rare move to meddle in Sacramento business, given the national implications the bill would have had.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Silicon Valley Reps. Ro Khanna and Zoe Lofgren , all spoke out in opposition of the bill. Although they agreed that regulations are needed, they called Wiener's AI bill the wrong approach.
The bill has some fierce opponents, but it gained backing from strong AI advocates and big tech such as the Center for AI Safety, large AI developer Anthropic, and billionaire Elon Musk.
The pushback came even after several amendments sought by the bill's earlier critics, including Anthropic, were added.
Wiener agreed to cut criminal penalties from the bill and removed the creation of a new regulatory body, the Frontier Model Division, among other changes.
After Anthropic changed tune and came out to support the bill, surprisingly, so did the usually regulation-averse Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk.
Meta, who remained opposed to the bill despite the amendments, said it was pleased Newsom vetoed it.
"We are pleased that Governor Newsom vetoed SB1047. This bill would have stifled AI innovation, hurt business growth and job creation, and broken the state's long tradition of fostering open-source development," a Meta spokesperson said. "We support responsible AI regulations and remain committed to partnering with lawmakers to promote better approaches."
Teri Olle, Director of Economic Security California Action, a co-sponsor of the legislation, said the veto "ignores overwhelming public support for accountability of big tech."
"Governor Newsom's veto of SB 1047 forfeits our country's most promising opportunity to implement responsible guardrails around the development of AI today," Olle said. "The failure of this bill demonstrates the enduring power and influence of the deep-pocketed tech industry, driven by the need to maintain the status quo — a hands-off regulatory environment and exponential profit margins."
Nathan Calvin, Senior Policy Counsel at CAIS, said he was disheartened by the vetoing of the "urgent and a common sense safety bill."
"Experts have noted catastrophic threats to society from AI may materialize quickly, so today's veto constitutes an unnecessary and dangerous gamble with the public's safety," Calvin said.
While Wiener was disappointed by the governor's veto, he said that the debate around the bill has elevated the conversation around the need for AI safety measures.
"At the same time, the debate around SB 1047 has dramatically advanced the issue of AI safety on the international stage. Major AI labs were forced to get specific on the protections they can provide to the public through policy and oversight," Wiener said. "The work of this incredible coalition will continue to bear fruit as the international community contemplates the best ways to protect the public from the risks presented by AI. California will continue to lead in that conversation — we are not going anywhere."
© 2024 Silicon Valley, San Jose, Calif. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
