The California legislator behind the recently vetoed AI bill, SB 1047, is determined to continue the fight for effective AI regulation.
For months, a heated debate unfolded in Silicon Valley regarding whether SB 1047 would hinder California’s vibrant AI industry or offer necessary protections against serious risks posed by advanced AI systems. The decision became clear this past Sunday when Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, deeming it an inappropriate approach.
California State Senator Scott Wiener now asserts that some organizations in Silicon Valley propagated an unprecedented level of "misinformation" about SB 1047 leading up to the veto. Notably, individuals outside Silicon Valley, including Nancy Pelosi and the U.S. Department of Commerce, also criticized the bill.
“I’ve faced significant challenges with legislation before and have encountered misinformation, but I’ve never seen this extent of distortion,” Wiener stated. “There was an entire propaganda campaign at play.”
Wiener pointed specific fingers at Y Combinator and executives from Andreessen Horowitz for amplifying the narrative that SB 1047 would imprison startup founders. Though technically accurate, this suggestion oversimplified a complex situation; a developer who falsified safety reports as mandated by SB 1047 could face perjury charges, but only if deceit was proven.
This notion gained traction among some tech industry leaders. In June, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan signed a letter to California legislators warning that “AI software developers could face imprisonment” under SB 1047. Earlier the same month, Andreessen Horowitz partner Anjney Midha claimed on a podcast that “no rational startup founder or academic researcher would risk jail or financial disaster merely to advance AI technology.”
“A16Z played a significant role in opposing the bill,” Wiener claimed.
Luther Lowe, Y Combinator’s head of public policy, responded by suggesting that the complexities surrounding SB 1047 are not as straightforward as Wiener portrays. “The semantic challenges alone highlight the difficulties with vague and open-ended legislation like SB 1047,” Lowe noted in an email.
In response to Wiener’s earlier claims, Andreessen Horowitz directed us to a letter from its chief legal officer expressing that SB 1047 “marks a troubling and fundamental departure from traditional software development regulation in this country.”
Wiener also refuted claims that SB 1047 would drive AI startups out of California, asserting that all companies engaging in business within the state would be impacted. OpenAI’s Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon had previously written to Newsom in August, alleging that the bill could displace California’s entrepreneurs. Similarly, the Chamber of Progress — representing major tech firms like Meta, Apple, and Google — echoed this sentiment on its website.
Moreover, Wiener criticized Fei-Fei Li, often regarded as the godmother of AI, for disseminating inaccuracies about SB 1047 in an August opinion piece for Fortune magazine. Li claimed that original AI model providers could shut down open-source programs used by developers under the bill. Much of the debate surrounding SB 1047 revolved around its implications for the open-source community.
“It was clear in the bill that a model only needs to be shut down if it is in your possession,” Wiener emphasized. “Yet, Fei-Fei Li included that misleading statement in her article. It’s unfortunate, given her respected status.”
Li has not yet responded.
Finally, Wiener took issue with Newsom’s letter explaining the veto, arguing that it failed to accurately represent the bill. Newsom surprised many by suggesting that SB 1047 should have encompassed a wider range of AI models, rather than focusing solely on larger, high-cost models.
“By narrowing its scope, SB 1047 may create a false sense of security regarding the regulation of this rapidly advancing technology,” Newsom wrote. “Smaller, specialized models could pose equal or greater risks than those targeted by the bill while potentially stifling innovation that serves the public good.”
Despite various criticisms labeling SB 1047 as overly burdensome, many were taken aback by the Governor’s recommendation for a more adaptable framework to address a broader array of AI models.
Regardless of the bill's failure to pass this time, Wiener insists that SB 1047 has intensified discussions surrounding AI safety across California. Following the veto, Newsom announced a new task force, including Li and other researchers, aimed at formulating guidelines for responsible AI development. Additionally, the state enacted 18 other AI-related laws in September.
Wiener remains open to the possibility of reintroducing a revised version of SB 1047 in the coming year. “It’s premature to specify our next steps,” he said. “We are fully committed to enhancing AI safety.”
Ranking
