Finishing The SB-1047 Documentary In 6 Weeks
post by Michaël Trazzi (mtrazzi) · 2024-10-28T20:17:47.465Z · LW · GW · 2 commentsThis is a link post for https://manifund.org/projects/finishing-the-sb-1047-documentary-in-6-weeks
Contents
Summary of the proposal Funding Interviewees Proponents of the bill People who were initially critical and ended up somewhat in the middle Opponents of the bill Project goals More links None 2 comments
(Crossposted from Manifund)
Summary of the proposal
We will produce a one-hour feature documentary about SB-1047, which would:
- Serve as a comprehensive reference on the bill's history and implications.
- Present a balanced view of perspectives from both proponents and opponents, bridging ideological divides.
- Contribute to informed discussions about future AI Policy by providing in-depth, impartial analysis.
- Enhance public understanding of AI regulation challenges, fostering more informed public discourse.
- Offer policymakers, researchers, and the public a nuanced resource on various stakeholder perspectives, supporting well-informed decision-making processes.
“Congress has not passed major tech regulation in more than a quarter century. And so in the absence of congressional action, California has a responsibility to lead.”
Funding
- We are seeking $35,000 to finish the documentary before January 2nd, 2025 (10 weeks).
- With $55,000, we would be able to finish the project in only 6 weeks (Dec 5), while the bill is still fresh in people’s minds, and do additional interviews.
- The project can further benefit from additional funding up to $30,000 ($85,000 total), which would reimburse the time and money already spent on the project.
“Regulation shouldn't be written in blood."
Interviewees
We have currently completed 23 interviews (including 17 longform) with:
Proponents of the bill
- All the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill (longform, 1-3h)
- Scott Wiener (Member of the California State Senate, SB-1047 sponsor)
- Dan Hendrycks (Director, Center for AI Safety)
- Nathan Calvin (Senior Policy Counsel, Center for AI Safety Action Fund)
- Sunny Gandhi (VP of Political Affairs, Encode Justice)
- Teri Olle (Director, Economic Security California)
- Other proponents of the bill (longform, 1-3h)
- Zvi Mowshowitz (Founder and CEO, Balsa Research, writer of “Don’t Worry About The Vase”)
- Holly Elmore (Director, Pause AI)
- Flo Crivello (Founder and CEO, Lindy)
- Garrison Lovely (Freelance Journalist, NYT contributor)
- Shakeel Hashim (Freelance Journalist, prev news editor at The Economist)
"The bill moves so much further towards being basically toothless and yet is still vetoed. That sends a signal to the world that if you do a bill that's narrowly focused on catastrophic risk, that won't have the political support."
People who were initially critical and ended up somewhat in the middle
- Charles Foster (Lead AI Scientist, Finetune) - initially critical, slightly supportive of the final amended version
- Samuel Hammond (Senior Economist, Foundation for American Innovation) - initially attacked bill as too aggressive, evolved to seeing it as imperfect but worth passing despite being "toothless"
- Gabriel Weil (Assistant Professor of Law, Touro Law Center) - supported the bill overall, but still had criticisms (thought it did not go far enough)
“The lobbying machine that tech has created in DC has always been regarded as one of the most successful in history because it has gotten government to do absolutely nothing.”
Opponents of the bill
- Longform interviews (1-3h)
- Dean Ball (Research Fellow, Mercatus Center)
- Timothy B Lee (Writer, “Understanding AI”)
- Leonard Tang (Founder and CEO, Haizelabs)
- Zachary Kallenborn (Non-resident expert, CSIS)
- Short-form interviews (15 minutes average)
- Jeremy Nixon (AI researcher, founder of AGI House)
- Ed Choudhry (CEO, Barricade AI, former Hacker Dojo Executive Director)
- Era Qian (Founder, Edge Intelligence ML)
- Andrew Côté (Founder, Hyperstition Incorporated)
- Div Garg (Founder and CEO, MultiOn)
- Michael Tsai (Chairman, Bay Area Sister Cities Commission)
"Almost no human creation worth its salt was made from pure thought."
Project goals
- Publish a one hour feature documentary about SB-1047 (California law requiring safety protocols and accountability measures for developers of advanced AI models to mitigate potential catastrophic risks) by 2025, featuring prominent characters from the SB-1047 saga, including proponents and opponents of the bill.
- The documentary will be distributed on YouTube, through the Director’s Channel The Inside View. We are aiming for 100,000 views within two months (for reference, the Director’s previous short film attained ~40,000 views with a minimal budget, indicating significant potential reach). Even though AI Policy might initially appear less engaging than short-form content, we believe the higher production value, overall quality of the interviews and story around this specific bill will make it appealing to a broader audience.
- While the documentary will be initially released on YouTube, we remain open to exploring additional distribution channels such as releasing on Netflix or Hulu later on, based on reception and opportunities.
“We did everything and we tried to put out all of the best text and substance that we could, but then ultimately just one person with his own beliefs is going to make a decision.”
- Both sides (proponents and opponents) should better understand each other's positions, to inform future AI Policy debates. Concretely, we could test this by polling our interviewees for the documentary and aim for an average score of 7+ out of 10 on a "position understanding" scale after watching the documentary.
- We want this documentary to become a reference for understanding what happened with the bill. For instance, one could imagine it being referenced by prominent figures across different sectors, such as:
- Tech industry leaders like Paul Graham
- Academic researchers studying AI governance, such as GovAI
- Journalists covering AI regulation at major publications, such as TIME
- State legislators considering similar bills in other states
- Policy think tanks analyzing AI governance, such as the AI Policy Institute
- Given our extensive interviews with key figures in AI Policy (Senator Scott Wiener, all the co-sponsors for bill, AI Policy researchers and journalists), we expect organic distribution through their networks. Many interviewees have already expressed interest in sharing and discussing the documentary. We'll also leverage these connections to organize targeted screenings with policy organizations and think tanks to maximize the documentary's impact on future AI Policy discussions.
"When SB 1047 was vetoed, I saw a lot of people gloating online about how they had won and how this was a great day. And I told them, remember this day, for you will rue it."
More links
- You can find a list of our interviewees and a summary of our discussions with them here.
- Full proposal on Manifund: https://manifund.org/projects/finishing-the-sb-1047-documentary-in-6-weeks
2 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by cfoster0 · 2024-10-28T20:27:58.017Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Other proponents of the bill (longform, 1-3h)
[...]
Charles Foster
Note: I wouldn't personally call myself a proponent, but I'm fine with Michaël putting me in that bucket for the sake of this post.
Replies from: mtrazzi↑ comment by Michaël Trazzi (mtrazzi) · 2024-10-28T20:52:15.123Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the clarification. I have added another more nuanced bucket for people who have changed their positions throughout the year or were somewhat ambivalent towards the end (neither opposing nor supporting the bill strongly).
People who were initially critical and ended up somewhat in the middle
- Charles Foster (Lead AI Scientist, Finetune) - initially critical, slightly supportive of the final amended version
- Samuel Hammond (Senior Economist, Foundation for American Innovation) - initially attacked bill as too aggressive, evolved to seeing it as imperfect but worth passing despite being "toothless"
- Gabriel Weil (Assistant Professor of Law, Touro Law Center) - supported the bill overall, but still had criticisms (thought it did not go far enough)