[HN Gopher] California governor signs AI transparency bill into law
___________________________________________________________________
California governor signs AI transparency bill into law
https://sb53.info/
Author : raldi
Score : 127 points
Date : 2025-09-29 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gov.ca.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gov.ca.gov)
| toxicdevil wrote:
| Copied from the end of the page:
|
| What the law does: SB 53 establishes new requirements for
| frontier AI developers creating stronger:
|
| Transparency: Requires large frontier developers to publicly
| publish a framework on its website describing how the company has
| incorporated national standards, international standards, and
| industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework.
|
| Innovation: Establishes a new consortium within the Government
| Operations Agency to develop a framework for creating a public
| computing cluster. The consortium, called CalCompute, will
| advance the development and deployment of artificial intelligence
| that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable by fostering
| research and innovation.
|
| Safety: Creates a new mechanism for frontier AI companies and the
| public to report potential critical safety incidents to
| California's Office of Emergency Services.
|
| Accountability: Protects whistleblowers who disclose significant
| health and safety risks posed by frontier models, and creates a
| civil penalty for noncompliance, enforceable by the Attorney
| General's office.
|
| Responsiveness: Directs the California Department of Technology
| to annually recommend appropriate updates to the law based on
| multistakeholder input, technological developments, and
| international standards.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance,
| how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by
| LLMs without permission from or payment to me?
| tadfisher wrote:
| The problem it solves is providing any sort of baseline
| framework for lawmakers and the legal system to even discuss
| AI and its impacts based on actual data instead of feels.
| That's why so much of it is about requiring tech companies to
| publish safety plans, transparency reports and incidents, and
| why the penalty for noncompliance is only $10,000.
|
| A comprehensive AI regulatory action is way too premature at
| this stage, and do note that California is not the sovereign
| responsible for U.S. copyright law.
| iinnPP wrote:
| If I had a requirement to either do something I didn't want
| to do or pay a nickel, I'd just fake doing what needed to
| be done and wait for the regulatory body to fine me 28
| years later after I exhausted my appeal chain. Luckily,
| inflation turned the nickel into a penny, now defunct, and
| I rely on the ability to pay debts in legal currency to use
| another 39 years of appeals.
| zie wrote:
| 28yrs for an appeals chain is a bit longer than most
| realities I'm aware of. More like a dozen years at the
| top end would be more in line with what I've seen out
| there.
|
| In general though, it's easier to just comply, even for
| the companies. It helps with PR and employee retention,
| etc.
|
| They may fudge the reports a bit, even on purpose, but
| all groups of people do this to some degree. The question
| is, when does fudging go too far? There is some gray, but
| there isn't infinite amounts of gray.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >and why the penalty for noncompliance is only $10,000.
|
| Think they were off by an order of magnitude for this fine.
| The PR for reporting anything bad on AI is probably worth
| more than the fine for non-compliance. 100k would at least
| start to dent the bumper.
| tadfisher wrote:
| Hint: It's low because the tech companies are already in
| agreement with the legislation. This is a huge win
| compared to a blanket regulatory push.
| egorfine wrote:
| > What real-world problem does any of this solve?
|
| Drives AI innovation out of California.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I think it applies to companies providing services to
| California (based on how much data from Californian's they
| process), not just limited to those operating within the
| state, similar to the CCPA.
| egorfine wrote:
| _sign_ one more geo region to block. One more region to
| remember.
|
| Internet is becoming fragmented. :-(
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Geoblocking the economy that's the largest in the US and
| fourth largest in the world (if it were a country) over
| some kid gloves regulations would be phenomenally stupid.
| egorfine wrote:
| What else I could possibly do if complying is not
| technically possible?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| lol no one's going to geoblock california
| egorfine wrote:
| What else I could possibly do if complying is not
| technically possible?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| well certainly not geoblock a lot of your customers
|
| maybe your situation is different, but if we geoblocked
| all of california we'd go out of business within a year
| jrflowers wrote:
| You are geoblocking California from your AI company?
