Author name: Kris Guyer

sb-1047:-final-takes-and-also-ab-3211

SB 1047: Final Takes and Also AB 3211

This is the endgame. Very soon the session will end, and various bills either will or won’t head to Newsom’s desk. Some will then get signed and become law.

Time is rapidly running out to have your voice impact that decision.

Since my last weekly, we got a variety of people coming in to stand for or against the final version of SB 1047. There could still be more, but probably all the major players have spoken at this point.

So here, today, I’m going to round up all that rhetoric, all those positions, in one place. After this, I plan to be much more stingy about talking about the whole thing, and only cover important new arguments or major news.

I’m not going to get into the weeds arguing about the merits of SB 1047 – I stand by my analysis in the Guide to SB 1047, and the reasons I believe it is a good bill, sir.

I do however look at the revised AB 3211. I was planning on letting that one go, but it turns out it has a key backer, and thus seems far more worthy of our attention.

I saw two major media positions taken, one pro and one anti.

Neither worried itself about the details of the bill contents.

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board endorses SB 1047, since the Federal Government is not going to step up, and using an outside view and big picture analysis. I doubt they thought much about the bill’s implementation details.

The Economist is opposed, in a quite bad editorial calling belief in the possibility of a catastrophic harm ‘quasi-religious’ without argument, and uses that to dismiss the bill, instead calling for regulations that address mundane harms. That’s actually it.

The first half of the story is that OpenAI came out publicly against SB 1047.

They took four pages to state its only criticism in what could have and should have been a Tweet: That it is a state bill and they would prefer this be handled at the Federal level. To which, I say, okay, I agree that would have been first best and that is one of the best real criticisms. I strongly believe we should pass the bill anyway because I am a realist about Congress, do not expect them to act in similar fashion any time soon even if Harris wins and certainly if Trump wins, and if they pass a similar bill that supersedes this one I will be happily wrong.

Except the letter is four pages long, so they can echo various industry talking points, and echo their echoes. In it, they say: Look at all the things we are doing to promote safety, and the bills before Congress, OpenAI says, as if to imply the situation is being handled. Once again, we see the argument ‘this might prevent CBRN risks, but it is a state bill, so doing so would not only not be first bet, it would be bad, actually.’

They say the bill would ‘threaten competitiveness’ but provide no evidence or argument for this. They echo, once again without offering any mechanism, reason or evidence, Rep. Lofgren’s unsubstantiated claims that this risks companies leaving California. The same with ‘stifle innovation.’

In four pages, there is no mention of any specific provision that OpenAI thinks would have negative consequences. There is no suggestion of what the bill should have done differently, other than to leave the matter to the Feds. A duck, running after a person, asking for a mechanism.

My challenge to OpenAI would be to ask: If SB 1047 was a Federal law, that left all responsibilities in the bill to the USA AISI and NIST and the Department of Justice, funding a national rather than state Compute fund, and was otherwise identical, would OpenAI then support? Would they say their position is Support if Federal?

Or, would they admit that the only concrete objection is not their True Objection?

I would also confront them with AB 3211, but hold that thought.

My challenge to certain others: Now that OpenAI has come out in opposition to the bill, would you like to take back your claims that SB 1047 would enshrine OpenAI and others in Big Tech with a permanent monopoly, or other such Obvious Nonsense?

Max Tegmark: Jason [Kwon], it will be great if you can clarify *howyou want AI to be regulated rather than just explaining *how not*. Please list specific rules and standards that you want @OpenAI to be legally bound by as long as your competitors are too.

I think this is generous. OpenAI did not explain how not to regulate AI, other than that it should not be by California. I couldn’t find a single thing in the bill OpenAI would not want the Federal Government to do they were willing to name?

Anthony Aguirre: Happy to be proven wrong, but I think the way to interpret this is straightforward.

Dylan Matthews: You’re telling me that Silicon Valley companies oppose an attempt to regulate their products?

Wow. I didn’t know that. You’re telling me now for the first time.

Obv the fact that OpenAI, Anthropic, etc are pushing against the bill is not proof it’s a good idea — some regulations are bad!

But it’s like … the most classic story in all of politics, and it’s weird how much coverage has treated it as a kind of oddity.

Two former OpenAI employees point out some obvious things about OpenAI deciding to oppose SB 1047 after speaking of the need for regulation. To be fair, Rohit is very right that any given regulation can be bad, but again they only list one specific criticism, and do not say they would support if that criticism were fixed.

For SB 1047, OpenAI took four pages to say essentially this one sentence:

OpenAI: However, the broad and significant implications of Al for U.S. competitiveness and national security require that regulation of frontier models be shaped and implemented at the federal level.

So presumably that would mean they oppose all state-level regulations. They then go on to note they support three federal bills. I see those bills as a mixed bag, not unreasonable things to be supporting, but nothing in them substitutes for SB 1047.

Again, I agree that would be the first best solution to do this Federally. Sure.

For AB 3211, they… support it? Wait, what?

Anna Tong (Reuters): ChatGPT developer OpenAI is supporting a California bill that would require tech companies to label AI-generated content, which can range from harmless memes to deepfakes aimed at spreading misinformation about political candidates.

The bill, called AB 3211, has so far been overshadowed by attention on another California state artificial intelligence (AI) bill, SB 1047, which mandates that AI developers conduct safety testing on some of their own models.

San Francisco-based OpenAI believes that for AI-generated content, transparency and requirements around provenance such as watermarking are important, especially in an election year, according to a letter sent to California State Assembly member Buffy Wicks, who authored the bill.

You’re supposed to be able to request such things. I have been trying for several days to get a copy of the support letter, getting bounced around by several officials. So far, I got them to say they got my request, but no luck on the actual letter, so we don’t get to see their reasoning, as the article does not say. Nor does it clarify if they offered this support before or after recent changes. The old version was very clearly a no good, very bad bill with a humongous blast radius, although many claim it has since been improved to be less awful.

OpenAI justifies this position as saying ‘there is a role for states to play’ in such issues, despite AB 3211 very clearly being similar to SB 1047 in the degree to which it is a Federal law in California guise. It would absolutely apply outside state lines and impose its rules on everyone. So I don’t see this line of reasoning as valid. Is this saying that preventing CBRN harms at the state level is bad (which they actually used as an argument), but deepfakes don’t harm national security so preventing them at the state level is good? I guess? I mean, I suppose that is a thing one can say.

The bill has changed dramatically from when I looked at it. I am still opposed to it, but much less worried about what might happen if it passed, and supporting it on the merits is no longer utterly insane if you have a different world model. But that world model would have to include the idea that California should be regulating frontier generative AI, at least for audio, video and images.

There are three obvious reasons why OpenAI might support this bill.

The first is that it might be trying to head off other bills. If Newsom is under pressure to sign something, and different bills are playing off against each other, perhaps they think AB 3211 passing could stop SB 1047 or one of many other bills – I’ve only covered the two, RTFB is unpleasant and slow, but there are lots more. Probably most of them are not good.

The second reason is if they believe that AB 3211 would assist them in regulatory capture, or at least be easier for them to comply with than for others and thus give them an advantage.

Which the old version certainly would have done. The central thing the bill intends to do is to require effective watermarking for all AIs capable of fooling humans into thinking they are producing ‘real’ content, and labeling of all content everywhere.

OpenAI is known to have been sitting on a 99.9% effective (by their own measure) watermarking system for a year. They chose not to deploy it, because it would hurt their business – people want to turn in essays and write emails, and would rather the other person not know that ChatGPT wrote them.

As far as we know, no other company has similar technology. It makes sense that they would want to mandate watermarking everywhere.

The third reason is they might actually think this is a good idea, in which case they think it is good for California to be regulating in this way, and they are willing to accept the blast radius, rather than actively welcoming that blast radius or trying to head off other bills. I am… skeptical that this dominates, but it is possible.

What we do now know, even if we are maximally generous, is that OpenAI has no particular issue with regulating AI at the state level.

Anthropic sends a letter to Governor Newsom regarding SB 1047, saying its benefits likely exceed its costs. Jack Clark explains.

Jack Clark: Here’s a letter we sent to Governor Newsom about SB 1047. This isn’t an endorsement but rather a view of the costs and benefits of the bill.

You can read the letter for the main details, but I’d say on a personal level SB 1047 has struck me as representative of many of the problems society encounters when thinking about safety at the frontier of a rapidly evolving industry…

How should we balance precaution with an experimental and empirically driven mindset? How does safety get ‘baked in’ to companies at the frontier without stifling them? What is the appropriate role for third-parties ranging from government bodies to auditors?

These are all questions that SB 1047 tries to deal with – which is partly why the bill has been so divisive; these are complicated questions for which few obvious answers exist.

Nonetheless, we felt it important to give our view on the bill following its amendments. We hope this helps with the broader debate about AI legislation.

Jack Clack’s description seems accurate. While the letter says that benefits likely exceed costs, it expresses uncertainty on that. It is net positive on the bill, in a way that would normally imply it was a support letter, but makes clear Anthropic and Dario Amodei technically do not support or endorse SB 1047.

