California’s state senate not too long ago gave last approval to a brand new AI security invoice, SB 53, sending it to Governor Gavin Newsom to both signal or veto.

If this all sounds acquainted, that’s as a result of Newsom vetoed one other AI security invoice, additionally written by state senator Scott Wiener, final yr. However SB 53 is narrower than Wiener’s earlier SB 1047, with a give attention to massive AI corporations making greater than $500 million in annual income.

I received the prospect to debate SB 53 with my colleagues Max Zeff and Kirsten Korosec on the newest episode of TechCrunch’s flagship podcast Fairness. Max believes that Wiener’s new invoice has a greater shot of changing into regulation, partly due to that massive firm focus, and since it’s been endorsed by AI firm Anthropic.

Learn a preview of our dialog about AI security and state-level laws under. (I’ve edited the transcript for size and readability, and to make us sound barely smarter.)

Max: Why must you care about AI security laws that’s passing a chamber in California? We’re getting into this period the place AI corporations have gotten essentially the most highly effective corporations on the earth, and that is going to be probably one of many few checks on their energy.

That is a lot narrower than SB 1047, which received a whole lot of pushback final yr. However I feel SB 53 nonetheless places some significant laws on the AI labs. It makes them publish security studies for his or her fashions. If they’ve an incident, it mainly forces them to report that to the federal government. And it additionally, for workers at these labs, if they’ve issues, offers them a channel to report that to the federal government and never face pushback from the businesses, regardless that a whole lot of them have signed NDAs.

To me, this appears like a probably significant verify on tech corporations’ energy, one thing we haven’t actually had for the final couple of a long time.

Kirsten: To your level about why it issues on the state degree, it’s essential to consider the truth that it’s California. Each main AI firm is just about, if not based mostly right here, it has a significant footprint on this state. Not that different states don’t matter — I don’t need to be getting emails from the parents in Colorado or no matter —  nevertheless it does matter that it’s particularly California as a result of it’s actually a hub of AI exercise. 

My query for you, although, Max, is it simply looks as if there’s a whole lot of exceptions and carve-outs. It’s narrower, however is it extra difficult than the earlier [bill]?

Max: In some methods, sure. I’d say the primary carve-out of this invoice is that it actually tries to not apply to small startups. And mainly, one of many primary controversies across the final legislative effort from Senator Scott Weiner, who represents San Francisco, who authored this invoice, lots of people stated it might hurt the startup ecosystem, which lots of people take situation with as a result of that’s such a booming a part of California’s economic system proper now.

This invoice particularly applies to AI builders which might be [generating] greater than $500 million [from] their AI fashions. This actually tries to focus on OpenAI, Google DeepMind, these massive corporations and never your run-of-the-mill startup.

Anthony: As I perceive it, in case you’re a smaller startup, you do need to share some security data, however not practically as a lot.

It’s [also] value speaking in regards to the broader panorama round AI regulation and the truth that one of many massive adjustments between final yr and this yr is now we have now a brand new president. The federal administration has taken far more of a stance of no regulation and corporations ought to be capable of do what they need, to the extent that they’ve really included [language] in funding payments saying states can’t have their very own AI regulation.

I don’t suppose any of that has handed up to now, however probably they may attempt to get that by means of sooner or later. So this might be one other entrance wherein the Trump administration and blue states are preventing.

Fairness is TechCrunch’s flagship podcast, produced by Theresa Loconsolo, and posts each Wednesday and Friday.

Subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, and all of the casts. You can also observe Fairness on X and Threads, at @EquityPod.