Emergency Pod: Examining SB 1047, California's Proposed AI Legislation

**Nathan Labenz** (0:00)
Hello, and welcome to The Cognitive Revolution, where we interview visionary researchers, entrepreneurs, and builders working on the frontier of artificial intelligence. Each week, we'll explore their revolutionary ideas, and together we'll build a picture of how AI technology will transform work, life, and society in the coming years. I'm Nathan Labenz, joined by my co-host, Erik Torenberg. Hello, and welcome back to The Cognitive Revolution. Today, we have a timely and important discussion about SB 1047, the proposed AI legislation that's working its way through the California state legislature, also known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models.
To understand this complex and all too often misunderstood topic, I've invited Nathan Calvin, Senior Policy Counsel at the Center for AI Safety Action Fund, which is one of the bill's co-sponsors, and Dean Ball, Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, to share their perspectives. We're also joined by Steve Newman, a self-described recovering entrepreneur who is now working to raise the level of discourse around AI issues. To set the stage, I can say with quite high confidence based on my own close reading of the bill and related analysis, including that of friend of the show, Zvi Maschowitz, that contrary to some of the noise being made online, this bill is not some sweeping anti-technology power grab, nor is it the cynical ploy to protect industry incumbents from competition that some have alleged. As some evidence of that, consider that California State Senator Scott Weiner, who is advancing the bill, is probably best known for his pro-housing work. And he's also proposed legislation to hasten the transition to solar energy, to extend alcohol sales hours in bars and restaurants to 4 a.m., and even to decriminalize psychedelics.
What's arguably most striking about AI discourse in general is how the strangeness of the technology creates space for people to think for themselves, and how that often results in the scrambling of familiar political coalitions. At the same time that we have ostensible political opposites like Tucker Carlson and Snoot Dogg emitting similar sound bites, our discussion today is among people who are generally very pro-technology and very skeptical of government regulation. As you'll hear, while Nathan and Dean do still ultimately come down on different sides of this legislation, they identify many, many points of general agreement along the way.
Personally, while the bill may not be perfect, I appreciate that Nathan and his co-sponsors are making a genuine effort to focus on the critical issue of tail risks posed by advanced AI systems and not placing an undue burden on startups and smaller players in the AI ecosystem, even though that means leaving other important questions, including the risks associated with algorithmic bias, the future of professional licensing, and the general impact on the workforce at large for another day. At the same time, as someone who has long identified as a libertarian and often been frustrated by government overreach, I'm definitely sympathetic to Dean's concerns that a new agency could exploit the bill's ambiguity to gradually expand its scope and power in very problematic ways over time.
Ultimately, it seems to me that some form of government regulation of AI is inevitable, and so I feel that it's well worth genuinely engaging with and attempting to improve SB 1047 as it goes through the legislative process. With that in mind, toward the end of this conversation, in search of a productive synthesis, I put forward and we discuss several possible amendments that I hope might make the bill a bit better. Overall, I think you'll find this to be an unusually respectful, nuanced, and insightful discussion on what might be the defining policy issue of our time. If you agree, I'd ask that you take a moment to share it with your friends. And on this topic in particular, I really want to hear your best ideas for how government can help foster a positive AI future. I have an interview scheduled with Senator Weiner for next week, and I will definitely read everything that you send me and attempt to bring the best ideas to him directly in that conversation. You can reach me, as always, via our website, cognitiverevolution.ai, or by DMing me on the social media platform of your choice. For now, I hope you enjoy this deep dive with Nathan Calvin, Dean Ball, and Steve Newman into California's AI Bill SB 1047 Nathan Calvin, Dean Ball, and Steve Newman, welcome to The Cognitive Revolution.

**Dean Ball** (4:20)
Thanks so much. Happy to be here.

**Nathan Calvin** (4:22)
Likewise.

**Nathan Labenz** (4:25)
So we're gathered together for a discussion about the proposed legislation that is working its way through the California State Legislature, which is known as SB 1047, or as the authors want it to be known, the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. This legislation would be first of its kind. Obviously, we've seen the executive order, but there hasn't really been anything passed through a legislature that would try to meaningfully govern what's going on at the frontier of AI. It's predictably been the topic of a lot of discussion, debate, seemingly some miscommunication, some misunderstandings as well.