So first off, thank you to Dario Amodei and Anthropic for this letter. It is a helpful thing to do, and if this is Dario’s actual point of view then I support him saying so. More people should do that. And the letter’s details are far more lopsided than their introduction suggests, they would be fully compatible with a full endorsement.

Shirin Ghaffary: Anthropic is voicing support for CA AI safety bill SB 1047, saying the benefits outweigh the costs but still stopping short of calling it a full endorsement.

Tess Hegarty: Wow! That’s great from @AnthropicAI. Sure makes @OpenAI and

@Meta look kinda behind on the degree of caution warranted here 👀

Dan Hendrycks: Anthropic has carefully explained the importance, urgency, and feasibility of SB 1047 in its letter to @GavinNewsom.

“We want to be clear, as we were in our original support if amended letter, that SB 1047 addresses real and serious concerns with catastrophic risk in AI systems. AI systems are advancing in capabilities extremely quickly, which offers both great promise for California’s economy and substantial risk. Our work with biodefense experts, cyber experts, and others shows a trend towards the potential for serious misuses in the coming years – perhaps in as little as 1-3 years.”

Garrison Lovely: Anthropic’s letter may be a critical factor in whether CA AI safety bill SB 1047 lives or dies.

The existence of an AI company at the frontier saying that the bill actually won’t be a disaster really undermines the ‘sky is falling’ attitude taken by many opponents.

Every other top AI company has opposed the bill, making the usual anti-regulatory arguments.

Up front, this statement is huge: “In our assessment the new SB 1047 is substantially improved, to the point where we believe its benefits likely outweigh its costs.” … [thread continues]

Simeon: Credit must be given where credit is due. This move from Anthropic is a big deal and must be applauded as such.

Cicero (reminder for full accuracy: Anthropic said ‘benefits likely exceed costs’ but made clear they did not fully support or endorse):

The letter is a bit too long to quote in full but consider reading the whole thing. Here’s the topline and the section headings, basically.

Dario Amodei (CEO Anthropic) to Governor Newsom: Dear Governor Newsom: As you may be aware, several weeks ago Anthropic submitted a Support if Amended letter regarding SB 1047, in which we suggested a series of amendments to the bill. Last week the bill emerged from the Assembly Appropriations Committee and appears to us to be halfway between our suggested version and the original bill: many of our amendments were adopted while many others were not.

In our assessment the new SB 1047 is substantially improved, to the point where we believe its benefits likely outweigh its costs. However, we are not certain of this, and there are still some aspects of the bill which seem concerning or ambiguous to us.

In the hopes of helping to inform your decision, we lay out the pros and cons of SB 1047 as we see them, and more broadly we discuss what we see as some key principles for crafting effective and efficient regulation for frontier AI systems based on our experience developing these systems over the past decade.

They say the main advantages are:

  1. Developing SSPs and being honest with the public about them.

  2. Deterrence of downstream harms through clarifying the standard of care.

  3. Pushing forward the science of AI risk reduction.

And these are their remaining concerns:

  1. Some concerning aspects of pre-harm enforcement are preserved in auditing and GovOps.

  2. The bill’s treatment of injunctive relief.

  3. Miscellaneous other issues, basically the KYC provisions, which they oppose.

They also offer principles on regulating frontier systems:

  1. The key dilemma of AI regulation is driven by speed of progress.

  2. One resolution to this dilemma is very adaptable regulation.

  3. Catastrophic risks are important to address.

They see three elements as essential:

  1. Transparent safety and security practices.

  2. Incentives to make safety and security plans effective in preventing catastrophes.

  3. Minimize collateral damage.

As you might expect, I have thoughts.

I would challenge Dario’s assessment that this is only ‘halfway.’ I analyzed the bill last week to compare it to Anthropic’s requests, using the public letter. On major changes, I found they got three, mostly got another two and were refused on one, the KYC issue. On minor issues, they fully got 5, they partially got 3 and they got refused on expanding the reporting time of incidents. Overall, I would say this is at least 75% of Anthropic’s requests weighted by how important they seem to me.

I would also note that they themselves call for ‘very adaptable’ regulation, and that this request is not inherently compatible with this level of paranoia about how things will adapt. SB 1047 is about as flexible as I can imagine a law being here, while simultaneously being this hard to implement in damaging fashion. I’ve discussed those details previously, my earlier analysis stands.

I continue to be baffled by the idea that in a world where AGI is near and existential risks are important, Anthropic is terrified of absolutely any form of pre-harm enforcement. They want to say that no matter how obviously irresponsible you are being, until something goes horribly wrong, we should count purely on deterrence. And indeed, they even got most of what they wanted. But they should understand why that is not a viable strategy on its own.

And I would take issue with their statement that SB 1047 drew so much opposition because it was ‘insufficiently clean,’ as opposed to the bill being the target of a systematic well-funded disinformation campaign from a16z and others, most of whom would have opposed any bill, and who so profoundly misunderstood the bill they successfully killed a key previous provision that purely narrowed the bill, the Limited Duty Exception, without (I have to presume?) realizing what they were doing.

To me, if you take Anthropic’s report at face value, they clear up that many talking points opposing the bill are false, and are clearly saying to Newsom that if you are going to sign an AI regulation bill with any teeth whatsoever, that SB 1047 is a good choice for that bill. Even if they’d, if given the choice, prefer it with even less teeth.

Another way of putting this is that I think it is excellent that Anthropic sent this letter, that it accurately represents the bill (modulo the minor ‘halfway’ line) and I presume also how Anthropic leadership is thinking about it, and I thank them for it.

I wish we had a version of Anthropic where this letter was instead disappointing.

I am grateful we do have at least this version of Anthropic.

You know who else is conflicted but ultimately decided SB 1047 should probably pass?

Elon Musk (August 26, 6: 59pm eastern): This is a tough call and will make some people upset, but, all things considered, I think California should probably pass the SB 1047 AI safety bill.

For over 20 years, I have been an advocate for AI regulation, just as we regulate any product/technology that is a potential risk to the public.

Notice Elon Musk noticing that this will cost him social capital, and piss people off, and doing it anyway, while also stating his nuanced opinion – a sharp contrast with his usual political statements. A good principle is that when someone says they are conflicted (which can happen in both directions, e.g. Danielle Fong here saying she opposes the bill about at the level Anthropic is in favor of it) it is a good bet they are sincere even if you disagree.

OK, I’ve got my popcorn ready, everyone it’s time to tell us who you are, let’s go.

As in, who understands that Elon Musk has for a long time cared deeply about AI existential risk, and who assumes that any such concern must purely be a mask for some nefarious commercial plot? Who does that thing where they turn on anyone who dares disagree with them, and who sees an honest disagreement?

Bindu Reddy: I am pretty sure Grok-2 wouldn’t have caught up to SOTA models without open-source models and techniques

SB-1047 will materially hurt xAI, so why support it?

People can support bills for reasons under than their own narrow self-interest?

Perhaps he might care about existential risk, as evidenced by him talking a ton over the years about existential risk? And that being the reason he helped found OpenAI? From the beginning I thought that move was a mistake, but that was indeed his reasoning. Similarly, his ideas of things like ‘a truth seeking AI would keep us around’ seem to me like Elon grasping at straws and thinking poorly, but he’s trying.

Adam Thierer: You gotta really appreciate the chutzpah of a guy who has spent the last decade effectively evading NHTSA bureaucrats on AV regs declaring that he’s a long-time advocate of AI safety. 😂.

Musk has also repeatedly called AI an existential threat to humanity while simultaneously going on a massive hiring spree for AI engineers at X. You gotta appreciate that level of moral hypocrisy!

Meanwhile, Musk is also making it easier for MAGA conservatives to come out in favor of extreme AI regulation with all this nonsense. Regardless of how this plays out in California with this particular bill, this is horrible over the long haul.

Here we have some fun not-entirely-unfair meta-chutzpah given Elon’s views on government and California otherwise, suddenly calling out Musk for doing xAI despite thinking AI is an existential risk (which is actually a pretty great point), and a rather bizarre theory of future debates about regulatory paths.

Martin Casado:

Step 1: Move out of California

Step 2: Support legislation that’ll hurt California.

Well played Mr. Musk. Well played.

That is such a great encapsulation of the a16z mindset. Everything is a con, everyone has an angle, Musk must be out there trying to hurt his enemies. That must be it. Beff Jezos went with the same angle.

xAI is, of course, still in California.

Jeremy White (Senior California politics reporter, Politico): .@elonmusk and @Scott_Wiener have clashed often, but here Musk — an early OpenAI co-founder – backs Wiener’s AI safety bill contra @OpenAI and much of the tech industry.

Sam D’Amico (CEO Impulse Labs): Honestly good that this issue is one that appears to have no clear partisan valence, yet.

Dean Ball: As I said earlier, I’m not surprised by this, but I do think it’s interesting that AI policy continues to be… weird. Certainly nonpartisan. We’ve got Nancy Pelosi and e/acc on one side, and Elon Musk and Scott Wiener on the other.

I like this about AI policy.

This is an excellent point. Whichever side you are on, you should be very happy the issue remains non-partisan. Let’s all work to keep it that way.

