Californians want controls on AI. Why did Gavin Newsom veto an AI safety bill? | Garrison Lovely

Q: How long will it take to read this news story?

The story "Californians want controls on AI. Why did Gavin Newsom veto an AI safety bill? | Garrison Lovely" has 904 words across 42 sentences, which will take approximately 4 - 8 minutes for the average person to read.

Q: Which news outlet covered this story?

The story "Californians want controls on AI. Why did Gavin Newsom veto an AI safety bill? | Garrison Lovely" was covered 13 hours ago by The Guardian, a news publisher based in United Kingdom.

Q: How trustworthy is 'The Guardian' news outlet?

The Guardian is a fully independent (privately-owned) news outlet established in 1821 that covers mostly artificial-intelligence and technology news. The outlet is headquartered in United Kingdom and publishes an average of 5 news stories per day. It's most recent story was published 13 hours ago.

Q: What do people currently think of this news story?

The sentiment for this story is currently Negative, indicating that people regard this as "bad news".

Q: How do I report this news for inaccuracy?

You can report an inaccurate news publication to us via our contact page. Please also include the news #ID number and the URL to this story.<ul><li>News ID: #23085779</li><li>URL: https://beamstart.com/news/californians-want-controls-on-ai-17290751146125</li></ul>

The Guardian 13h ago

Californians want controls on AI. Why did Gavin Newsom veto an AI safety bill? | Garrison Lovely - The Guardian

Quick Summary:

AI lobbyists are fighting regulation because they know voters of both parties do not trust the sector to police itselfCalifornia governor Gavin Newsom recently killed SB1047, a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence safety bill, arguing that its focus on only the largest AI models leaves out smaller ones that can also be risky.

Garrison Lovely (@GarrisonLovely) is a journalist who has contributed to The Nation, Jacobin, The New York Times, BBC Future, The Verge, TIME, Vox, and elsewhere.

Instead, he says, we should pass comprehensive regulations on the technology.