Newsom Vetoes California's SB 1047
A missed opportunity to lead in AI regulation
By Dr. Christina Catenacci
Oct 1, 2024
![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/11062b_14b1ebf48b494daf9f1c5a0db9f82c13~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_735,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/11062b_14b1ebf48b494daf9f1c5a0db9f82c13~mv2.jpg)
Key Points:
Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1047, California’s AI safety bill, on September 29, 2024
Many view the veto as a missed opportunity for California to lead in AI regulation in the United States
The bill created significant controversy in Silicon Valley because of the concern that it was too rigid and would stifle innovationAs you may have heard, Governor Gavin Newsom of California just vetoed California’s AI safety bill, SB 1047.
We wrote about this potentially landmark bill earlier, where we explained the inner workings of the text. The article also noted that the bill was the first of its kind in the United States, and had the potential of influencing how other States crafted their AI statutes and regulations. Professors Hinton and Bengio supported it too.
So why did the bill fail? The bill that attempted to balance AI innovation with safety made it through readings in the General Assembly and in the Senate—and was ready to be signed by Newsom. It seemed that the author of the bill, Senator Scott Weiner, was confident that a great deal of work had gone into it, and it deserved to pass.
Let us examine the veto note signed by Newsom on September 29, 2024.
First, it appears that Newsom was concerned about the fact that the bill focused only on the most expensive and large-scale models—something that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling AI. He pointed out that smaller, more specialized models could be equally or even more dangerous than the models that the bill targeted.
Second, Newsom called the bill well-intentioned, but also remarked that it did not take into account whether an AI system was deployed in high-risk environments, involved critical decision-making, or dealt with the use of sensitive data. Newsom stated, “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”.
Third, Newsom agreed that we could not afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public, and he emphasized that California would not abandon its responsibility—but he did not agree that to keep the public safe, the State had to settle for a solution that was not informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of Al systems and capabilities. He accented that any framework for effectively regulating Al had to keep pace with the technology itself. He also added that the US AI Safety Institute was developing guidance on national security risks, informed by evidence-based approaches to guard against demonstratable risks to public safety. Additionally, he noted important initiatives that agencies within his Administration were taking in the form of performing risk analyses of the potential threats and vulnerabilities to California's critical infrastructure using Al.
Newsom highlighted that a California-only approach might be warranted, especially absent federal action by Congress, but it had to be based on empirical evidence and science. He concluded his remarks by saying that he was committed to working with the Legislature, federal partners, technology experts, ethicists, and academia to find the appropriate path forward. He stated, “Given the stakes—protecting against actual threats without unnecessarily thwarting the promise of this technology to advance the public good—we must get this right”. He simply could not sign SB 1047.
We should all keep in mind that this was a controversial bill that caused a kerfuffle in Silicon Valley. In fact, various tech leaders had been saying that the bill was too rigid and objecting about its potential to hinder innovation and driving them out of California. Several lobbyists and politicians had been communicating their concerns in the past few weeks, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
There were other powerful players in Silicon Valley, including venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI, and trade groups representing Google and Meta, lobbied against the bill, arguing it would slow the development of AI and stifle growth for early-stage companies.
It makes sense that there was significant concern about the bill in Silicon Valley: SB 1047 dealt with serious harms and set out considerable consequences for noncompliance. It is no surprise that those tech workers were in favour of avoiding them.
Indeed, the bill was called, “hotly contested” since those in the tech industry complained about it. That said, there were many who supported the bill who viewed SB 1047 as an opportunity to lead the way on American AI regulation.
To that end, tech industry leaders reacted positively to Newsom’s veto, and even expressed gratitude to Newsom on social media.
On September 29, 2024, Senator Weiner responded to the decision to veto the bill, noting the following:
The veto was a setback for everyone who believed in oversight of massive corporations that are making critical decisions that affected the safety and welfare of the public and the future of the planet
While the large AI labs had made admirable commitments to monitor and mitigate risks, the truth was that voluntary commitments from industry were not enforceable and rarely worked out well for the public
This veto left us with the troubling reality that companies aiming to create an extremely powerful technology faced no binding restrictions from American policymakers, particularly given “Congress’s continuing paralysis” around regulating the tech industry in any meaningful way
With respect to Newsom’s criticisms, he stated that “SB 1047 was crafted by some of the leading AI minds on the planet, and any implication that it is not based in empirical evidence is patently absurd”
The veto was a missed opportunity for California to once again lead on innovative tech regulation
Weiner stated that California would continue to lead the conversation, and it was not going anywhere. We will have to wait and see what is proposed in the near future.
In the meantime, it is important to note that there were some smaller AI bills that Newsom did sign into law. For instance, Newsom recently signed one to crack down on the spread of deepfakes during elections, and another to protect actors against their likenesses being replicated by AI without their consent.
As for Weiner, he stated, “It’s disappointing that this veto happened, but this issue isn’t going away”.