‘AI investors mounted a smear campaign against the bill and hired lobbyists with close ties to Newsom.’Photograph: Marco Bello/ReutersView image in fullscreen‘AI investors mounted a smear campaign against the bill and hired lobbyists with close ties to Newsom.’Photograph: Marco Bello/ReutersThis article is more than4 months oldCalifornians want controls on AI. Why did Gavin Newsom veto an AI safety bill?This article is more than 4 months oldGarrison LovelyAI lobbyists are fighting regulation because they know voters of both parties do not trust the sector to police itselfGovernor Gavin Newsom of California recently killed SB1047, a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence safety bill,arguingthat its focus on only the largest AI models leaves out smaller ones that can also be risky. Instead, he says, we should pass comprehensive regulations on the technology.If this doesn’t sound quite right to you, you’re not alone.Despite claims by prominent opponents of the billthat“literally no one wants this”, SB1047 was popular – really popular. It passed the California legislature with anaverageof two-thirds of each chamber voting in favor. Six statewide polls that presented pro and con arguments for the billshowstrongmajoritiesin support, whichroseovertime. A September national pollfound80% of Americans thought Newsom should sign the bill. It was alsoendorsed bythetwomost-citedAI researchers alive,along withmore than 110current and former staff of the top-five AI companies.The core ofSB1047would have established liability for creators of AI models in the event they cause a catastropheandthe developer didn’t take appropriate safety measures.These provisionsreceived supportfrom at least 80% of California voters in an August poll.So how do we make sense of this divide?The aforementioned surveys were all commissioned or conducted by SB1047-sympathetic groups, prompting opponents todismiss themas biased.But even when a bill-sympathetic polling shop collaborated with an opponent to test “con” arguments in September,62%of Californians were in favor.Moreover, these results don’t surprise me at all. I’m writing a book on the economics and politics of AI and have analyzedyearsof nationwide polling on the topic. The findings are pretty consistent: people worry about risks from AI, favor regulations, and don’t trust companies to police themselves. Incredibly,thesefindingstendto hold true for both Republicans and Democrats.So why would Newsom buck the popular bill?Well, the bill wasfiercely resistedby most of the AI industry, includingGoogle,MetaandOpenAI. The US has let the industryself-regulate, and these companiesdesperately don’t wantthat to change –whateversoundstheir leaders make to the contrary.AI investors such as the venture fund Andreessen Horowitz, also known as a16z,mounteda smear campaign against the bill,saying anythingthey thought would kill the bill andhiring lobbyistswith close ties to Newsom.AI “godmother” and Stanford professor Fei-Fei Li parroted Andreessen Horowitz’smisleadingtalking points about the billin the pagesof Fortune – never disclosing that sherunsa billion-dollar AI startup backed by the firm.Then, eight congressional Democrats from California asked Newsom for a veto in anopen letter, which wasfirst publishedby an Andreessen Horowitz partner.The top three names on the congressional letter – Zoe Lofgren, Anna Eshoo, and Ro Khanna – havecollectively takenmore than $4m in political contributions from the industry, accounting for nearlyhalfof their lifetime top-20 contributors. Google was their biggest donor by far, with nearly $1m in total.The death knell probably came from the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who published herown statementagainst the bill, citing the congressional letter and Li’s Fortune op-ed.In 2021, reportersdiscoveredthat Lofgren’sdaughteris a lawyer for Google, which prompted a watchdog toaskPelosi to negotiate her recusal from antitrust oversight roles.Who came to Lofgren’s defense?Eshoo and Khanna.Three years later, Lofgren remains intheseroles, which havehelpedherblockefforts to rein in big tech –againstthewillof even her Silicon Valley constituents.Pelosi’s 2023financial disclosureshows that her husband owned between $16m and $80m in stocks and options in Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Nvidia.It’s useful that the latest AI can ‘think’, but we need to know its reasoning | John NaughtonRead moreWhen I asked if these investments pose a conflict of interest, Pelosi’s spokesperson replied: “Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”SB1047’s primary author, California state senator Scott Wiener, iswidely expectedto run for Pelosi’s congressional seat upon her retirement. His likely opponent? Christine Pelosi, the former speaker’s daughter,fuelingspeculationthat Pelosi may be trying to clear the field.InSilicon Valley, AI is the hot thing and a perceived ticket to fortune and power. In Congress, AI is something to regulate … later, so as to not upset one of the wealthiest industries in the country.But the reality on the ground is that AI ismoreasourceoffearandresentment. California’s state legislators, who are more down-to-earth than high-flying national Democrats, appear to be genuinely reflecting – oreven moderating– the will of their constituents.Sunny Gandhi of the youth tech advocacy groupEncode Justice, which co-sponsored the bill, told me: “When you tell the average person that tech giants are creating the most powerful tools in human history but resist simple measures to prevent catastrophic harm, their reaction isn’t just disbelief – it’s outrage. This isn’t just a policy disagreement; it’s a moral chasm between Silicon Valley and Main Street.”Newsom just told us which of these he values more.Garrison Lovely (@GarrisonLovely) is a journalist who has contributed to The Nation, Jacobin, the New York Times, BBC Future, The Verge, Time, Vox, and elsewhere. He writes “The Obsolete Newsletter” and is the author of a forthcoming book on the economics and geopolitics of the race to build machine superintelligenceExplore more on these topicsTechnologyOpinionArtificial intelligence (AI)Silicon ValleyCaliforniaGavin NewsomNancy PelosiUS CongresscommentShareReuse this content