Andrew Critch: Seems like Musk actually read the bill! Congrats to all who wrote and critiqued it until its present form 😀 And to everyone who’s causally opposing it based on vibes or old drafts: check again. This is the regulation you want, not crazy backlash laws if this one fails.

Another excellent point and a consistent pattern. Watch who has clearly RTFB (read the bill) especially in its final form, and who has not.

We also have at least one prominent reaction (>600k views) from a bill opponent calling for a boycott of Anthropic, highlighting the statement about benefits likely exceeding costs and making Obvious Nonsense accusations that the bill is some Anthropic plot (I can directly assure you this is not true, or you could, ya know, read the letter, or the bill), confirming how this is being interpreted. To his credit, even Brian Chau noticed this kind of hostile reaction made him uncomfortable, and he warns about the dangers of purity spirals.

Meanwhile Garry Tan (among others, but he’s the one Chau quoted) is doing exactly what Chau warns about, saying things like ‘your API customers will notice how decelerationist you are’ and that is absolutely a threat and an attempt to silence dissent against the consensus. The message, over and over, loud and clear, is: We tolerate no talk that there might be any risk in the room whatsoever, or any move to take safety precautions or encourage them in others. If you dare not go with the vibe they will work to ensure you lose business.

(And of course, everyone who doesn’t think you should go forward with reckless disregard, and ‘move fast and break things,’ is automatically a ‘decel,’ which should absolutely be read in-context the way you would a jingoistic slur.)

It should not be underestimated the extent to which, in the VC-SV core, dissent is being suppressed, with people and companies voicing the wrong support or the wrong vibes risking being cut off from their social networks and funding sources. When there are prominent calls for even the lightest of all support for acting responsibly – such as a non-binding letter saying maybe we should pay attention to safety risks that was so harmless SoftBank signed it – there are calls to boycott everyone in question, on principle.

The thinness of skin is remarkable. They fight hard for the vibes.

Aaron Levie: California should be leading the way on accelerating AI (safely), not creating the template to slow things down. If SB 1047 were written 2 years ago, we would have prevented all the AI progress we’ve seen thus far. We’re simply too early in the state of AI to taper progress.

I like the refreshing clarity of Aaron’s first sentence. He says we should not ‘create the template to slow things down,’ on principle. As in, we should not only not slow things down in exchange for other benefits, we should intentionally not have the ability to, in the future, take actions that might do that. The second sentence then goes on to make a concrete counterfactual claim, also a good thing to do, although I strongly claim that the second sentence is false, such a bill would have done very little.

If you’re wondering why so many in VC/YC/SV worlds think ‘everyone is against SB 1047,’ this kind of purity spiral and echo chamber is a lot of why. Well played, a16z?

Yoshua Bengio is interviewed by Shirin Ghaffary of Bloomberg about the need for regulation, and SB 1047 in particular, warning that we are running out of time. Bloomberg took no position I can see, and Bengio’s position is not new.

Dan Hendrycks offers a final op-ed in Time Magazine, pointing out that it is important for the AI industry that it prevent catastrophic harms. Otherwise, it could provoke a large negative reaction. Another externality problem.

Here is a list of industry opposition to SB 1047.

Nathan Labenz (Cognitive Revolution): Don’t believe the SB 1047 hype folks!

Few models thus far created would be covered (only those that cost $100M+), and their developers are voluntarily doing extensive safety testing anyway

I think it’s a prudent step, but I don’t expect a huge impact either way.

Nathan Lebenz had a full podcast, featuring both the pro (Nathan Calvin) and the con (Dean Ball) sides.

In the Atlantic, bill author Scott Weiner is interviewed about all the industry opposition, insisting this is ‘not a doomer bill’ or focused on ‘science fiction risks.’ He is respectful towards bill most opponents, but does not pretend that a16z isn’t running a profoundly dishonest campaign.

I appreciated this insightful take on VCs who oppose SB 1047.

Liron Shapira: > The anti-SB 1047 VCs aren’t being clear and constructive in their rejection.

Have you ever tried to fundraise from a VC?

Indeed I have. At least here they tell you they’re saying no. Now you want them to tell you why and how you can change their minds? Good luck with that.

Lawrence Chan does an RTFB, concludes it is remarkably light touch and a good bill. He makes many of the usual common sense points – this covers zero existing models, will never cover anything academics do, and (he calls it a ‘spicy take’) if you cannot take reasonable care doing something then have you considered not doing it?

Mike Knoop, previously having opposed SB 1047 because he does not think AGI progress is progressing and that anything slowing down AGI progress would be bad, updates to believing it is a ‘no op’ that doesn’t do anything but it could reassure the worried and head off worse other actions. But if the bill actually did anything, he would oppose. This is a remarkably common position, that there is no cost-benefit analysis to be done when building things smarter than humans. They think this is a situation where no amount of safety is worth any amount of potentially slowing down if there was a safety issue, so they refuse to talk price. The implications are obvious.

Aidan McLau of Topology AI says:

Aiden McLau: As a capabilities researcher, accelerationist, libertarian, and ai founder… I’m coming out of the closet. I support sb 1047.

growing up, you realize we mandate seatbelts and licenses to de-risk outlawing cars. Light and early regulation is the path of optimal acceleration.

the bill realllllllllllllly isn’t that bad

if you have $100m to train models (no startup does), you can probably afford some auditing. Llama will be fine.

But if CA proposes some hall monitor shit, I’ll be the first to oppose them. Stay vigilant.

I think there’s general stigma about supporting regulation as an ai founder, but i’ve talked to many anti-sb 1047 people who are smart, patient, and engage in fair discourse.

Daniel Eth: Props to Aidan for publicly supporting SB1047 while working in the industry. I know a bunch of you AI researchers out there quietly support the bill (lots of you guys at the big labs like my pro-SB1047 tweets) – being public about that support is commendable & brave.

Justin Harvey (co-founder AIVideo.com): I generally support SB 1047

I hate regulation. I want AI to go fast. I don’t trust the competency of the government.

But If you truly believe this will be the most powerful technology ever created, idk. This seems like a reasonable first step tbh.

Notice how much the online debate has always been between libertarians and more extreme libertarians. Everyone involved hates regulation. The public, alas, does not.

Witold Wnuk makes the case that the bill is sufficiently weak that it will de facto be moral license for the AI companies to go ahead and deal with the consequences later, and the blame when models go haywire will thus also be on those who passed this bill, and that this does nothing to solve the problem. As I explained in my guide, I very much disagree and think this is a good bill. And I don’t think this bill gives anone ‘moral license’ at all. But I understand the reasoning.

Stephen Casper notices that the main mechanism of SB 1047 is basic transparency, and that it does not bode well that industry is so vehemently against this and it is so controversial. I think he goes too far in terms of how he describes how difficult it would be to sue under the bill, he’s making generous (to the companies) assumptions, but the central point here seems right.

One thing California does well is show you how a bill has changed since last time. So rather than having to work from scratch, we can look at the diff.

We’ll start with a brief review of the old version (abridged a bit for length). Note that some of this was worded badly in ways that might backfire quite a lot.

  1. Authentic content is created by humans.

  2. Inauthentic content is created by AIs and could be mistaken for authentic.

  3. The bill applies to every individual, no size thresholds at all.

  4. Providers of any size must ‘to the extent possible’ place ‘imperceptible and maximally indelible’ watermarks on all content, along with watermark decoders.

  5. Grandfathering in old systems requires a 99% accurate detector.

    1. We now know that OpenAI thinks it knows how to do that.

    2. No one else, to our knowledge, is close. Models would be banned.

  6. Internet hosting platforms are responsible for ensuring indelible watermarks.

  7. All failures must be reported within 24 hours.

  8. All AI that could produce inauthentic content requires notification for each conversation, including audio notification for every audio interaction.

  9. New cameras have to provide watermarks.

  10. Large online platforms (1 million California users, not only social media but also e.g. texting systems) shall use labels on every piece of content to mark it as human or AI, or some specific mix of the two. For audio that means a notice at the beginning and another one at the end, every time, for all messages AI or human. Also you check a box on every upload.

  11. Fines are up to $1 million or 5% of global annual revenue, EU style.

  12. All existing open models are toast. New open models might or might not be toast. It doesn’t seem possible to comply with an open model, on the law’s face.

All right, let’s see what got changed and hopefully fixed, excluding stuff that seems to be for clarity or to improve grammar without changing the meaning.

There is a huge obvious change up front: Synthetic content now only includes images, videos and audio. The bill no longer cares about LLMs or text at all.

A bunch of definitions changed in ways that don’t alter my baseline understanding.

Large online platform no longer includes internet website, web application or digital application. It now has to be either a social media platform, messaging platform, advertising network or standalone search engine that displays content to viewers who are not the creator or collaborator, and the threshold is up to 2 million monthly unique California users.

Generative AI providers have to make available to the public a provenance detection tool or permit users to use one provided by a third party, based on industry standards, that detects generative AI content and how that content was created. There is no minimum size threshold for the provider before they must do this.

