this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
212 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

86280 readers
3253 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 58 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

the AI Safety Measures Act creates a framework that will require the “developers of the largest advanced AI systems” (read: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.) to provide public disclosures as to their safety practices, report any significant safety incidents, and remain in line with a set of compliance processes. It also creates a channel for whistleblowers working inside AI labs to safely and securely relay any safety concerns they might have without fear of repercussions.

Whoa this sounds pretty serious. It asks these companies to self report safety incidents and creates a "channel" for whistleblowers.

That's some serious hammer dropping. 🙄

OpenAI and Anthropic both endorsed the bill as it moved through the legislature

Of course they did because this is just the Democratic version of what Republicans do with regulatory capture. They just like to dress their version up with a facade of "consumer protections" when the law doesn't actually protect anyone or improve anything.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

That requirement will apply to any AI company reporting more than $500 million in revenue.

This part right here makes it laughably simple for these companies to circumvent this law considering so many of these companies are operating at a loss. And it would only takes some creative accounting for them to just barely make just not enough to qualify.

[–] KRAW@linux.community 15 points 5 days ago

"operating at a loss" =/= "low revenue"

[–] MrEff@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If my company made a billion dollars while losing 10 billion dollars, I still had a billion dollars in revenue. I just also happened to piss away 9 more billion dollars than I made.

[–] zlatko@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago

Hell, if you did that, you could make a 100 billion IPO, with today's market.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago

Revenue and profit/loss are not the same thing. Revenue only counts the money they bring in BEFORE any expenses or losses, and is used precisely to avoid the issue you raised. That said, it is still possible to get around it, but it's not quite as trivial as just spending more.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Those requirements are set to go into effect on January 1, 2028, now that the bill has been signed into law.

Why is he waiting 1.5 years to drop the hammer?

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 25 points 5 days ago

To give the companies plenty of time to build up a case that ties it up in courts for years. Meanwhile, he gets to use it for campaign propaganda.

Because government moves at the speed of government

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

llooks hes waiting out the election 2028, while wanting the current ones to be built. seems like alot of states are doing this, all these politicans likely got promised money or lucrative position.

Mills, whitmer all made sure AI DC are built.

[–] zlatko@programming.dev 8 points 4 days ago

I would hardly call this dropping a hammer, though. I mean, the article itself says that OpenAI was lobbying for stuff like this.

For one, I don't think it's addressing any of the most troublesome problems. No mention of environmental impact. No mention of societal impact, or economic one. Nobody is addressing the horrible misuse of LLMs in, say education or biases that are built into the LLMs.

For two, what are the consequences? Sam Altman can go around saying whatever the hell he wants, mislead the government, the public, even their own users. No consequences. They can use bait and switch, no problems. The worst thing they can get is a few million dollars of fines. That's for the long time been just the cost of doing business.

It's a fig leaf law that doesn't look at any of the worst problems we have but the worst offenders can use it to say "no wait we're regulated".

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I think this just means that people won't build AI data centers there (for now), which is awesome for them tbh

[–] Amoxtli@thelemmy.club 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Are your taxes going down?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

taxes are high because half the state is a welfare state.