The fate of a bill that could transform Silicon Valley’s thriving artificial intelligence industry could be decided this week, and everyone from major tech companies to members of Congress is trying to influence the outcome.

Among the hundreds of bills the California State Assembly’s powerful budget committee is expected to vote on Thursday to fund is a controversial plan to regulate the AI ​​industry. The bill, SB 1047, is polarizing Silicon Valley and has even prompted two federal lawmakers who represent the region to take the unusual step of meddling in Sacramento’s affairs.

The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, is designed to protect the public from AI-caused disasters. It would regulate the development and deployment of advanced AI models, particularly large-scale AI products that cost at least $100 million to produce, by creating a new regulatory agency called the Frontier Model Division.

The bill, which faces opposition from major technology companies such as Meta and Google, also proposes the creation of a publicly funded computing cluster program called CalCompute, whose goal is to develop large-scale AI models, provide operational expertise and user support, and promote “equitable” AI innovation.

According to recent polls, the proposal has garnered bipartisan support in both the state legislature and among California voters. Introduced last February, the proposal passed the Senate in May by a vote of 32 to 1 and will now be considered in the state Assembly.

MPs are expected to decide on Thursday whether to select the bill for discussion and possible funding or to postpone it until later.

But prominent congresswomen Ro Khanna and Zoe Lofgren, two Silicon Valley Democrats, expressed concern that the bill could hamper innovation.

Khanna said while he agrees that AI needs to be regulated, it should be done without harming California’s strong community of tech startups and small businesses.

“As a representative of Silicon Valley, I have advocated for thoughtful regulation of artificial intelligence to protect workers and address potential risks such as misinformation, deepfakes, and increased wealth inequality,” Khanna said in a statement. “I fully agree that legislation is needed and appreciate the intent behind SB 1047, but I am concerned that the bill in its current form would be ineffective, penalize individual entrepreneurs and small businesses, and damage California’s spirit of innovation.”

Khanna believes that AI regulation should be more targeted.

“We should first focus on the most pressing issue, which is the clear labeling and marketing of AI-generated products,” he said. “Second, we need much stronger data protection regulations that can make it harder for misinformation to spread and be targeted. And third, we need serious antitrust regulations so that we are not dependent on just one or two platforms for information gathering.”

Meanwhile, Lofgren, a ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said in a letter to Wiener that the bill was “highly biased” and focused on hypothetical risks “while largely ignoring demonstrable AI risks such as misinformation, discrimination, non-consensual deepfakes, environmental impacts, and job displacement.”

As lawmakers and AI entrepreneurs increase pressure against the bill, Wiener held a press conference in Sacramento on Wednesday morning to discuss the risks AI poses to the development of weapons of mass destruction – an approach that Lofgren said has little evidence to support.

Wiener said he has responded to Lofgren’s letter and is ready to talk to her about possible changes if the bill passes the Budget Committee this week.

“I respectfully disagree with Congresswoman Lofgren,” Wiener said. “This is a very sensible and gentle bill.”

He said the bill focuses on companies with extensive development capabilities.

“This bill will not hinder AI innovation and will not harm startups in any way. And it will promote safe innovation,” Wiener said.

But Christopher Nguyen, CEO of Palo Alto-based AI startup Aitomatic and a member of the AI ​​Alliance, an artificial intelligence coalition, worries the bill could impact startup companies that rely on large-scale AI language models like Meta’s Llama 3.1.

“We are very dependent on this thriving ecosystem of open source AI,” Nguyen said. “If we can’t keep the cutting edge technology accessible, it will have a direct impact on the startup ecosystem, small businesses and even the man on the street.”

Llama 3.1, launched by Meta in 2023, is one of several open-source AI platforms developed by tech giants and used by startups and small businesses, among others.

In his written response to Lofgren, Wiener emphasized that the bill would not harm California’s thriving technology economy.

“(Similar) predictions have been proven wrong time and time again,” Wiener said, referring to predictions made when the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 took effect. “California remains the global epicenter of technological innovation.”

©2024 Silicon Valley, San Jose, California. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.