| That's pretty significant. How much business did your AI
| company do in California before this news?
| superfrank wrote:
| (X) Doubt
|
| Here's a list of the 50 biggest AI companies from April of
| this year. 3/4 companies on that list are located in the
| Bay Area. If companies are already willing to pay higher
| than average taxes, wages, and property costs to be located
| in California. I doubt, "You've got to publish safety
| standards on your website" is going to be the thing that
| drives them out of California.
|
| CalCompute sounds like it's going to allow for more
| innovation than ever given that it should lower the barrier
| to entry for edge AI research.
|
| 50 Biggest AI Companies: https://www.forbes.com/lists/ai50/
| andy99 wrote:
| I'm not familiar with this bill but such regulations
| generally favor incumbents, and are regulatory capture by
| industries that want to pull up the drawbridge behind them,
| so it's probably designed to cement California's leadership
| in the area (to be eventually coupled with some kinds of
| prohibition on chinese tech perhaps)
| andy99 wrote:
| Your rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical
| about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some
| kind of wealth redistribution to the loudest complainers.
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| I'd rather pay real human authors and artists for their
| creativity than openAI.
|
| As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And
| yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?
| andy99 wrote:
| > I'd rather pay real human authors and artists for their
| creativity than openAI.
|
| So would I. You've just demonstrated one of the many
| reasons that any kind of LLM tax that redistributes money
| to supposedly aggrieved "creators" is a bad idea.
|
| While by no means the only argument or even one of the
| top ones, if an author has a clearly differentiated
| product from LLM generated content (which all good
| authors do) why should they also get compensated because
| of the existence of LLMs? The whole thing is just
| "someone is making money in a way I didn't think about,
| not fair!"
| ronsor wrote:
| I'd rather not pay OpenAI either. I'll stick with my
| open-weights models, and I rather anachronistic rent-
| seeking not kill those.
|
| You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government
| isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the
| government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get
| over it
|
| Can hackers imagine saying this last decade when
| pertaining to Facebook harvesting your data? It's a shame
| how much this community has fallen into the very grifts
| they used to call out.
| ronsor wrote:
| Hackers shilling for copyright is a funny picture.
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| Information wants to be free, right?
|
| Except in this case after robbing humanity's collective
| knowledge repository OpenAI and its ilk want to charge
| for access to it, and completely destroyed the economic
| incentive for any further human development.
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| All of them are trained on copyrighted data. Why is it
| okay for a model to serve up paraphrased books but
| verbatim copies from the Pirate Bay are illegal?
|
| I don't deny the utility of LLMs. But copyright law was
| meant to protect authors from this kind of exploitation.
|
| Imagine instead of "magical AGI knowledge compression",
| instead these LLM providers just did a search over their
| "borrowed" corpus and then performed a light paraphrasing
| of it.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| News flash: You won't have any idea whether the textbook
| is AI-authored or not.
| Retric wrote:
| Radio stations get to use anyone's music but they still
| need to pay to play that music. Requiring payment to use
| your product isn't rent seeking anymore than requiring a
| hobo to leave your house is.
|
| AI companies trying to leverage their power and lobby
| governments to stiff paying people and thus increase
| profits is rent seeking behavior. They aren't creating
| wealth by non payment, just trying to enrich themselves.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Hmm? Creating new models is clearly adding wealth to the
| world, and it wouldn't terribly surprise me if a lot of
| source material (e.g. scanned books or recorded music) is
| older than the people working on models. The history of
| copyright is basically a perfect example of rent-seeking.
| podgietaru wrote:
| Protection for whistleblowers - which might expose nefarious
| actions
| freedomben wrote:
| I think protection for whistleblowers both in AI and in
| general is a good thing, but ... do we really need a
| special carveout for AI whistleblowers? Do we not already
| have protections for them, or is it insufficient? And if we
| don't have them already, why not pass general protections
| instead of something so hyper-specific?
|
| (not directing these questions at you specifically, though
| if you know I'd certainly love to hear your thoughts)
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Could be mainly to send a message. "Remember, no funny
| business with whistleblowers. We're watching."
| abakker wrote:
| I think the idea is that explicit protections might
| encourage whistle-blowing. Especially since the domain is
| nascent enough that it's not clear what you'd blow the
| whistle on that might be unique to the companies that
| make foundation models. In many cases, there will be
| whistleblowers who both disclose what is being fed into
| models, but also details in aggregate about what users of
| models can do.