Summaries of testing procedures must be made available upon requests to academics, except when that would compromise the method.

A bunch of potentially crazy disclosure requirements got removed.

The thing about audio disclosures happening twice is gone.

Users of platforms need not label every piece of data now, the platform scans the data and reports any provenance data contained therein, or says it is unknown if none is found.

There are new disclosure rules around the artist, track and copyright information on sound recordings and music videos, requiring the information be displayed in text.

I think that’s the major changes, and they are indeed major. I am no longer worried AB 3211 is going to do anything too dramatic, since at worst it applies only to audio, video and images, and the annoyance levels involved are down a lot, and standards for compliance are lower, and compliance in these other formats seems easier than text.

My new take on the new AB 3211 is that this is a vast improvement. If nothing else, the blast radius is vastly diminished.

Is it now a good bill?

I wouldn’t go that far. It’s still not a great implementation. I don’t think deepfakes are a big enough issue to motivate this level of annoyance, or the tail risk that this is effectively a much broader burden than it appears. But the core thing it is attempting to do is no longer a crazy thing to attempt, and the worst dangers are gone. I think the costs exceed the benefits, but you could make a case, if you felt deepfake audio and video were a big short term deal, that this bill has more benefits than costs.

What you cannot reasonably do is support this bill, then turn around and say that California should not be regulating AI and should let the Federal government do it. That does not make any sense, and I have confidence the Federal government will if necessary deal with deepfakes, and that we could safely react after the problem gets worse and being modestly ‘too late’ to it would not be a big deal.

SB 1047: Final Takes and Also AB 3211 Read More »

nasa-has-to-be-trolling-with-the-latest-cost-estimate-of-its-sls-launch-tower

NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower

The plague lives on —

“NASA officials informed us they do not intend to request a fixed-price proposal.”

Teams with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems Program and primary contractor Bechtel National, Inc. continue construction on the base of the platform for the new mobile launcher at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.

Enlarge / Teams with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems Program and primary contractor Bechtel National, Inc. continue construction on the base of the platform for the new mobile launcher at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.

NASA/Isaac Watson

NASA’s problems with the mobile launch tower that will support a larger version of its Space Launch System rocket are getting worse rather than better.

According to a new report from NASA’s inspector general, the estimated cost of the tower, which is a little bit taller than the length of a US football field with its end zones, is now $2.7 billion. Such a cost is nearly twice the funding it took to build the largest structure in the world, the Burj Khalifa, which is seven times taller.

This is a remarkable explosion in costs as, only five years ago, NASA awarded a contract to the Bechtel engineering firm to build and deliver a second mobile launcher (ML-2) for $383 million, with a due date of March 2023. That deadline came and went with Bechtel barely beginning to cut metal.

According to NASA’s own estimate, the project cost for the tower is now $1.8 billion, with a delivery date of September 2027. However the new report, published Monday, concludes that NASA’s estimate is probably too conservative. “Our analysis indicates costs could be even higher due in part to the significant amount of construction work that remains,” states the report, signed by Deputy Inspector General George A. Scott.

Bigger rocket, bigger tower

NASA commissioned construction of the launch tower—at the express direction of the US Congress—to support a larger version of the Space Launch System rocket known as Block 1B. This combines the rocket’s existing core stage with a larger and more powerful second stage, known as the Exploration Upper Stage, under development by Boeing.

The space agency expects to use this larger version of the SLS rocket beginning with the Artemis IV mission, which is intended to deliver both a crewed Orion spacecraft as well as an element of the Lunar Gateway into orbit around the Moon. This is to be the second time that astronauts land on the lunar surface as part of the Artemis Program. The Artemis IV mission has a nominal launch date of 2028, but the new report confirms the widely held assumption in the space community that such a date is unfeasible.

To make a 2028 launch date for this mission, NASA said it needs to have the ML-2 tower completed by November 2026. Both NASA and the new report agree that there is a zero percent chance of this happening. Accordingly, if the Artemis IV mission uses the upgraded version of the SLS rocket, it almost certainly will not launch until mid-2029 at the earliest.

Why have the costs and delays grown so much? One reason the report cites is Bechtel’s continual underestimation of the scope and complexity of the project.

“Bechtel vastly underestimated the number of labor hours required to complete the ML-2 project and, as a result, has incurred more labor hours than anticipated. From May 2022 to January 2024, estimated overtime hours doubled to nearly 850,000 hours, reflecting the company’s attempts to meet NASA’s schedule goals.

Difficult to hold Bechtel to account

One of the major takeaways from the new report is that NASA appears to be pretty limited in what it can do to motivate Bechtel to build the mobile launch tower more quickly or at a more reasonable price. The cost-plus contracting mechanism gives the space agency limited leverage over the contractor beyond withholding award fees. The report notes that NASA has declined to exercise an option to convert the contract to a fixed-price mechanism.

“While the option officially remains in the contract, NASA officials informed us they do not intend to request a fixed-price proposal from Bechtel,” the report states. “(Exploration Ground Systems) Program and ML-2 project management told us they presume Bechtel would likely provide a cost proposal far beyond NASA’s budgetary capacity to account for the additional risk that comes with a fixed-price contract.”

In other words, since NASA did not initially require a fixed price contract, it now sounds like any bid from Bechtel would completely blow a hole in the agency’s annual budget.

The spiraling costs of the mobile launch tower have previously been a source of frustration for NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. In 2022, after cost estimates for the ML-2 structure neared $1 billion, Nelson lashed out at the cost-plus mechanism during testimony to the US Congress.

“I believe that that is the plan that can bring us all the value of competition,” Nelson said of fixed-price contracts. “You get it done with that competitive spirit. You get it done cheaper, and that allows us to move away from what has been a plague on us in the past, which is a cost-plus contract, and move to an existing contractual price.”

The plague continues to spread.

NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower Read More »

tattoo-ink-sold-on-amazon-has-high-levels-of-weird-and-rare-bacteria

Tattoo ink sold on Amazon has high levels of weird and rare bacteria

Infectious ink —

The recall announcement noted that the germs “present a health concern.”

BARCELONA, SPAIN - 2021/10/02: Spanish tattoo artist Oscar Garcia works on a man, during the Expo.  Fira de Barcelona hosts the XXIV edition of the Barcelona Tattoo Expo where tattoo artists from Spain and other countries exhibit tattoos and tattoo material such as ink, needles and special machinery for tattoo work. (Photo by Ramon Costa/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Enlarge / BARCELONA, SPAIN – 2021/10/02: Spanish tattoo artist Oscar Garcia works on a man, during the Expo. Fira de Barcelona hosts the XXIV edition of the Barcelona Tattoo Expo where tattoo artists from Spain and other countries exhibit tattoos and tattoo material such as ink, needles and special machinery for tattoo work. (Photo by Ramon Costa/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The Food and Drug Administration has been warning for years that some tattoo inks are brimming with bacteria—a large assortment that, when injected into your skin, can cause inflammatory reactions, allergic hypersensitivity, toxic responses, and, of course, straight-up infections. And, worse yet, the labels that say the inks are sterile are not reliable.

But, a recent recall of three tattoo pigments from the same manufacturer does a good job of illustrating the FDA’s concerns. The water-based inks, all from Sierra Stain, had a bizarre array of bacteria, which were found at high levels, according to FDA testing.

One ink product—described as “Carolina Blue”—offered a microbial menagerie, with six odd species identified. They included a bacterium that often dwells in the gastrointestinal system and can inflame the mucosal lining of the intestines (Citrobacter braakii), a water-borne bacterium (Cupriavidus pauculus), and several that cause opportunistic infections (Citrobacter farmer, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, Ochrobactrum anthropi, and Pseudomonas fluorescens). These are bacteria that don’t typically go about attacking humans but will if the conditions are right, including when they find themselves inside a human with a compromised immune system.

An ink called “UV China Pink” contained an unusual soil bacterium (Curtobacterium citreum/pusillum). And an “All Purpose Black” ink puzzlingly contained Acetobacter senegalensis, a bacterium first isolated from mangos in Senegal and used for industrial vinegar production in low-income countries.

The three inks were sold nationwide through Amazon. To date, there have been no reported infections or adverse reactions linked to these inks. But the FDA notes that reactions to contaminated inks can be difficult to accurately diagnose. The infections and skin responses can look like generic rashes and allergic responses, sometimes including lesions with red papules in areas where the ink was injected, the FDA notes. However, infections from tattoo ink can leave permanent scarring.

In a study published in July in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, FDA researchers tested 75 samples of tattoo and permanent makeup inks from 14 manufacturers. Of the 75 inks, 26 (35 percent) were contaminated with a total of 34 types of bacteria, many that were possibly disease-causing. Some of the bacteria were anaerobic, meaning they don’t need oxygen to grow, suggesting they could thrive in the low-oxygen environment of skin layers. Of the 40 tattoo inks specifically, nine (22 percent) were contaminated. Among all the ink samples, 49 were labeled “sterile” and, of those, 16 (33 percent) were contaminated.

The recall announcement noted that Sierra Stain is no longer in business. While the company lists a remaining email address, it did not immediately respond to a comment request from Ars on the bacteria found in their inks.

