> he said he was concerned the law could “unintentionally” impose a total ban on the use of AI chatbots by minors.
To a lot of people here that's a feature. I don't think so. It would put California minors at a huge economic disadvantage to kids in other places. One state can't put AI back in the box. I think California has the right to run that experiment, but Newsom made a wise choice in stopping it.
From my speaking to teachers banning children from AI would result in a massive gain for them. Kids are phoning it in and having ai do all their thinking. They’re not learning to think and write and communicate.
Have you heard the maxim that unenforceable laws only breed contempt for the law? Do you remember your days as a minor and how well forbidding the fruit worked?
This "for the children" law would be widely flouted.
OK, so this one bill (AB 1064) is an exception among a bunch of other related bills that are being signed into law, let's take a look at the text [0]... Huh, pleasingly shorter than expected, I'm not noticing any obvious "that'll backfire horribly" stuff...
> is not foreseeably capable
I'm not sure how much consistency there is in "foreseeably" when it comes to LLMs these days. Even among programmers, let alone the general public.
> 22757.22.(a)(5) [It may not foreseeably be capable of:] Prioritizing validation of the user’s beliefs, preferences, or desires over factual accuracy or the child’s safety.
So if a kid says "I like chocolate", and it says "Everybody does, it's yummy", isn't that technically a violation? How should a court rule if a lawsuit occurs?
> he said he was concerned the law could “unintentionally” impose a total ban on the use of AI chatbots by minors.
To a lot of people here that's a feature. I don't think so. It would put California minors at a huge economic disadvantage to kids in other places. One state can't put AI back in the box. I think California has the right to run that experiment, but Newsom made a wise choice in stopping it.
> It would put California minors at a huge economic disadvantage to kids in other places.
This feels like conjecture. Can't we just as easily reason that kids with access to AI become complacent and reliant on non-authoritative sources?
I think we need a proper A/B test before we conclude these things for certain.
From my speaking to teachers banning children from AI would result in a massive gain for them. Kids are phoning it in and having ai do all their thinking. They’re not learning to think and write and communicate.
Have you heard the maxim that unenforceable laws only breed contempt for the law? Do you remember your days as a minor and how well forbidding the fruit worked?
This "for the children" law would be widely flouted.
OK, so this one bill (AB 1064) is an exception among a bunch of other related bills that are being signed into law, let's take a look at the text [0]... Huh, pleasingly shorter than expected, I'm not noticing any obvious "that'll backfire horribly" stuff...
> is not foreseeably capable
I'm not sure how much consistency there is in "foreseeably" when it comes to LLMs these days. Even among programmers, let alone the general public.
> 22757.22.(a)(5) [It may not foreseeably be capable of:] Prioritizing validation of the user’s beliefs, preferences, or desires over factual accuracy or the child’s safety.
So if a kid says "I like chocolate", and it says "Everybody does, it's yummy", isn't that technically a violation? How should a court rule if a lawsuit occurs?
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...