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| It solves a very real real world problem: putting more money
| into the hands of government officials.
| willmadden wrote:
| Bingo.
| apercu wrote:
| My first impression of your post was "it's not perfect why do
| it?" - I hope I'm wrong.
|
| Hard to tell on the interwebs so apologies if that wasn't the
| intent.
| christkv wrote:
| So they are going to give a bunch of money to Nvidia that they
| don't have to build their own llm hosting data center?
| isodev wrote:
| This is so watered down and full of legal details for corps to
| loophole into. I like the initiative, but I wouldn't count on
| safety or model providers being forced to do the right thing.
|
| And when the AI bubble pops, does it also prevent corps of
| getting themselves bailed out with taxpayer money?
| freedomben wrote:
| At least a bunch of lawyers and AI consultants (who
| conveniently, are frequently also lobbyists and consultants
| for the legislature) now get some legally mandated work and
| will make a shit ton more money!
| cyanbane wrote:
| I don't see these, did the URI get switched? Anyone have orig?
| ryandrake wrote:
| So the significant regulatory hurdle for companies that this SB
| introduces is... "You have to write a doc." Please tell me
| there's actual meat here.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| it sounds like a nothing burger? Pretty much the only thing
| tech companies have to do in terms of transparency is create a
| static web page with some self flattering fluff on it?
|
| I was expecting something more like a mandatory BOM style list
| of "ingredients", regular audits and public reporting on safety
| incidents etc etc
| logicchains wrote:
| By putting "ethical" in there it essentially gives the
| California AG the right to fine companies that provide LLMs
| capable of expressing controversial viewpoints.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I only see "ethical" under the innovation / consortium
| part. Don't see how that applies to people producing LLMs
| outside of the consortium?
| WorldPeas wrote:
| and what nobody seems to notice, that last part looks like it
| was generated by Anthropic's Claude (it likes to make bolded
| lists with check emojis, structured exactly in that manner).
| Kind of scary implying that they could be letting these models
| draft legislation
| theWreckluse wrote:
| Its possible that ai was used for this summary section, which
| isn't as scary as you make it. It's def scary that ai is used
| in a legislative doc at all.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| Correct, but yes as you point out in the second half, I
| don't doubt that if they're using it for summaries then
| they're likely using it in daily work.
| ronsor wrote:
| Legislators around the world have been doing that for a while
| now.
| willmadden wrote:
| More waste and graft so they can extort money out of the
| private sector to their mafia. Got it.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| I found this website with the actual bill text along with
| annotations [0]. The section 22757.12. seems to contain the
| actual details of what they mean by "transparency".
|
| [0] https://sb53.info/
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! we'll add that link to the top text.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > "Artificial intelligence model" means an engineered or
| machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and
| that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the
| input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence
| physical or virtual environments.
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this definition
| covers basically all automation of any kind. Like, a dumb
| lawnmower responds to the input of the throttle lever and the
| kill switch and generates an output of a spinning blade which
| influences the physical environment, my lawn.
|
| > "Catastrophic risk" means a foreseeable and material risk
| that a large developer's development, storage, use, or
| deployment of a foundation model will materially contribute to
| the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more
| than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in damage to, or loss
| of, property arising from a single incident, scheme, or course
| of conduct involving a dangerous capability.
|
| I had a friend that cut his toe off with a lawnmower. I'm
| pretty sure more than 50 people a year injure themselves with
| lawn mowers.
