Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
You're saying that we should evaluate decisions in hindsight rather than based on what was known at the time?
...yes? I opponents didn't know this exact thing would happen, but they absolutely argued that you could make powerful models with less than 10^26 of compute, that open source was important, and that hampering US companies could give an advantage to China.
The premise of SB 1047 is that we need to prevent the emergence of superintelligent AIs by setting a compute threshold of 10^26 FLOPs, and that it's necessary to limit open-weight models to prevent their proliferation.
Crypto is up 20% so all ponzi pushers will be back on FB.
Meanwhile, I’ve been teaching people how to earn 20%+ DeFi CashFlow all year during the bloodiest of the bear market.
If you want to learn how my students are doing this without fly by night ponzies comment “CashFlow”
Show more
Imagining that should really only impact your assessment of Newsom, not of the California legislature, since in both cases the legislature passed it.
Agree. I actually think that the SB 1047 experience left me with a more negative opinion about the California legislature than of SB 1047 or Scott Weiner.
Not just that - but Nvidia's 2024 stock success (powered by its AI leadership) basically turned CA state govt's deficit into a surplus.
What's good for Nvidia is good for CA's state safety net.