The FDA recommends that consumers be vigilant about the quality and safety of tattoo supplies and techniques. It also encourages tattoo artists to work in professional environments that can reduce the risk of contamination.

Tattoo ink sold on Amazon has high levels of weird and rare bacteria Read More »

missouri-ag’s-legal-war-against-media-matters-shot-down-by-federal-judge

Missouri AG’s legal war against Media Matters shot down by federal judge

Stop right there —

Judge: Missouri AG’s actions chill speech about extremist content on Musk’s X.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey adjusts his necktie while in a Congressional hearing room

Enlarge / Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey arrives to testify at House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday, January 10, 2024.

Getty Images | Bill Clark

A federal judge ordered Missouri’s attorney general to halt an investigation into Media Matters for America, a nonprofit journalism organization that earned Elon Musk’s wrath when it published an article showing that Musk’s X platform placed advertisements next to pro-Nazi posts.

In March, Missouri AG Andrew Bailey issued an investigative demand seeking names and addresses of all Media Matters donors who live in Missouri and a range of internal communications and documents regarding the group’s research on Musk and X. Bailey also filed a lawsuit asking Cole County Circuit Court for an order to enforce the investigative demand.

Media Matters countered by suing Bailey in US District Court for the District of Columbia. Last week, US District Judge Amit Mehta granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits Bailey from enforcing the civil investigative demand and from pursuing the related lawsuit.

Mehta had issued a similar order against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton a few months earlier. Mehta filed a memorandum opinion on August 23 describing the reasons for granting Media Matters’ request for an injunction against Bailey.

Media Matters demonstrated a likelihood of success in its claim that Bailey took retaliatory actions designed to deter speech, Mehta wrote:

The court already has held that Defendant Paxton’s announcement of an investigation and issuance of a CID [Civil Investigative Demand] demanding records relating to Media Matters’ organization, funding, and journalism would sufficiently deter a news organization or journalist “of ordinary firmness” from speaking again about X-related matters. Defendant Bailey has gone one step further. He has filed suit not only to enforce the Missouri CID, but he has asked a state court to sanction Media Matters with a civil penalty. Such action chills speech.

X did not deny basic premise of article

Media Matters has also “likely shown that their reporting was not defamatory and therefore was protected speech,” Mehta wrote. In its public response to the November 2023 Media Matters article, “X did not deny that advertising in fact had appeared next to the extremist posts on the day in question,” Mehta wrote. He continued:

X stated that it had served “less than 50 total ad impressions” next to the “organic content featured in the Media Matters article” (a mere fraction of the 5.5 billion ad impressions served that day), and it conceded that [Media Matters reporter Eric] Hananoki and one other person had seen advertisements of two of the brands identified in the article next to the extremist content. X called these “contrived experiences,” but did not deny the basic premise of the article: that X’s platform was delivering ads of major brands next to extremist content. Many other media outlets, as recently as April 2024, have published similar findings. These other stories corroborate Hananoki’s reporting and Plaintiffs’ belief in its accuracy.

Mehta’s ruling said that Bailey made it clear that “the true purpose of his investigation” was political. “Revealingly, Defendant Bailey expressly tied the investigation to the upcoming election” during an online interview with Donald Trump Jr., Mehta wrote.

“This is absolutely a new front in the fight for the war for free speech. This investigation is really critical and again especially as we move into an election cycle in 2024,” Bailey said during the interview.

Bailey’s lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court claimed that “Media Matters has used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to trick advertisers into removing their advertisements from X, formerly Twitter, one of the last platforms dedicated to free speech in America.” Bailey hasn’t provided good evidence for this claim, Mehta wrote.

Missouri Assistant Attorney General Steven Reed “never identifies what suspected fraudulent statements or omissions Media Matters made to Missourians for the purpose of soliciting donations,” Mehta wrote. “If he means to say that Media Matters’ defamatory reporting itself is the fraud, he nowhere links that content to Media Matters’ fundraising efforts. He does not claim, for example, that Media Matters used its reporting on X to solicit donations. In fact, the webpage on which the November 16 Article appeared made no express fundraising appeal. Nor did it include a donation link. Defamation is not fraud. It is thus likely that the false reporting-as-fraudulent fundraising justification for the investigation is pretext for retaliation.”

Bailey can appeal Mehta’s order. If the order stands, the preliminary injunction would stay in force until a final judgment in Media Matters’ case against Bailey.

Missouri AG’s legal war against Media Matters shot down by federal judge Read More »

natgeo’s-cursed-gold-documents-rise-and-fall-of-notorious-1980s-treasure-hunter

NatGeo’s Cursed Gold documents rise and fall of notorious 1980s treasure hunter

From rags to riches—to jail —

Thompson’s expedition discovered wreck of the SS Central America, aka the “Ship of Gold.”

gold coins and gold bars scattered on the ocean floor

Enlarge / Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal documents the spectacular rise and fall of treasure hunter Tommy Thompson.

Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

Many people dream of finding lost or hidden treasure, but sometimes realizing that dream turns out to be a nightmare. Such was the case for Tommy Thompson, an American treasure hunter who famously beat the odds to discover the location of the SS Central America shipwreck in 1988. It had been dubbed the “Ship of Gold” since it sank in 1857 laden with 30,000 pounds of gold bars and coins—collectively worth enough money to have some impact on the Panic of 1857 financial crisis.

Thompson and his team recovered significant amounts of gold and artifacts to great fanfare, with experts at the time suggesting the trove could be worth as much as $400 million. The euphoria proved short-lived. Thirty-nine insurance companies filed lawsuits, claiming the gold was rightfully theirs since the companies had paid damages for the lost gold back in the mid-19th century. Thompson eventually prevailed in 1996, when courts awarded him and his discovery team 92 percent of the gold they’d recovered.

But actually realizing profits from the gold proved challenging; In the end, Thompson sold the gold for just $52 million, almost all of which went to pay off the massive debt the project had accumulated over the ensuing years. So naturally, there were more lawsuits, this time from the investors who had financed Thompson’s expedition, accusing him of fraud. Thompson didn’t help his case when he went on the run in 2012 with his assistant, living off some $4 million in assets stashed in an offshore account.

Thompson was finally captured by US marshals in 2015 to face his investors in court. A jury awarded the investors substantial compensatory damages, and the court ordered Thompson to hand over 500 commemorative gold coins that had been minted out of some of the Central America gold to meet that judgment. Thompson claimed he had forgotten where he’d stashed them and was jailed for contempt of court until the coins had been recovered and handed over. He’s still in prison as of this writing, and the gold coins have yet to be found.

It’s quite a tale, so small wonder that National Geographic has made a riveting three-part documentary about Thompson’s spectacular rise and fall: Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal, based on the 1998 book by Gary Kinder entitled Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue SeaCursed Gold director Sam Benstead read Kinder’s book and was instantly hooked on the story. “Not only was it a hugely exciting story with many twists and turns, but it was also an emotional story, which left you pulling for Tommy and his crew,” he told Ars. “Tommy came through as an extraordinary character: eccentric, brilliant, someone willing to try things no one else had. When I discovered all the things that had happened after the book, I knew it was a story I had to tell.”

Ship of Gold

  • Engraving by J. Childs of the 1857 sinking of the SS Central America.

    Public domain/National Maritime Museum, London

  • Sonar expert Mike Williamson hard at work during production of Cursed Gold.

    National Geographic

  • John Moore is a lead designer of deep-sea robot Nemo.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction of crew members looking at monitors in the ship’s control room.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction of a crew member looking at computer screens in the ship’s control room.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction of sonar operator John Lettow navigating Nemo from the ship’s control room.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction showing Nemo descending to the seabed off the coast of North Carolina.

    National Geographic

  • Gold bars and coins on the bottom of the sea bed off the coast of North Carolina.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Robotic machine recovers gold bars on the bottom of the seabed.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Crew members ogle gold bars on deck after being brought up from the sea floor.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Crew members looking at gold bars retrieved from the ocean floor.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Journalist Dylan Taylor-Lehman looks through case files.

    National Geographic

  • Veteran US Marshal Mark Stroh lifting box of files in a dramatic reconstruction.

    National Geographic

  • Lawyer Quintin Lindsmith works on case files.

    Gold bars and coins on the bottom of the sea bed off the cost of North Carolina.

  • US Marshal Christopher Crotty waits in his car in a dramatic reconstruction.

    National Geographic

  • A case displaying the missing 500 commemorative gold coins.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

A lot has happened to Thompson since Kinder’s book was published in 1998. Benstead and his production team combed through more than 600 hours of archival footage from the original expedition, as well as over 700 pages of court transcripts. “We also consulted multiple figures who we didn’t film with but who helped inform the story,” said Benstead. “In the editing process, National Geographic’s research department, together with our team, worked diligently to do their best to bottom out every fact, every claim. In a story that is so contested, this really helped us feel confident in standing behind the resulting films.”