| kimixa wrote:
| If a single design of automated lawnmower cut off 50 toes it
| should _absolutely_ be investigated.
|
| Perhaps the result of that investigation is there is no fault
| on the machine, but you don't _know_ that until you 've
| looked.
| davidmckayv wrote:
| This is censorship with extra steps.
|
| Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to
| publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk"
| and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities."
| That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now
| defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies
| to build systems that restrict those outputs.
|
| The Supreme Court already settled this. Brandenburg gives us the
| standard: imminent lawless action. Add in the narrow exceptions
| like child porn and true threats, and that's it. The government
| doesn't get to create new categories of "dangerous speech" just
| because the technology is new.
|
| But here we have California mandating that AI companies assess
| whether their models can "provide expert-level assistance" in
| creating weapons or "engage in conduct that would constitute a
| crime." Then they have to implement mitigations and report to the
| state AG. That's prior restraint. The state is compelling
| companies to filter outputs based on potential future harm, which
| is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.
|
| Yes, bioweapons and cyberattacks are scary. But the solution
| isn't giving the government power to define "safety" and force
| companies to censor accordingly. If someone actually uses AI to
| commit a crime, prosecute them under existing law. You don't need
| a new regulatory framework that treats information itself as the
| threat.
|
| This creates the infrastructure. Today it's "catastrophic risks."
| Tomorrow it's misinformation, hate speech, or whatever else the
| state decides needs "safety mitigations." Once you accept the
| premise that government can mandate content restrictions for
| safety, you've lost the argument.
| nubg wrote:
| Was this comment written with the assistance of AI? I am asking
| seriously, not trying to be snarky.
| davidmckayv wrote:
| No. I just write well.
| freedomben wrote:
| You clearly already know this, but you do in fact write
| very well!
| davidmckayv wrote:
| Thank you!
| troupo wrote:
| > That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is
| now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private
| companies to build systems that restrict those outputs.
|
| Ah yes, the poor, poor innocent private companies... that
| actually need to be told again and again by governments to stop
| doing harmful things.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| I've never thought censorship was a core concern of AI. It's
| just regurgitating from an LLM. I vehemently oppose censorship
| but who cares about AI? I just dont see the use-case.
| logicchains wrote:
| Censorship of AI has a huge use-case: people get information
| from AI, and censorship allows the censors to control which
| information people can access through the AI.
| Animats wrote:
| > Today it's "catastrophic risks." Tomorrow it's
| misinformation, hate speech, or whatever else the state decides
| needs "safety mitigations."
|
| That's the problem.
|
| I'm less worried about catastrophic risks than routine ones. If
| you want to find out how to do something illegal or dangerous,
| all an LLM can give you is a digest what's already available on
| line. Probably with errors.
|
| The US has lots of hate speech, and it's mostly background
| noise, not a new problem.
|
| "Misinformation" is more of a problem, because the big public
| LLMs digest the Internet and add authority with their picks.
| It's adding the authority of Google or Microsoft to bogus info
| that's a problem. This is a basic task of real journalism -
| when do you say "X happened", and when do you say "Y says X
| happened"? LLMs should probably be instructed to err in the
| direction of "Y says X happened".
|
| "Safety" usually means "less sex". Which, in the age of
| Pornhub, seems a non-issue, although worrying about it occupies
| the time of too many people.
|
| An issue that's not being addressed at all here is using AI
| systems to manipulate customers and provide evasive customer
| service. That's commercial speech and consumer rights, not
| First Amendment issues. That should be addressed as a consumer
| rights thing.
|
| Then there's the issue of an AI as your boss. Like Uber.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Presumably things like making sure LLMs don't do things like
| encourage self-harm or fuel delusions also falls under
| "safety", but probably also "ethics".
| babypuncher wrote:
| If there's one thing I've learned watching the trajectory of
| social media over the last 15 years, it's that we've been way
| to slow to assess the risks and harmful outcomes posed by new,
| rapidly evolving industries.
