In a letter to California state senator Scott Wiener and governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday, OpenAI formally voiced its opposition to the state's most contentious AI law, breaking its quiet. The AI behemoth said SB 1047 would hinder creativity and drive talent out of California; Wiener swiftly refuted this claim, saying it "makes no sense."
As stated in the letter acquired by TechCrunch, "The AI revolution is only just beginning, and California's unique status as the global leader in AI is fueling the state's economic dynamism." Jason Kwon is the Chief Strategy Officer of OpenAI. SB 1047 would put such progress in jeopardy, impede innovation, and force California's top engineers and businesspeople to relocate abroad in search of better opportunities. In light of these dangers, federal regulations, as opposed to state ones, are needed to safeguard America's lead in AI research and development. These regulations should be clear and definite for AI labs and developers, while also maintaining public safety.
Along with trade associations for Google and Meta, investment firm Andreessen Horowitz, well-known AI researchers, and California Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Zoe Lofgren, the corporation joined the widespread local opposition to SB 1047 on Tuesday.
According to an OpenAI representative, the business has been talking about the measure for months with Senator Wiener's office. Senator Wiener, however, calls the AI lab's claim that SB 1047 will force AI businesses out of California "tired."
He made note of the fact that OpenAI doesn't genuinely "criticize a single provision of the bill" in a news release on Wednesday. The company's argument that SB 1047 will force businesses to relocate out of California, in his opinion, "makes no sense given that SB 1047 is not limited to companies headquartered in California." As we previously noted, SB 1047 has an impact on all AI model developers who meet specific size limits and conduct business in California.
Put another way, these limitations would apply to any AI business that allowed Californians to utilize its products, regardless of whether it was headquartered in San Jose or San Antonio. (The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act serves as an illustration of an effective statute with this kind of reach.)
Nevertheless, Bloomberg notes that due to worries about California's regulatory environment, OpenAI has halted discussions about growing its San Francisco operations. After years of operation in San Francisco's Mission area, OpenAI has relocated to a new location in the Mission Bay neighborhood of the city, which was formerly occupied by Uber.
Regarding those real estate talks, OpenAI declined to provide more commentary.
Wiener added in the statement, "OpenAI argues this issue should be left to Congress, instead of criticizing what the bill actually does." "I agree that Congress should ideally handle this, as I've said time and time again. Congress, on the other hand, has not, and we doubt that it will. Tech corporations have previously taken similar stands on privacy legislation, urging federal regulation despite their knowledge that it will take time, and California ultimately took the lead in this area as well.
Several federal proposals governing AI models have received support from OpenAI. One of these measures establishes the United States AI Safety Institute as a federal organization responsible for establishing rules and regulations for AI models. In essence, that does much of the same thing as the Board of Frontier Models in SB 1047.
Although California lawmakers made major changes to SB 1047 to provide Governor Newsom with a less contentious AI bill to sign, they were unable to persuade the most significant AI lab in Silicon Valley that the bill was worthwhile. Now scheduled for a final vote in the California Assembly, SB 1047 may find its way to the desk of Governor Newsom by the end of the month. The governor of California has not expressed his opinions on SB 1047, but if he approves it, he will probably encounter strong industrial opposition.