California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed SB 1047, stating in his veto message that the bill “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.” He criticized the bill for applying “stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it,” which he argued could “give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology.”
Newsom expressed concerns that the bill might curtail innovation, noting that “smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047.” He emphasized the necessity of an approach “informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of AI systems and capabilities” and underscored the importance of not waiting for a major catastrophe before acting. Despite agreeing with the need for regulation, Newsom concluded, “I cannot sign this bill,” calling for solutions that are adaptable and grounded in empirical evidence to effectively manage the evolving risks of AI technology. You can read the full veto message here.
From my POV, Newsom did exactly what a leader is supposed to do: rein in less informed, politically-motivated legislators. As the governor pointed out in his veto message, this legislation was simply too far-reaching to accomplish its goal.
Author’s note: This is not a sponsored post. I am the author of this article and it expresses my own opinions. I am not, nor is my company, receiving compensation for it. This work was created with the assistance of various generative AI models.