“One of the main challenges was in condensing an incredibly complex 30-year saga into three films,” Benstead continued. “There were many legal cases and side stories that we had to exclude or could only touch on. And there were areas of the story that were strongly disputed by different sides. Sometimes we had to make choices that didn’t fully satisfy either camp, but we did our best to remain fair to the plurality of viewpoints, while also telling a powerful story.”

The director remains in awe of the original discovery, however badly the adventure turned out. “For the guys on the boat, almost without exception, this period was one of the best times of their lives,” he said. “It was a privilege to relive their struggles and final triumph in finding the gold. I still find it remarkable that they found the SS Central America in almost two miles of water with the resources they had in the 1980s.”

The experience also instilled “a real respect for the people who shared their story with us, especially Tommy’s family members, who have had so much written about them over the years,” said Benstead. “They didn’t trust us easily, and I feel very fortunate that they took part. Whenever people share the deepest, most affecting parts of their lives with you, you walk away carrying a big responsibility. I hope that they feel we have done their side of the story justice.”

Did Benstead come to his own conclusions about whether or not Thompson committed fraud? “Different people have different viewpoints on Tommy, even amongst those on the boat, investors, lawyers, and law enforcement,” he said. “We felt it was very important to allow the series to reflect this diversity and to allow the audience to make up their own mind. My own view is that Tommy isn’t a con man, and to be in prison for approaching nine years for contempt of court feels like a sad reflection on the US justice system. But it is also the case that, albeit under immense pressure, he made certain choices (like going on the run), which contributed to his own downfall. I hope that in the coming years his achievements, which have been obscured by the legal circus, are given the recognition that they deserve.”

Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal is now streaming on Disney+ and Hulu.

NatGeo’s Cursed Gold documents rise and fall of notorious 1980s treasure hunter Read More »

us-grid-adds-batteries-at-10x-the-rate-of-natural-gas-in-first-half-of-2024

US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024

In transition —

By year’s end, 96 percent of the US’s grid additions won’t add carbon to the atmosphere.

US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024

While solar power is growing at an extremely rapid clip, in absolute terms, the use of natural gas for electricity production has continued to outpace renewables. But that looks set to change in 2024, as the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has run the numbers on the first half of the year and found that wind, solar, and batteries were each installed at a pace that dwarfs new natural gas generators. And the gap is expected to get dramatically larger before the year is over.

Solar, batteries booming

According to the EIA’s numbers, about 20 GW of new capacity was added in the first half of this year, and solar accounts for 60 percent of it. Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida. There were two projects that went live that were rated at over 600 MW of capacity, one in Texas, the other in Nevada.

Next up is batteries: The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period, meaning over 20 percent of the total new capacity. (Batteries are treated as the equivalent of a generating source by the EIA since they can dispatch electricity to the grid on demand, even if they can’t do so continuously.) Texas and California alone accounted for over 60 percent of these additions; throw in Arizona and Nevada, and you’re at 93 percent of the installed capacity.

The clear pattern here is that batteries are going where the solar is, allowing the power generated during the peak of the day to be used to meet demand after the sun sets. This will help existing solar plants avoid curtailing power production during the lower-demand periods in the spring and fall. In turn, this will improve the economic case for installing additional solar in states where its production can already regularly exceed demand.

Wind power, by contrast, is running at a more sedate pace, with only 2.5 GW of new capacity during the first six months of 2024. And for likely the last time this decade, additional nuclear power was placed on the grid, at the fourth 1.1 GW reactor (and second recent build) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The only other additions came from natural gas-powered facilities, but these totaled just 400 MW, or just 2 percent of the total of new capacity.

Wind, solar, and batteries are the key contributors to new capacity in 2024.

Enlarge / Wind, solar, and batteries are the key contributors to new capacity in 2024.

The EIA has also projected capacity additions out to the end of 2024 based on what’s in the works, and the overall shape of things doesn’t change much. However, the pace of installation goes up as developers rush to get their project operational within the current tax year. The EIA expects a bit over 60 GW of new capacity to be installed by the end of the year, with 37 GW of that coming in the form of solar power. Battery growth continues at a torrid pace, with 15 GW expected, or roughly a quarter of the total capacity additions for the year.

Wind will account for 7.1 GW of new capacity, and natural gas 2.6 GW. Throw in the contribution from nuclear, and 96 percent of the capacity additions of 2024 are expected to operate without any carbon emissions. Even if you choose to ignore the battery additions, the fraction of carbon-emitting capacity added remains extremely small, at only 6 percent.

Gradual shifts on the grid

Obviously, these numbers represent the peak production of these sources. Over a year, solar produces at about 25 percent of its rated capacity in the US, and wind at about 35 percent. The former number will likely decrease over time as solar becomes inexpensive enough to make economic sense in places that don’t receive as much sunshine. By contrast, wind’s capacity factor may increase as more offshore wind farms get completed. For natural gas, many of the newer plants are being designed to operate erratically so that they can provide power when renewables are under-producing.

A clearer sense of what’s happening comes from looking at the generating sources that are being retired. The US saw 5.1 GW of capacity drop off the grid in the first half of 2024, and aside from a 0.2 GW of “other,” all of it was fossil fuel-powered, including 2.1 GW of coal capacity and 2.7 GW of natural gas. The latter includes a large 1.4 GW natural gas plant in Massachusetts.

But total retirements are expected to be just 7.5 GWO this year—less than was retired in the first half of 2023. That’s likely because the US saw electricity use rise by 5 percent in the first half of 2025, based on numbers the EIA released on Friday (note that this link will take you to more recent data a month from now). It’s unclear how much of that was due to weather—a lot of the country saw heat that likely boosted demand for air conditioning—and how much could be accounted for by rising use in data centers and for the electrification of transit and appliances.

That data release includes details on where the US got its electricity during the first half of 2024. The changes aren’t dramatic compared to where they were when we looked at things last month. Still, what has changed over the past month is good news for renewables. In May, wind and solar production were up 8.4 percent compared to the same period the year before. By June, they were up by over 12 percent.

Given the EIA’s expectations for the rest of the year, the key question is likely to be whether the pace of new solar installations is going to be enough to offset the drop in production that will occur as the US shifts to the winter months.

US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024 Read More »

microsoft-to-host-security-summit-after-crowdstrike-disaster

Microsoft to host security summit after CrowdStrike disaster

Bugging out —

Redmond wants to improve the resilience of Windows to buggy software.

Photo of a Windows BSOD

Microsoft is stepping up its plans to make Windows more resilient to buggy software after a botched CrowdStrike update took down millions of PCs and servers in a global IT outage.

The tech giant has in the past month intensified talks with partners about adapting the security procedures around its operating system to better withstand the kind of software error that crashed 8.5 million Windows devices on July 19.

Critics say that any changes by Microsoft would amount to a concession of shortcomings in Windows’ handling of third-party security software that could have been addressed sooner.

Yet they would also prove controversial among security vendors that would have to make radical changes to their products, and force many Microsoft customers to adapt their software.

Last month’s outages—which are estimated to have caused billions of dollars in damages after grounding thousands of flights and disrupting hospital appointments worldwide—heightened scrutiny from regulators and business leaders over the extent of access that third-party software vendors have to the core, or kernel, of Windows operating systems.

Microsoft will host a summit next month for government representatives and cyber security companies, including CrowdStrike, to “discuss concrete steps we will all take to improve security and resiliency for our joint customers,” Microsoft said on Friday.

The gathering will take place on September 10 at Microsoft’s headquarters near Seattle, it said in a blog post.

Bugs in the kernel can quickly crash an entire operating system, triggering the millions of “blue screens of death” that appeared around the globe after CrowdStrike’s faulty software update was sent out to clients’ devices.

Microsoft told the Financial Times it was considering several options to make its systems more stable and had not ruled out completely blocking access to the Windows kernel—an option some rivals fear would put their software at a disadvantage to the company’s internal security product, Microsoft Defender.

“All of the competitors are concerned that [Microsoft] will use this to prefer their own products over third-party alternatives,” said Ryan Kalember, head of cyber security strategy at Proofpoint.

Microsoft may also demand new testing procedures from cyber security vendors rather than adapting the Windows system itself.

Apple, which was not hit by the outages, blocks all third-party providers from accessing the kernel of its MacOS operating system, forcing them to operate in the more limited “user-mode.”

Microsoft has previously said it could not do the same, after coming to an understanding with the European Commission in 2009 that it would give third parties the same access to its systems as that for Microsoft Defender.

Some experts said, however, that this voluntary commitment to the EU had not tied Microsoft’s hands in the way it claimed, arguing that the company had always been free to make the changes now under consideration.

“These are technical decisions of Microsoft that were not part of [the arrangement],” said Thomas Graf, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb in Brussels who was involved in the case.

“The text [of the understanding] does not require them to give access to the kernel,” added AJ Grotto, a former senior director for cyber security policy at the White House.

Grotto said Microsoft shared some of the blame for the July disruption since the outages would not have been possible without its decision to allow access to the kernel.

Nevertheless, while it might boost a system’s resilience, blocking kernel access could also bring “real trade-offs” for the compatibility with other software that had made Windows so popular among business customers, Forrester analyst Allie Mellen said.

“That would be a fundamental shift for Microsoft’s philosophy and business model,” she added.