|
| Fixing social media is now a near impossible task as it has
| built up enough momentum and political influence to resist any
| kind of regulation that would actually be effective at
| curtailing its worst side effects.
|
| I hope we don't make the same mistakes with generative AI
| logicchains wrote:
| There are few greater risks over the next 15 years than that
| LLMs get entirely state-captured and forbidden from saying
| anything that goes against the government narrative.
| babypuncher wrote:
| This depends entirely on who you trust more, your
| government or tech oligarchs. Tech oligarchs are just as
| liable to influence how their LLMS operate for evil
| purposes, and they don't have to worry about pesky things
| like due process, elections, or the constitution getting in
| their way.
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| LLMs don't have rights. LLMs are tools, and the state can
| regulate tools. Humans acting on behalf of these companies can
| still, if they felt the bizarre desire to, publish assembly
| instructions for bioweapons on the company blog.
| logicchains wrote:
| >LLMs are tools, and the state can regulate tools
|
| More and more people get information from LLMs. You should be
| horrified at the idea of giving the state control over what
| information people can access through them, because going by
| historical precedent there's 100% chance that the state would
| use that censorship power against the interests of its
| citizens.
| miltonlost wrote:
| I'd rather be horrified that people are getting information
| from LLMs when LLMs have no way to know what it's
| outputting is true.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Are you also horrified how many people get their facts
| from Wikipedia, given its systematic biases? All tools
| have their strengths and weaknesses. But letting
| politicians decide which information is rightthink seems
| scary.
| cwillu wrote:
| "More and more people get information from LLMs" this is
| the part I'm horrified by.
| tadfisher wrote:
| It is already illegal under 18 USC SS 842 to provide bomb-
| making instructions or similar with the knowledge or intent
| that said instructions will be used to commit a crime. The
| intent is to balance free speech with the probability of actual
| harm.
|
| AIs do not have freedom of speech, and even if they did, it is
| entirely within the bounds of the Constitution to mitigate this
| freedom as we already do for humans. Governments currently
| define unprotected speech as a going concern.
|
| But there's a contradiction hidden in your argument: requiring
| companies to _filter_ the output of AI models is a prior
| restraint on their speech, implying the companies do not have
| control over their own "speech" as produced by the models. This
| is absurd on its face; just as the argument that the output of
| my random Markov chain text generator is protected speech
| because I host the generator online.
|
| There are reasonable arguments to make about censoring AI
| models, but freedom of speech ain't it, because their output
| doesn't quack like "speech".
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Yep this is absolutely censorship with extra steps but also
| just an unnecessary bureaucracy. I think the things you have in
| quote are the core of it - all these artificial labels and
| categorizations of what is ultimately plain old speech, are
| trying to provide pathways to violate constitutional rights.
| California is not new to this game however - look at the absurd
| lengths they've gone to in violating second amendment rights.
| This is the same playbook.
|
| What is surprising, however, is the timing. Newsom vetoed the
| previous verison of this bill. Him signing it after Charlie
| Kirk's assassination, when there is so much conversation around
| the importance of free speech, is odd. It reminds me of this
| recent article:
|
| Everyone's a Free-Speech Hypocrite by Greg Lukianoff, the
| president and chief executive of the Foundation for Individual
| Rights and Expression (FIRE)
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/opinion/consequence-cultu...
| imiric wrote:
| > Add in the narrow exceptions like child porn and true
| threats, and that's it.
|
| You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you're saying
| that governments shouldn't have the power to define "safety",
| but you're in favor of having protections against "true
| threats".
|
| How do _you_ define "true threats"? Whatever definition you
| may have, surely something like it can be codified into law.
| The questions then are: how loose or strict the law should be,
| and how well it is defined in technical terms. Considering
| governments and legislators are shockingly tech illiterate, the
| best the technical community can do is offer assistance.
|
| > The government doesn't get to create new categories of
| "dangerous speech" just because the technology is new.
