Oct 13, 2024, 12:00 AM
Oct 13, 2024, 12:00 AM

Mark Ruffalo criticizes Gavin Newsom's veto of California AI bill

Left-Biased
Provocative
Highlights
  • Mark Ruffalo criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom for vetoing an AI safety bill, labeling the decision a mistake.
  • The proposed legislation aimed to enforce safety testing on advanced AI models and hold tech companies accountable for potential harms.
  • Ruffalo called for public activism to ensure future legislation prioritizes public safety over corporate interests.
Story

In October 2024, actor Mark Ruffalo publicly criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom for vetoing a significant AI safety bill, which was designed to regulate the use of advanced artificial intelligence technologies. The legislation, known as Senate Bill 1047, sought to mandate safety testing for AI models and hold tech companies accountable for any resulting harms. It received overwhelming support from both political parties and was favored by a majority of Californians in polls. Ruffalo emphasized the potential benefits of AI, such as advancements in medicine and education, while acknowledging the serious risks it poses to various industries, including entertainment. He argued that the veto was a mistake, suggesting that it reflected a reluctance to impose necessary regulations on powerful tech companies. The actor pointed out that the bill was backed by a diverse coalition, including labor unions and even prominent figures like Elon Musk. The governor's rationale for the veto was that the proposed regulations could stifle innovation, a claim Ruffalo contested as misleading. He asserted that safety regulations could actually foster innovation in protective measures, rather than hinder technological progress. Ruffalo's op-ed concluded with a call to action for citizens to mobilize and demand better governance that prioritizes public safety over corporate profits. Ruffalo's remarks highlight a growing concern among activists and the public regarding the unchecked development of AI technologies and the need for proactive legislation to prevent potential disasters.

Opinions

You've reached the end