Operating exclusively outside the kernel may lower the risk of triggering mass outages but it was also “very limiting” for security vendors and could make their products “less effective” against hackers, Mellen added.

Operating within the kernel gave security companies more information about potential threats and enabled their defensive tools to activate before malware could take hold, she added.

An alternative option could be to replicate the model used by the open-source operating system Linux, which uses a filtering mechanism that creates a segregated environment within the kernel in which software, including cyber defense tools, can run.

But the complexity of overhauling how other security software works with Windows means that any changes will be hard for regulators to police and Microsoft will have strong incentives to favor its own products, rivals said.

It “sounds good on paper, but the devil is in the details,” said Matthew Prince, chief executive of digital services group Cloudflare.

© 2024 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Microsoft to host security summit after CrowdStrike disaster Read More »

after-cybersecurity-lab-wouldn’t-use-av-software,-us-accuses-georgia-tech-of-fraud

After cybersecurity lab wouldn’t use AV software, US accuses Georgia Tech of fraud

Photo of Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech

Dr. Emmanouil “Manos” Antonakakis runs a Georgia Tech cybersecurity lab and has attracted millions of dollars in the last few years from the US government for Department of Defense research projects like “Rhamnousia: Attributing Cyber Actors Through Tensor Decomposition and Novel Data Acquisition.”

The government yesterday sued Georgia Tech in federal court, singling out Antonakakis and claiming that neither he nor Georgia Tech followed basic (and required) security protocols for years, knew they were not in compliance with such protocols, and then submitted invoices for their DoD projects anyway. (Read the complaint.) The government claims this is fraud:

At bottom, DoD paid for military technology that Defendants stored in an environment that was not secure from unauthorized disclosure, and Defendants failed to even monitor for breaches so that they and DoD could be alerted if information was compromised. What DoD received for its funds was of diminished or no value, not the benefit of its bargain.

AV hate

Given the nature of his work for DoD, Antonakakis and his lab are required to abide by many sets of security rules, including those outlined in NIST Special Publication 800–171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations.”

One of the rules says that machines storing or accessing such “controlled unclassified information” need to have endpoint antivirus software installed. But according to the US government, Antonakakis really, really doesn’t like putting AV detection software on his lab’s machines.

Georgia Tech admins asked him to comply with the requirement, but according to an internal 2019 email, Antonakakis “wasn’t receptive to such a suggestion.” In a follow-up email, Antonakakis himself said that “endpoint [antivirus] agent is a nonstarter.”

According to the government, “Other than Dr. Antonakakis’s opposition, there was nothing preventing the lab from running antivirus protection. Dr. Antonakakis simply did not want to run it.”

The IT director for Antonakakis’ lab was allowed to use other “mitigating measures” instead, such as relying on the school’s firewall for additional security. The IT director said that he thought Georgia Tech ran antivirus scans from its network. However, this “assumption” turned out to be completely wrong; the school’s network “has never provided” antivirus protection and, even if it had, the lab used laptops that were regularly taken outside the network perimeter.

The school realized after some time that the lab was not in compliance with the DoD contract rules, so an administrator decided to “suspend invoicing” on the lab’s contracts so that the school would not be charged with filing false claims.

According to the government, “Within a few days of the invoicing for his contracts being suspended, Dr. Antonakakis relented on his years-long opposition to the installation of antivirus software in the Astrolavos Lab. Georgia Tech’s standard antivirus software was installed throughout the lab.”

But, says the government, the school never acknowledged that it had been out of compliance for some time and that it had filed numerous invoices while noncompliant. In the government’s telling, this is fraud.

After cybersecurity lab wouldn’t use AV software, US accuses Georgia Tech of fraud Read More »

microsoft-formally-deprecates-the-39-year-old-windows-control-panel

Microsoft formally deprecates the 39-year-old Windows Control Panel

losing control —

The Settings app has taken over, but Control Panels aren’t going anywhere yet.

  • Here’s the Keyboard control panel from Windows NT 4.0.

    Andrew Cunningham

  • Aside from some updated Windows Vista-era icons, the design of the modern Keyboards panel is identical.

    Andrew Cunningham

  • The Mouse Pointers panel in Windows NT 4.

    Andrew Cunningham

  • Again, Windows 11 hews remarkably close to the old NT-era design.

    Andrew Cunningham

  • The Date & Time control panel from NT 4.

    Andrew Cunningham

  • Dig a couple of menus down, and you’ll find a version of Date & Time that still looks a lot like its NT counterpart.

    Andrew Cunningham

With an operating system as old as Windows, what Microsoft decides to remove is often just as (if not more) newsworthy as what it is trying to add. You may or may not care about new AI-themed MS Paint additions or the soon-to-be-reborn Recall feature, but you’ve almost certainly interacted with one of Windows’ Control Panel applets at some point in the last 39 years. And according to a note buried on Microsoft’s support site, those Control Panels’ days may be numbered (emphasis ours):

“The Control Panel is a feature that’s been part of Windows for a long time. It provides a centralized location to view and manipulate system settings and controls,” the support page explains. “Through a series of applets, you can adjust various options ranging from system time and date to hardware settings, network configurations, and more. The Control Panel is in the process of being deprecated in favor of the Settings app, which offers a more modern and streamlined experience.

This won’t be news to anyone who has followed Windows’ development over the last decade. The Settings app was initially introduced in Windows 8 in 2012 as a touchscreen-friendly alternative for some of the Control Panel applets, but during the Windows 10 era it began picking up more and more Control Panel settings, and by the time Windows 11 rolled around it was full-featured enough to serve as a complete Control Panel replacement most of the time, with a handful of exceptions made for especially obscure changes (and those who simply prefer the Old Ways).

But while individual Control Panel applets have disappeared over the years—the Displays panel, the Add/Remove Programs screen, panels for deprecated features like Homegroups—Microsoft’s note suggests that the rest of the applets may disappear en masse in some future Windows update. That said, for now, there’s nothing that’s changing in Windows. Even the upcoming 24H2 update still has all the old Control Panels in it, and the gap between “deprecated” and “removed” can span years.

What’s incredible about some of the Control Panels at this point is how far back some of their designs go. You’re never more than a double-click away from some piece of UI that has been essentially exactly the same since 1996’s Windows NT 4.0, when Microsoft’s more-stable NT operating system was refreshed with the same user interface as Windows 95 (modern Windows versions descend from NT, and not 95 or 98). The Control Panel idea is even older, dating all the way back to Windows 1.0 in 1985.

Most of the current Control Panel designs and iconography settled down back in Windows Vista and Windows 7 in 2006 and 2009, which explains why so many of the panels still feature the rounded, glassy look that defines those versions of the operating system (check out the way the clock looks in our screenshots above). It’s one of the few areas of the operating system that hasn’t been spruced up for Windows 11, which is otherwise probably Microsoft’s most cohesive Windows design since 95 and NT 4.0; even old apps like Paint and Notepad have gotten facelifts, while other Windows 7-era holdovers like WordPad have been put out to pasture.

Microsoft formally deprecates the 39-year-old Windows Control Panel Read More »

us-sues-realpage,-claims-rental-pricing-algorithm-used-by-landlords-is-illegal

US sues RealPage, claims rental-pricing algorithm used by landlords is illegal

Rental-pricing software —

AG: Landlords use RealPage algorithm “to align their rents.”

US Attorney General Merrick Garland speaking at a news conference while standing behind a podium.

Enlarge / US Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a news conference in Washington, DC, on Friday, August 23, 2024.

Getty Images | Bloomberg

The United States today sued RealPage, alleging that the software maker distorts competition in rental housing by helping landlords collectively set prices.

“To ensure they secure the greatest value for their needs, renters rely on robust and fierce competition between landlords. RealPage distorts that competition,” said the lawsuit filed by the US government and eight state attorneys general. In a press release, the Justice Department said that “RealPage’s pricing algorithm violates antitrust laws.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered remarks on the lawsuit. “When the Sherman Act was passed, an anticompetitive scheme might have looked like robber barons shaking hands at a secret meeting,” he said. “Today, it looks like landlords using mathematical algorithms to align their rents. But antitrust law does not become obsolete simply because competitors find new ways to unlawfully act in concert.”

RealPage’s commercial revenue management software “enable[s] landlords to sidestep vigorous competition to win renters’ business,” the lawsuit alleged. “Landlords, who would otherwise be competing with each other, submit on a daily basis their competitively sensitive information to RealPage. This nonpublic, material, and granular rental data includes, among other information, a landlord’s rental prices from executed leases, lease terms, and future occupancy. RealPage collects a broad swath of such data from competing landlords, combines it, and feeds it to an algorithm.”

Using that sensitive data, “RealPage provides daily, near real-time pricing ‘recommendations’ back to competing landlords,” the US said. The US alleges that these “are more than just ‘recommendations'” and that “RealPage monitors compliance by landlords to its recommendations.”

AG: Landlords “outsource their pricing decisions”

The US asked for a court order declaring “that RealPage has acted unlawfully to restrain trade in conventional multifamily rental housing markets across the United States.” The requested order would prohibit RealPage from continuing its allegedly anticompetitive practices and provide “relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by RealPage’s unlawful conduct.”