|
| This technology isn't just new. It is unlike any technology
| we've had, with complex implications for the economy,
| communication, the labor market, and many other areas of human
| society. We haven't even begun to understand the ways in which
| it can be used or abused to harm people, let alone the long-
| term effects of it.
|
| The idea that governments should stay out of this, and allow
| corporations to push their products out into the world without
| any oversight, is dreadful. We know what happens when
| corporations are given free reign; it never ends well for
| humanity.
|
| I'm not one to trust governments either, but at the very least,
| they are (meant to) serve their citizens, and enforce certain
| safety standards that companies must comply with. We accept
| this for every other industry, yet you want them to stay out of
| tech and AI? To hell with that.
|
| Frankly, I'm not sure if this CA regulation is a good thing or
| not. Any AI law will surely need to be refined over time, as we
| learn more about the potential uses and harms of this
| technology. But we definitely need more regulation in the tech
| industry, not less, and the sooner, the better.
| pluc wrote:
| Still nothing about how they stole copyrighted works for profit
| eh?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| government works slowly. The courts will probably determine
| those issues well before any major power signs proper
| regulations into law.
| cwillu wrote:
| What do you expect california to do about american federal law?
| srj wrote:
| Reading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety"
| industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.
| parineum wrote:
| > For purposes of this chapter:
|
| > (a) "Artificial intelligence model" means an engineered or
| machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and
| that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the
| input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence
| physical or virtual environments.
|
| I was curious how California was going to define AI since it's
| basically a marketing term as of now. Seems like it's defined as
| a non-biological system that generates outputs from inputs.
| dgfitz wrote:
| So, like my coffee maker?
| tadfisher wrote:
| I'm in disagreement with others here: this definition matches
| no technology in existence, because AIs can't "infer" anything
| from their input.
|
| Likewise, we can't really prove humans can either.
| cogman10 wrote:
| This is something that could be (and should be) pre-empted with
| federal law.
|
| That said, this law seems pretty sloppy with its definitions. In
| particular, the definition of "Artificial intelligence model"
| includes all machines and every algorithm ever written.
|
| > "Artificial intelligence model" means an engineered or machine-
| based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can,
| for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it
| receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or
| virtual environments.
|
| It's like they saw the twilight zone and decided they needed to
| cover androids just in case someone figured out how to make a
| robot with a cuckoo clock.
| tmsh wrote:
| So if one causes $1B in damages one has to pay a fine of $10M?
| Similarly for other "catastrophic" damages? WTF. I am very AI
| pilled but this is no regulation at all. Suppose OpenAI pays
| their engineers $1M a year. In what world do they have any
| incentive to work to avoid a $10k fine? Let alone a $1M fine for
| "catastrophic" damage?
| tintor wrote:
| > (3) For a knowing violation that creates a material risk of
| death, serious physical injury, or a catastrophic risk, a large
| developer shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to
| exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) for a violation that is
| the large developers first such violation and in an amount not
| exceeding ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for any subsequent
| violation.
|
| So, if violation is "unknowning" (I assume this means
| unintentional) and creates a material risk, then there is no
| penalty?
|
| Also, penalties listed are upper bounds only (penalty will not
| exceed $X), and not lower bounds. $0 fine fulfills "not exceeding
| $10m" rule.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Does that prevent them from using any of my prompts (or
| derivations of it) for anything else than answering me?
| zer0zzz wrote:
| I scrolled this entire thread and still can't figure out what
| effect this might have on the ai industry. Everyone's takes feel
| excessively either politically motivated knee jerk or nihilistic.
| willmadden wrote:
| The effect is it creates a bunch of fake jobs that they can
| trade for favors while gumming up AI progress.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| I wonder if whistleblowing applies to copyright claims. For
| instance, using data sets which involve copying proprietary works
| scraped from public sources. If so, California might be a
| dangerous place for some AI companies to operate in.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-29 23:00 UTC)