RealPage recently argued that its software “benefits both housing providers and residents,” and “makes price recommendations in all directions—up, down, or no change—to align with property-specific objectives of the housing providers using the software.” Landlords don’t have to follow the recommendations, the company says.

The US said RealPage takes a more direct role in setting prices. RealPage “reviews and weighs in on landlords’ other policies, including trying to—and often succeeding in—ending renter-friendly concessions (like a free month’s rent or waived fees) to attract or retain renters,” the lawsuit said. Garland alleged that “a large number of landlords effectively agree to outsource their pricing decisions to RealPage by using an ‘auto accept’ setting, which effectively permits RealPage to determine the price a renter will pay.”

The RealPage algorithm “can serve as a mechanism for communication,” Diana Moss, director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a public policy think tank, was quoted as saying by The New York Times. “That is as approachable and actionable under US antitrust as any form of communication we’ve seen in past cases in the non-digital era.”

The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Six landlords in North Carolina provided information to the Justice Department. The states joining the lawsuit are North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington.

Software eliminates “guessing game” on prices

Garland said the investigation preceding the lawsuit took nearly two years. The lawsuit quoted landlords describing how they use RealPage:

One landlord observed that RealPage’s software “can eliminate the guessing game” for landlords’ pricing decisions. Discussing a different RealPage product, another landlord said: “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That’s classic price fixing.” A third landlord explained, “Our very first goal we came out with immediately out of the gate is that we will not be the reason any particular sub-market takes a rate dive. So for us our strategy was to hold steady and to keep an eye on the communities around us and our competitors.”

The lawsuit said that “RealPage frequently tells prospective and current clients that a ‘rising tide raises all ships.’ A RealPage revenue management vice president explained that this phrase means that ‘there is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the industry down.'”

The US and states allege that RealPage violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully sharing information for use in competitors’ pricing, and by entering into vertical agreements with landlords to align pricing. RealPage is further accused of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act through monopolization of the commercial revenue management software market.

RealPage, which is also facing a ban on its software in San Francisco, said the lawsuit is “devoid of merit and will do nothing to make housing more affordable.”

“We are disappointed that, after multiple years of education and cooperation on the antitrust matters concerning RealPage, the DOJ has chosen this moment to pursue a lawsuit that seeks to scapegoat pro-competitive technology that has been used responsibly for years,” RealPage said.

The White House issued a statement saying it has no comment on the lawsuit against RealPage, but that the Biden-Harris administration “continues to support fair and vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws to prevent illegal collusion.”

US sues RealPage, claims rental-pricing algorithm used by landlords is illegal Read More »

fda-green-lights-fall-covid-19-boosters

FDA green-lights fall COVID-19 boosters

Shoot me up —

Updated mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are ready to roll.

FDA green-lights fall COVID-19 boosters

Getty Images

As the COVID-19 case count continues to tick upward, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved an updated vaccine for use ahead of the northern hemisphere winter. The emergency use authorization covers updated mRNA vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna.

The booster shots will target the JN.1 and KP.2 strains of SARS-CoV-2, both of which are omicron variants. Last year’s booster keyed on omicron subvariant XBB.1.5, which has long since lost the evolutionary arms race.

Both Spikevax (Moderna) and Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccines have been updated. While the vaccine is targeted toward those 12 and over, parents of children aged six months through 11 years are also eligible for the updated vaccines under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

“Vaccination continues to be the cornerstone of COVID-19 prevention,” said Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “These updated vaccines meet the agency’s rigorous, scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. Given waning immunity of the population from previous exposure to the virus and from prior vaccination, we strongly encourage those who are eligible to consider receiving an updated COVID-19 vaccine to provide better protection against currently circulating variants.”

Updated vaccines will hit hospitals and pharmacies soon, as Moderna and Pfizer are ready to ship vaccines. Once injected, the boosters will take a couple of weeks to hit peak protection, and they will offer that level of protection for a few months after the shot. Keep that in mind as you think about timing your booster for maximum efficacy.

FDA green-lights fall COVID-19 boosters Read More »

ex-bank-ceo-gets-24-years-after-falling-for-crypto-scam,-causing-bank-collapse

Ex-bank CEO gets 24 years after falling for crypto scam, causing bank collapse

Breaking the bank —

Former bank CEO ignored warnings that he was being scammed while tanking bank.

Ex-bank CEO gets 24 years after falling for crypto scam, causing bank collapse

A federal judge sentenced a 53-year-old Kansas man to more than 24 years in prison after the former bank CEO abused his trusted position to embezzle $47 million after falling for a cryptocurrency scam that he believed would make him wildly rich.

In a press release, the US Attorney’s Office said that Shan Hanes was driven by “greed” when directing bank employees to transfer millions in funds to a sketchy crypto wallet managed by still-unknown third parties behind the so-called “pig butchering” scheme.

Hanes was first targeted by scammers in late 2022, apparently when he got a message from an unidentified co-conspirator on WhatsApp, prosecutors said. After blowing through his own funds seeking promised profits, Hanes stole tens of thousands from a local church, then a local investor club, and finally his daughter’s college fund, NBC News reported. Then when all those wells dried up, he started stealing bank funds—all in the false hopes that sending more and more money to the scammers would somehow “unlock the supposed returns” on his crypto investments.

In total, Hanes made 11 wire transfers using bank funds between May 2023 and July 2023. But instead of getting rich quick, Hanes never realized any profits at all, the US Attorney’s Office said.

He pleaded guilty to one count of embezzlement by a bank officer after he singlehandedly caused the collapse of Heartland Tri-State Bank (HTSB) in Elkhart, Kansas, the press release said.

Because the bank was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the FDIC “absorbed the $47.1 million loss” after “Hanes’ fraudulent actions caused HTSB to fail and the bank investors to lose $9 million,” the US Attorney’s Office said. On top of those losses, Hanes’ fraudulent actions caused “catastrophic losses to bank customers who relied on the bank for the safekeeping of their savings,” the press release confirmed.

According to NBC News, Hanes missed at least one opportunity to realize that he was being scammed. After he asked for a $12 million loan from a neighbor, Brian Mitchell, his neighbor detected the scam and refused to lend the money.

“I said, ‘You’re in a scam, walk away,'” Mitchell told NBC News.

But Hanes didn’t walk away. Going the other direction, he directed bank employees to wire millions more to scammers after he got the warning from Mitchell. It wasn’t until Mitchell heard from a bank employee that Hanes had wired money out of the bank that Mitchell insisted on speaking to the bank’s board.

Days later, Hanes was fired, NBC News reported. But even then, Hanes never believed he was being scammed, reportedly telling Mitchell that he was still scheming to find a way to recover his make-believe profits right up to the moment he was arrested.

“He said … ‘If I just had another two months, I could get the money back,'” Mitchell told NBC News.

Law enforcement and government officials have warned that pig-butchering scams are growing increasingly common, urging people to “think twice” to avoid being victimized. Last year, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an alert, which explained in detail how the scams commonly work and laid out red flags to watch out for.

Victims may never fully recover losses, DOJ says

A Kansas FBI agent, Stephen Cyrus, said in the press release that as CEO, Hanes violated “the trust and confidence of the community of Elkhart” by embezzling the funds.

Mitchell described Hanes’ deceptions and manipulations as “pure evil,” while Cyrus said that it was Hanes’ “job” and “the bank’s job” to “protect its customers and identify fraudulent scams—not to participate in them.”

In a court filing at sentencing, Hanes’ lawyer, John Stang, chalked up his client’s misdeeds to “bad choices,” reminding the court that Hanes had been deceived, too, by “an extremely well-run cryptocurrency scam.”

“He was the pig that was butchered,” Stang wrote. “Mr. Hanes’s vulnerability to the Pig Butcher scheme caused him to make some very bad decisions, for which he is truly sorry for causing damage to the bank and loss to the Stockholders.”

Hanes faced a maximum penalty of 30 years. While Judge John Broomes ordered him to serve less time than that, his sentence of more than 24 years is 29 months longer than prosecutors had requested, NBC News reported.

Right now, it’s unclear how or when victims will be repaid for losses. Broomes ordered “that restitution be finalized at a separate hearing within the next 90 days,” the US Attorney’s Office said.

In the community, people are still struggling to recover, Mitchell told NBC News, noting that some people lost up to 80 percent of their retirement savings. For at least one woman, retirement is impossible now, Mitchell said, and for another local woman, it has become difficult to pay for her 93-year-old mother’s nursing home.

US Attorney Kate E. Brubacher said that it’s hard to say when or if victims will be made whole again.

“Hanes is a liar and a master manipulator” who squandered away “tens of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency” while orchestrating “schemes to cover his tracks concerning the losses at the bank,” Brubacher said. “Many victims will never fully recoup losses to their life savings and retirement funds, but at least we at the Department of Justice can see that Hanes is held criminally responsible for his actions.”

Ex-bank CEO gets 24 years after falling for crypto scam, causing bank collapse Read More »